America and the world are entering an extremely dangerous and volatile period and it will be up to senior U.S. military officials and members of Congress to stop the rush to a new war with Iran. The evidence is alarming and disturbing and today’s speech by President Bush before the Veteran’s of Foreign War should not be dismissed as mere political posturing. According to AFP:
US President George W. Bush branded the Islamic Republic “the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism,” citing its backing of Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Shiite fighters killing US troops in Iraq.
“And Iran’s active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust,” he told the American Legion veterans group.
Bush’s claims are disingenuous and dishonest.
The causus belli for the war in Bushworld consists of terrorism, attacks on U.S. soldiers in Iraq, and Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. Let me address these in order.
Terrorism
It is true that Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism. However, while Iran has American blood on its hands, Al Qaeda–a Sunni movement–not Iran has killed more Americans in terrorist attacks. Nonetheless, Iran pioneered the use of terrorism as an extension of its foreign policy towards the United States. Iran, at a minimum, had a direct role in two attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon in the 1980s, the kidnapping and murder of CIA Chief William Buckley, the kidnapping and murder of U.S. Marine Colonel Rich Higgins, the execution on board TWA 847 of U.S. Navy Diver Robert Stethem, and the bombing of the U.S. military housing complex in Dharan, Saudi Arabia in June 1996. And it paid what price? Nothing of any consequence. President Ronald Reagan, President George Bush Senior, and President Bill Clinton failed to mount a credible response to these attacks. One could argue that Iran could assume it can attack the United States without fear of retaliation.
But what is Iran doing in Iraq? Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March of 2003, Iran has used its contacts with prominent Iraqi shia–including the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and Abdul Aziz al Hakim–to build intelligence networks, train and arm militia, and collect intelligence. Iran is not the primary driving force for the terrorism that wracks Iraq. Which raises the question of whether Iran is helping direct attacks against U.S. soldiers?
Attacks on U.S. Soldiers
The Bush Administration and the U.S. military commanders in Iraq need to answer one basic question. Who is responsible for most of the violence directed against U.S. forces? The answer is simple–Sunni extremists. It is not Iran. But hey, when you are whipping up war fever why worry about facts.
That said, Iran is responsible in some fashion for the production and use of what is now known as Explosively Formed Penetrators aka EFPs. EFPs are really nothing more than platter charges. Platter charges were employed first by U.S. Army special forces in World War II. They are simple, deadly, and capable of taking out a bridge (follow this link and search the term, “platter charge”). EFPs have been used against U.S. forces in Iraq. They are employed by Shia extremists and Shia militia. They have killed U.S. troops. But these devices are not responsible for most of the U.S. fatalities and wounds. That is a basic fact.
I do not believe for a minute that President Bush is ignorant of this fact. Neither is his National Security Advisor or his Secretary of Defense. They know the truth. But instead of telling the truth to the American people the President and his minions are busy propagandizing the masses in order to justify an attack on Iran.
The Nuclear Question
So, we have a state keen on supporting terrorism, who is attacking U.S. soldiers, and, for the icing on the cake, is busy trying to build a nuclear weapon. Here the Bush Administration tries to play the same card they did in Iraq. We ostensibly have a zero tolerance for rogue states with nukes. Yet somehow we have been able to accept that North Korea, Pakistan, South Africa, Israel, and India have nukes without going to war.
Here is the canard. Even if Iran has twenty nuclear weapons they do not have the wherewithal to attack and destroy the United States. Hell, not even China can pull that off and they have a hell of a lot more nukes than Pakistan, India, and South Africa combined. Just getting a nuke decreases your chances of being invaded. However, producing a nuke does not mean you have the means and capability to effectively deliver those devices.
Nonetheless, don’t be surprised that we will be told repeatedly that Israel’s future will hinge on taking out Iran. At least that’s the message that will be blared unrelentingly for the next few months by this Administration and its media lackeys. Remember, only anti-Semites do not want to protect Israel from Iranian nukes. So, if you try to argue the opposite point, that the threat can be contained without resorting to a preemptive strike, just accept the fact that you are an unrelenting jew hater and one step removed from the Gestapo. (If you don’t understand sarcasm go read something else and exit this blog.)
So What if We Launch a Preemptive Strike?
