{"id":4301,"date":"2008-08-07T21:18:27","date_gmt":"2008-08-07T20:18:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/?p=4301"},"modified":"2008-08-07T21:18:27","modified_gmt":"2008-08-07T20:18:27","slug":"war-with-iran-on-off-or-undecided","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/contributions\/war-with-iran-on-off-or-undecided\/","title":{"rendered":"War with Iran – On, Off or Undecided?"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Stephen Lendman – RINF <\/a>|<\/p>\n

There’s good news and bad, mostly the latter but don’t
\ndiscount the good. On May 22, (non-binding) HR 362 was
\nintroduced in the House – with charges and proposals
\nso outlandish that if passed and implemented will be a
\nblockade and act of war. It accused Iran of:<\/p>\n

— pursuing “nuclear weapons and regional hegemony”
\nthat threatens international peace and America’s
\nnational security interests;<\/p>\n

— overtly sponsoring “several terrorist groups,
\nincluding Hamas and Hezbollah;”<\/p>\n

— having close ties to Syria;<\/p>\n

— possibly sharing “its nuclear materials and
\ntechnology with others;”<\/p>\n

— developing “ballistic technology” and ICBMs
\nexclusively to deliver nuclear weapons;<\/p>\n

— calling for the “destruction of Israel;”<\/p>\n

— refusing to suspend its uranium enrichment program
\ndespite its legality;<\/p>\n

— using its banking system to support proliferation
\nand terrorist groups;<\/p>\n

— supporting Hezbollah to dominate Lebanon and wage
\nwar on its government (of which Hezbollah is part);<\/p>\n

— helping Hamas “illegally seize control of Gaza”
\n(and) continuously bombard Israeli civilians with
\nrockets and mortars;”<\/p>\n

— financing Iraqi “Shia militant groups (and) Afghan
\nwarlords (to) attack American and allied forces;”<\/p>\n

— destabilizing the Middle East “by underwriting a
\nmassive rearmament campaign by Syria;” and<\/p>\n

— seeking regional hegemony to undermine “vital
\nAmerican national security interests.”<\/p>\n

While stopping short of overtly declaring war, it
\nproposes Congress:<\/p>\n

— prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons
\n“through all appropriate economic, political and
\ndiplomatic means;”<\/p>\n

— urges the President to impose sanctions on:<\/p>\n

(1) Iran’s Central Bank and all others supporting
\nproliferation and terrorist groups;<\/p>\n

(2) international banks that do business with
\nproscribed Iranian banks;<\/p>\n

(3) energy companies with $20 million or more
\ninvestments in Iran’s oil or natural gas sectors since
\nthe 1996 Iran Sanctions Act; and<\/p>\n

(4) all companies doing business with Iran’s Islamic
\nRevolutionary Guard.<\/p>\n

It further:<\/p>\n

— demands that the President prohibit export of all
\nrefined oil products to Iran; impose “stringent
\ninspection requirements” on everything entering and
\ndeparting the country, including international
\nmovement of its officials;<\/p>\n

— aims to deny foreign investors greater access to
\nIran’s economy and give US companies preferential
\ntreatment if and when sanctions are lifted; and<\/p>\n

— enlists regional support against Iran and makes
\nclear that America will protect its “vital national
\nsecurity interests in the Middle East,” implying by
\nwar if necessary.<\/p>\n

Sanctions As A Form of War<\/p>\n

Under the UN Charter’s Article 41, the Security
\nCouncil (SC) may impose economic sanctions to deter
\n(as Article 39 states) “any threat to the peace,
\nbreach of the peace, or act of aggression.” Specific
\nmeasures “may include complete or partial interruption
\nof economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal,
\ntelegraphic, radio, and other means of communication,
\nand the severance of diplomatic relations.” Prior to
\nimposition, however, the SC should determine if
\nthey’re warranted, “call upon the parties concerned to
\ncomply with such provisional measures,” make
\nappropriate recommendations, and decide which specific
\nones, if any, to use short of armed force.<\/p>\n

Under appropriate circumstances, and if imposed
\nresponsibly, sanctions may be warranted and have
\ngreater impact than diplomatic protests or posturing.
\nThey’re also hugely less problematic and costly than
\nconflict. However, when irresponsibly used, for
\nimperial gain, or as acts of vengeance or political
\npunishment, they become siege warfare and should be
\njudged accordingly. Most often, US pressure is for
\nthese purposes in violation of the UN Charter’s intent
\nand spirit. As a result, grievous harm is caused –
\nnowhere more horrifically than in Iraq from 1990 –
\n2003 when around 1.5 million Iraqis died and millions
\nmore suffered tragically and needlessly.<\/p>\n

In far less extreme form, a similar strategy is being
\nused against Iran – with no justification whatever.
\nLast March, after a year of deliberations, the
\nSecurity Council approved SC 1803 – a third set of
\nIranian sanctions for refusing to suspend its legal
\nright to enrich uranium as the Nuclear
\nNon-Proliferation Treaty allows. It followed two
\nearlier rounds in July 2006 (SC 1696) demanding that
\nIran suspend uranium enrichment by August 31. When it
\nrefused, SC 1737 passed in December imposing limited
\nsanctions. SC 1747 then tightened them in March 2007.
\nIt imposed a ban on arms sales and expanded a freeze
\non Iranian assets.<\/p>\n

New sanctions extend the earlier ones but not as
\nharshly as Washington wanted. Still they restrict
\ndual-use technologies and authorize cargo inspections
\nto and from the country suspected of carrying
\nprohibited equipment and materials. They also tighten
\nthe monitoring of Iranian financial institutions and
\nextend travel bans and asset freezes against persons
\nand companies involved in Iran’s nuclear program.<\/p>\n

On August 5, AP reported that Germany and the SC’s
\nfive permanent members (the so-called P5 + 1) “agreed
\nyesterday to ‘seek’ new sanctions against Iran over
\nits nuclear program after the country failed to meet a
\nweekend deadline to respond to an offer” discussed
\nbelow. Its source is US State Department spokesman
\nGonzalo Gallegos saying “we have no choice but to
\npursue further measures against Iran.”<\/p>\n

Now the good news. By mid to late June, HR 362 had 169
\nco-sponsors. More were being added, and by August 1,
\n252 were on board. For a time it looked sure to pass
\nquickly. Then anti-war groups reacted – with a tsunami
\nof emails, phone calls, letters and visits to
\ncongressional members and their staffs. In spite of
\nheavy AIPAC pressure for the resolution it wrote, they
\nsuspended action until the bill’s language is
\nsoftened, so for now it’s stalled in committee (but
\nnot halted), and Congress is on recess until September
\n7 after both parties hold their conventions.<\/p>\n

Talking Peace, Planning War<\/p>\n

On July 16, the New York Times called Under Secretary
\nof State for Political Affairs William Burns’ presence
\nat the July 19 Geneva talks “the most significant
\ndiplomatic contact with Iran since” the 1979
\nrevolution. It followed a June meeting (attended by no
\nUS representative) at which Germany and the Security
\nCouncil’s five permanent members presented a package
\nof “economic and diplomatic incentives” that failed to
\nimpress the Iranians. Predictably, neither did the
\nJuly 19 meeting that ended in “deadlock” because
\nAmerica doesn’t “negotiate.” It demands.<\/p>\n

In this case, the proposal offered a so-called
\n“freeze-for-freeze” formula, with imprecise terms,
\nunder which Iran would stop enriching uranium in
\nreturn for no additional sanctions for six weeks. At
\nthat point, formal negotiations would begin with no
\npromises of concessions or compromise. Iran was given
\ntwo weeks to reply. The US delegation said that Burns’
\nappearance was a one-time event, and by so doing
\nrevealed its deceit. For its part, Iran rejects
\ndeadlines, and its IAEA representative, Ali Asghar
\nSoltanieh, expressed “grave concern” over America’s
\ndouble standards on nuclear policy.<\/p>\n

For the Bush administration, Iran’s nuclear program
\nisn’t the issue. It’s mere subterfuge for what’s
\nreally at stake, but first a little background. Under
\nReza Shah Pahlevi, Iran undertook a nuclear program in
\n1957 and got a US research reactor in 1967. After the
\n1974 oil shock, and in spite of the country’s vast oil
\nreserves, he established the Atomic Energy
\nOrganization of Iran to use nuclear power generation
\nfor a modern energy infrastructure that would
\ntransform the entire Middle East’s power needs. He
\nalso wanted to reduce Iran’s dependence on oil, lessen
\nits pressure to recycle petrodollars, and ally more
\nclosely with European companies through investments.<\/p>\n