Once again we are being promised a painless, bloodless conquest of an evil doer. In a paper published today in the United Kingdom, Dr. Dan Plesch, Director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy of the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) at the University of London, and Martin Butcher, a former Director of the British American Security Information Council (BASIC) and former adviser to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament offer this claim:
Under the command of Marine General James Cartwright, US Global Strike planning has the potential to destroy over 10,000 targets in Iran in one mission with “smart” conventional weapons. That number assumes only 100 strategic bombers with 100 bombs each. The actual number of planes/bombs and missiles is far larger. US government documents obtained by Hans Kristensen and analysed by William Arkin has described the development of this Global Strike capability.
Awaiting his orders, George Bush has more than 200 strategic bombers (B52-B1-B2-F117A) and US Navy Tomahawk cruise missiles. One B2 bomber dropped 80, 500lb bombs on separate targets in 22 seconds in a test flight. Using half the total force, 10,000 targets could be attacked almost simultaneously. This strike power alone is sufficient to destroy all major Iranian political, military, economic and transport capabilities.
Scary thought indeed. Now let’s try some reality. The U.S. has tried twice in the last 16 years to use airpower to eliminate threats and enemies on the ground in that region–Gulf War 1990 and the Iraq War 2003. In fact, in the lead up to the war in Iraq several, including the late General Wayne Downing, argued that Iraq could be taken over with a shock and awe air campaign and only 50,000 U.S. special forces. Well, we all know how that turned out. And have you forgotten that the highly touted U.S. airpower failed to destroy a single SCUD missile during the 1991 military action?
Pat Lang and I discussed some of the likely consequences that would occur if the U.S. launches a preemptive strike on Iraq in an article in the 2006 issue of the National Interest. We updated our assessment in the March-April 2007 issue. Both are worth your time.
Beyond the points we made in those articles there are some other critical facts to consider:
Iran is not flat like Iraq. Iran has vast mountainous regions and can easily hide production facilities and weapons inside mountains that we cannot easily attack.Iran has more robust air defense systems than Iraq ever had. We are likely to lose some pilots and aircraft in an attack on Iran. We can hope for the best, but if the worse comes to past–the shootdown of several aircraft and the capture of several pilots–the Iranians will have some additional leverage that will constrain President Bush.
U.S. tankers required to refuel aircraft involved in any attack on Iran will force a reduction of military operations inside both Iraq and Afghanistan.
The U.S. Army and Marines are incapable of being employed in any significant numbers to support an operation in Iran. Generals are already warning that they cannot (I REPEAT) cannot sustain the current surge in Iraq beyond the Spring of 2008. Who in their right mind would undertake a new military adventure when we cannot handle what we are currently doing? George Bush? But the question of his state of mind is another story.
The withdrawal of British forces from Basra now leaves Shia militia, who have direct ties to Iran, in complete control of the supply routes used to ferry beans, bullets, water, and toilet paper from Kuwait to U.S. troops in Iraq. An attack against Iran will likely see a cutoff of this supply route. That will require a diversion of air assets and ground forces to southern Iraq to reopen the lines of communication.
What Should be Done?
If the President orders U.S. Generals and Admirals, specifically Admiral Fallon at CENTCOM, to attack Iran then senior officers will face a choice. If they follow the order they will share responsibility of leading the United States into a new military disaster that has the potential to bankrupt this country. Officers confronted with this choice must resign and go public immediately with their opposition. We cannot afford anymore belated mea culpas (General Gregory Newbold comes to mind) of military leaders with doubts about an insane policy.
It is also the obligation of members of Congress to refuse to give the President a blank check for a new war. So far the Democratic controlled Congress has refused to lay down the marker requiring Congressional approval before Bush launches on a new preemptive strike. Senator Harry Reid and House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi must speak with a clear, united voice on this.
While Iran offers a potential threat that we must take seriously, this does not lead to the conclusion that we have no other option but to attack Iran. Expanding the war in the Middle East at this time would be an act of madness and strategic suicide. Are the American people willing to push their leaders to stand up to Bush and refuse to go down this dark path? I hope so.
I’m worried.
Pure madness!
The only rationale for the Democratic controlled Congress not to act as a buffer between Bush and Iran is not to take the preemptive strike option off the table. Such a strike is folly, however, and one must wonder whether the Congress isn’t shooting itself and its constituents in the foot by leaving it open. What has Cheney-Bush got to lose this late in the game by unleashing such a strike without Senate consent?