In the 1970s, W. Germany began Iran’s Bushehr civilian
\nreactor complex. In 1978, Iran had the world’s fourth
\nlargest nuclear program, the largest in the developing
\nworld, and planned to build 20 new reactors by 1995.
\nThat year, it contracted with Russia to complete the
\nBushehr project, supply it with nuclear fuel, and
\ntransfer potentially dangerous technology, including a
\ncentrifuge plant for fissile material. Washington
\nbecame alarmed. It got the Yeltsin government to back
\nout, but Iran’s efforts continued with Russia
\nsupplying nuclear fuel, and it still does.<\/p>\n

Earlier in 2002, the National Council of Resistance of
\nIran (NCRI – the opposition parliament in exile)
\nclaimed the country was pursuing a secret nuclear
\nweapons program – including a Natanz uranium
\nenrichment facility and an Arak heavy water one. US –
\nIranian confrontation followed using Iran’s nuclear
\nprogram as pretext. Here’s what’s really at issue:<\/p>\n

— Iranian sovereignty;<\/p>\n

— its independence from US control;<\/p>\n

— its immense proved oil reserves – third or fourth
\nlargest in the world by most estimates; also its vast
\nproved natural gas reserves – ranked second largest in
\nthe world after Russia;<\/p>\n

— America’s resolve to control and have veto power
\nover them;<\/p>\n

— Big Oil’s desire to profit from them;<\/p>\n

— Iran’s size and location in the strategically
\nimportant Middle East; its chokehold over the Strait
\nof Hormuz through which millions of barrels of oil
\nflow daily – about 20% of world production of around
\n88 million barrels;<\/p>\n

— its strategic ties to Russia and China on energy,
\nother commercial, and weapons deals; both countries
\nare Iran’s largest foreign investors; Iran has vital
\nsecurity ties with them as well;<\/p>\n

— these relationships’ spillover for control of
\nEurasia and the Caspian region’s vast oil and gas
\nreserves through two organizations – the Asian
\nSecurity Grid and more important Shanghai Cooperation
\nOrganization (SCO) as a counterweight to an
\nencroaching US-dominated NATO;<\/p>\n

— its power and influence in a region the US and
\nIsrael want to dominate; and<\/p>\n

— the immense power of the Israeli Lobby to influence
\nUS policy, including a possible war on Iran or
\nminimally the harshest measures just short of one.<\/p>\n

Congress On Board with the Israeli Lobby<\/p>\n

At AIPAC’s June 2008 annual conference, most
\ncongressional members (over 300 attended), the
\nleadership, and both parties’ presidential candidates
\nexpressed uncompromising support for Israel. They also
\nbacked harsh sanctions against Iran and even war if
\nthey prove ineffective.<\/p>\n

For its part, AIPAC’s action agenda urged:<\/p>\n

— stopping Iran’s nuclear program; getting Congress
\nto pass HR 362 and the Senate’s equivalent SR 580;
\n“calling on the administration to focus on the urgency
\nof the Iranian threat and to impose tougher sanctions
\non Tehran;”<\/p>\n

— urging the Senate to pass the Iran
\nCounter-Proliferation Act of 2007 (S.970) – “to
\nenhance United States diplomatic efforts with respect
\nto Iran by imposing additional economic sanctions
\nagainst Iran, and for other purposes;” on September
\n25, 2007, it passed the House overwhelmingly; the
\nSenate Finance and Banking Committees passed key
\nprovisions of the Senate version in two Iran sanctions
\nbills;<\/p>\n

— supporting the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2007
\n(HR 2347) that “authorize(s) State and local
\ngovernments to direct divestiture from, and prevent
\ninvestment in, companies with investments of
\n$20,000,000 or more in Iran’s energy sector;” and<\/p>\n

— urging additional aid for Israel as the president
\nrequested, “support(ing) Israel’s quest for peace,
\n(and) press(ing) the Arab states to do more to support
\nIsraeli-Palestinian talks.”<\/p>\n

An earlier August 14, 2007 AIPAC “Issue Brief” is
\ntitled “Iran’s Support for Terrorism.” It claims that:<\/p>\n

— “the radical regime in Iran has sponsored terrorism
\nagainst the United States, Israel and the West for
\ndecades;”<\/p>\n

— the State Department designates Iran “the world’s
\nleading state sponsor of terror, noting its support
\nfor groups such as Hamas, ‘Hizballah’ and Islamic
\nJihad;”<\/p>\n

— Tehran also sponsors the “insurgency in Iraq,
\nsupplied arms to the Taliban and hosted al-Qaeda
\nterrorists;”<\/p>\n

— it also “relentlessly pursu(es) nuclear weapons
\n(and thus is) a particularly implacable and lethal
\nregime;” and<\/p>\n

— “only a sustained, unified international effort to
\nisolate and sanction Iran is likely to convince it to
\ngive up these dangerous activities.”<\/p>\n

The Bush administration agrees. So do most members of
\nCongress, the leadership, and both parties’
\npresumptive presidential candidates in speeches at the
\nJune AIPAC conference. Obama oozed obeisance –
\n“speaking from the heart as a true friend of
\nIsrael….when I visit with AIPAC, I am among friends.
\nGood friends….who share my strong commitment (that)
\nthe bond between the United States and Israel is
\nunbreakable today, tomorrow, and forever.” Though far
\nless eloquent, McCain was equally supportive.<\/p>\n

Obama assured attendees that he stands “by Israel in
\nthe face of all threats..speak(s) up when Israel’s
\nsecurity is at risk (and voices concern that)
\nAmerica’s recent foreign policy (hasn’t) made Israel
\nmore secure. Hamas now controls Gaza. Hizbollah has
\ntightened its grip on southern Lebanon, and is flexing
\nits muscles in Beirut. Because of the war in Iraq,
\nIran – which always posed a greater threat to Israel
\nthan Iraq – is emboldened and poses the greatest
\nstrategic challenge to the US and Israel in the Middle
\nEast in a generation….We must isolate Hamas….Syria
\ncontinues its support for terror and meddling in
\nLebanon (and) pursu(es) weapons of mass
\ndestruction….There is no greater threat to Israel –
\nor to the peace and stability of the region – than
\nIran. (It) supports violent extremists….pursues a
\nnuclear capability….and threatens to wipe Israel off
\nthe map….my goal will be to eliminate this threat.”<\/p>\n

AIPAC attendees loved it and his receptivity to
\nattacking Iran. McCain’s comments no less plus his bad
\nhumor earlier in singing “bomb, bomb Iran” to the tune
\nof a popular song on a May campaign stop. At AIPAC, he
\nwas just as supportive as Obama, wants increased
\nmilitary aid for Israel in FY 2009, and “foremost in
\n(his mind) is the threat posed by the regime in
\nTehran….The Iranian President calls Israel a
\nstinking corpse….it uses violence to undermine
\nIsrael in the Middle East peace process….(it
\nsupports) extremists in Iraq (killing) American
\nsoldiers….remains the world’s chief sponsor of
\nterrorism….(and its) pursuit of nuclear weapons
\nposes an unacceptable risk, a danger we cannot allow”
\nwith clear implications of what he means and what he
\nmay do as president.<\/p>\n

Christians United for Israel (CUFI) on the “Iranian
\nThreat”<\/p>\n

Along with the Israeli Lobby, Bush neocons, and most
\nWashington officials, Christian extremists from
\norganizations like CUFI cite the “Iranian threat” as a
\nrecurrent theme, the country’s hostility to Israel and
\ndesire to “eliminate” the Jewish state, the danger it
\nmay do so if it acquires nuclear weapons, and the need
\nto confront Iran preemptively – through sanctions,
\nisolation and war if other measures fail.<\/p>\n

Controversial Pastor and John McCain supporter John
\nHagee is its founder and national chairman, and his
\ninfluence is considerable. He has 18,000 supporters in
\nhis San Antonio Cornerstone Church and far more
\nthrough CUFI and his global television ministry. His
\nideology is chilling, and as the most powerful and
\ninfluential American Christian Zionist, he’s a man to
\nbe reckoned with. He calls Muslims “Islamic fascists,”
\nclaims they’re at war with western civilization, and
\nbelieves preemptive countermeasures, including
\nbelligerent ones against Iran, are a proper defense.<\/p>\n