Larry, Iran was NOT responsible for the Saudi Bombings – Al-Qaeda was:
“A former U.S. defense secretary says he now believes al-Qaida rather than Iran was behind a 1996 truck bombing at an American military base.
Former Defense Secretary William Perry said he had a contingency plan to attack Iran if the link had been proven, but evidence was not to either his nor President Bill Clinton’s satisfaction.”
http://www.upi.com/Security_Terrorism/Briefing/2007/06/06/perry_us_eyed_iran_attack_after_bombing/70
45/
And Osama specifically stated: “We had thought that the Riyadh and Khobar blasts were a sufficient signal to sensible US decisionmakers to avert a real battle between the Islamic nation and US forces, but it seems that they did not understand the signal.”
As for “blood on the hands” lets remember that the US was arming, supplying, backing and supporting Saddam (including with chemical weapons) during the Iran-Iraq war, resulting in the deaths of over half-million Iranians (not to mention the 200 killed by the USS Vincennes) – so who is the “terrorist”?
And BOTH the CIA and the IAEA have said it have no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/09/international/09weapons.html
In fact, the US deliberately tried to shift the blame for Saddam’s chemical attack on Halabja onto Iran instead:
http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/2007/08/halabja-and-che.html
FInally, there is no legal basis of any attack on Iran:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2007/02/legal-case-against-war-with-iran.php
Oh, and incidentally, note how Bush formulated the threat: “technology which COULD LEAD TO nuclear weapons” – there’s a reason for that ambiguity:
“When the much-touted ‘Iraqi WMDs’ were not found after the US invasion, the Bush administration’s justification was reformulated as ‘Iraqi WMD-programme-related activities.’ A bit later it was again reformulated as Saddam’s ‘intent to reconstitute WMD’. The justification for the invasion of Iraq became more and more vague with each step, to smooth over the fact that Iraqi WMD had failed to materialise.
Similarly, the absence of any actual evidence of an Iranian nuclear-weapons programme is being smoothed over through the use of ambiguities. This is usually done by conflating a nuclear-weapons programme with a nuclear-energy programme. Legally, the two are quite distinct…
The intentional conflation of a nuclear weapons programme with a nuclear-energy programme takes several forms. For example, in addition to overt references to a weapons programme, there may be references to Iran’s nuclear “threat”, or vague statements about Iran’s nuclear “ambitions”, or even more tenuously, allusions to Iran’s “intentions” to obtain a nuclear-weapons “capability”….”
Rhetoric of War: First Iraq, then Iran?
Global Dialogue, Volume 8, No. 1-2, Winter-Spring 2006
http://www.geocities.com/csafdari/
A pre-emptive attack on Iran would be an out-and-out war crime. It would not even have the colour of justification that the Iraqi misadventure had via the Bush administration’s strained interpretation of the UN resolution. I know people in the administration are pushing hard for this fight, but I find it hard to believe our military would be so irresponsible as to let themselves be implicated in war crimes that could very well come back to haunt them.
I would imagine, also, that the Russians will not let the United States destabilize Iran the way they let us destabilize Iraq. Iran is in their backyard, and they have a centuries-long interest in the region. They presumably also have the capacity to warn the Iranians of an impending attack, which would rob the US of whatever advantage of surprise it might have in launching an air attack, and might well endanger the fleet.
Finally, assuming this madness doesn’t actually happen, our country needs to have a real debate on where it stands with respect to Israel, and the Israeli’s have to understand that if they successfully use the United States as their armed force, their country becomes hostage to threats from countries a lot bigger and more effective than they are, and that have the capacity to go head to head with the United States.
There’s noting “preemptive” about launching an attack on a civilian, IAEA-monitored, NPT compliant nuclear enrichment facility.
We should stop automatically calling any US or Israeli attack on others as being “preemptive”
It is also the obligation of members of Congress to refuse to give the President a blank check for a new war. So far the Democratic controlled Congress has refused to lay down the marker requiring Congressional approval before Bush launches on a new preemptive strike. Senator Harry Reid and House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi must speak with a clear, united voice on this.
I believe it is already too late for this. As FDL reported on July 11, the senate passed the Lieberman amendment which says that it’s the sens eof the senate that Iran is engaged in acts of war agaisnt the US. And i believe it was BMT that reported that Congress removed language requiring the Pweznit to obtain congressional authorization before attacking Iran for the latest war bill. Not sure where to find the link.
You beat me to my comment. They did already pass that amendment, UNANIMOUSLY, as I recall.
Idiots.
Like knut, I’m more worried about international reaction to an attack on Iran. It’s my understanding that both Russia and China have significant investments in Iranian oil, and I can’t imagine that they would be fine with us blowing up their pipelines and oil fields.
Either country could have us by the short hairs very, very quickly, and I’m just sure that Cheney hasn’t worried his head too much about contingencies in that case.
China calls in its chits, Russia invades Alaska, Bush declares martial law, and we’re off to the races. I wish I could say I’m just being an alarmist tin-foiler, but who can say that any more, with this administration?
It could indeed get bad, but Russia is not going to invade Alaska. Firstly, the Russian military is not in any shape to mount an intercontinental amphibious invasion, even with most of our armed forces bogged down in Asia. And secondly, we’re both nuclear powers. Everyone knows what that means: no direct confrontations.
The sense I get from watching the Russians is that while they would really like to stick it to us, they’re mostly frustrated that they lack the leverage to do so. Putin speechifies, and that’s about it. The Russians are perfectly capable of sticking it to Europe, but that no longer matters to Washington and the Russians know it. Aside from possibly supplying arms to the Iraqi resistance via Syria or Iran, the only thing the Russians can do is supply Iran beforehand with modern weaponry, which in fact they have done.
China, on the other hand, can fuck us up economically without blinking an eye. The problem for them is that we’re their major market, so any damage they do to our economy will affect their own. Like the Russians, the best they can do is supply Iran with arms, and like the Russians, they have. Even if the US becomes completely bogged down in Iraq and Iran, we have little to fear from China. Taiwan, on the other hand, had better be keeping a keen eye on the mainland while their US defenders are occupied elsewhere. If the PRC thinks they can grab Taiwan — which is not all that likely, but possible — I strongly suspect that will be a much higher priority for Beijing than the shenanigans of foreign barbarians are for them.
You’re probably right, of course, and those were just the first two examples that popped into my head.
But if Iran were able to close the Strait of Hormuz, and China couldn’t get the oil it needs, their economy would get bad quickly anyway. Ours too.
I don’t know. Maybe they’d send strongly-worded letters and somber emissaries, just like Congress does. But if Dick really pulls the nuclear trigger (or even the massive conventional one), I can’t imagine that they’d do nothing.
The Axis of Evil plus one: Four regimes to topple, each with unique problems to solve.
Iraq had Oil we wanted, but was Contained. We needed to manufacture war with them to justify prolonged occupation and access to resource wealth. We needed cover for that, so when 9/11 provided it, we jumped.
Afghanistan had to be ours to prevent another 9/11, if you like that story line, and to control heroin production and distribution, start to finish. Grown in Afghanistan, processed in Turkey, moved through Kosovo and distributed to Europe and the US, the heroin trade is proving lucrative for black funding and personal enrichment to all sorts of folks (see Sibel E.). In light of that, our policies (and Russia’s) in Turkey, Kosovo and in regards to Serbia/Albania and the KLA become more interesting.
North Korea was reasonably contained and obviously in a death spiral. We’ll have to put that war last in hopes they just crumble before hand..
Iran is the only state where we actually have legitimate beef that we’ve been storing in our Meet Locker of Doom for some time. While each incident or relationship can be minimized or rationalized, all things being equal, a war with Iran wouldn’t be as tough of a sell as any of these others (won’t require a 9/11-style justification like Iraq did).
In order to reform Iran’s behavior, it seems our gov’t thinks it’s either diplomacy (neocons have grown weary of that long ago ), war, or a legitimate threat of war that could work. Recently, with our ‘Wildman President’ fully crowned as the crazy cowboy capable of anything, we’ve have a credible threat growing (article notes lack of this credibility). This does not preclude the idea that the Administration wants War with Iran, but provide an possibility that the intention is to coerce Iran into becoming a bit more compliant with US will.
I personally believe that War with Iran is what this Administration wants, if purely from the perspective of the profit motivation. If that is not possible, they are still in the credible threat realm and could still hope to coerce reform and get their desired political outcome, albeit with a smaller paycheck at the end of the day..
In the end it’s all playing games in someone else’s backyard and will have predictable blowback and unfortunately unpredictable blowback as well. At what point do we, as a society, weary of all of this? Perhaps that has already happened. At what pint will our elites weary? When it starts effecting something other than popularity ratings.