As keynote speaker at AIPAC’s 2007 conference, he
\ncalled Iran “the most dangerous regime in the Middle
\nEast (characterized by its) cruel despotism (and)
\nfanatic militancy. If this regime (acquires) nuclear
\nweapons this would presage catastrophic consequences
\nnot only for my country, not only for the Middle East,
\nbut for all of mankind….The fact that Iran is
\nbuilding nuclear weapons is beyond question….and
\nthey may be the world’s first ‘un-deterable’ nuclear
\npower….So the danger is clear and the question is
\nwhat do we do about it…My message to you
\nis….divest Iran,” impose sanctions, isolate the
\ncountry, and if these measures fail choose a “second
\ncourse,” the other two being “nothing” or
\n“non-military action.” From his rhetoric at AIPAC and
\nfundamentalist preaching to his followers, it’s clear
\nwhich one Hagee prefers and may get if enough others
\nin high places share his views.<\/p>\n

Israeli Defense Minister and former Labor Prime
\nMinister Ehud Barak may one of them. On July 30, he
\ntold top US officials that Israel won’t rule out a
\nmilitary strike against Iraq, but there’s still time
\nto pursue diplomacy. Like other Israeli officials
\n(past and present), he stressed Iran’s global threat
\nso that for Israel “no option would be removed from
\nthe table.”<\/p>\n

Israeli Deputy Defense Minister (and possible next
\nPrime Minister) Shaul Mofaz stated similar views. In
\nan August 1 speech to the Washington Institute for
\nNear East Policy (a pro-Israeli think tank), he called
\nIran an existential threat, recommended diplomacy
\nfirst, then added “all options are on the table” to
\nprevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons – “as
\nsoon as 2010” as some in Israel claim.<\/p>\n

Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni (and Mofaz rival
\nfor Prime Minister) may be one of them. On CNN August
\n3, she called for a fourth round of sanctions against
\nIran and urged the world community to support them.
\n“Iran doesn’t pay attention to talks,” she said, and
\n“time is of the essence.” On the same day, US
\nspokesperson for the US’s UN mission, Richard Grenell,
\n(in a Reuters report) voiced the same view in saying
\n“Iran has not complied with the international
\ncommunity’s demand to stop enriching uranium (so) the
\nSecurity Council (has) no choice but to increase the
\nsanctions….”<\/p>\n

High Level US Opposition to War on Iran<\/p>\n

Key Obama foreign policy advisor and former Carter
\nadministration National Security Advisor, Zbigniew
\nBrzezinski, is one of them. In a Washington Post March
\n2008 op-ed, he called the Iraq war a “national
\ntragedy, (demagogically justified), an economic
\ncatastrophe, a regional disaster, and a global
\nboomerang for the United States.” Earlier in February
\n2007, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations
\nCommittee, he said it was “a historic, strategic, and
\nmoral calamity. Undertaken under false assumptions, it
\nis undermining America’s global
\nlegitimacy….tarnishing (our) moral credentials (and)
\nintensifying regional instability.”<\/p>\n

He then laid out a “plausible scenario for a military
\ncollision with Iran (based on) Iraqi failure to meet
\nthe benchmarks, followed by accusations of Iranian
\nresponsibility for the failure, then by some
\nprovocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the US
\nblamed on Iran, culminating in a ‘defensive’ US
\nmilitary action” in response. This would plunge “a
\nlonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire
\neventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and
\nPakistan.” Brzezinski’s remarks were an unmistakable
\nwarning that the Bush administration may try to
\nstampede the country into a calamitous conflict it
\nmust avoid, and it’s up to Congress to stop it. He
\nalso practically called Bush neocons a cabal and
\nwarned Congress to be alert.<\/p>\n

Later last September, Brzezinski repeated the same
\nwarning on CNN – that the Bush administration (Bush
\nand Cheney mainly) is “hyp(ing) the atmosphere (and)
\n“stampeding” the country to war with Iran. “When the
\npresident flatly asserts (Iran is) seeking nuclear
\nweapons, he’s overstating the facts….we have very
\nscant (supportive) evidence (and after the Iraq
\ncalamity he) should be very careful about the veracity
\nof his public assertions.” Based on his own experience
\nin Afghanistan in the 1980s, he’s also very leery
\nabout “running the (same) risk of unintentionally”
\nfalling into Russia’s trap – overreaching, paying
\n“little regard for civilian casualties,” turning
\nAfghans against us, and being defeated and forced out
\nof the country.<\/p>\n

Brzezinski supports a less confrontational occupation
\nand had this to say about a McCain administration: “if
\nhis Secretary of State is Joe Lieberman and his
\nSecretary of Defense is (Rudy) Giuliani, we will be
\nmoving towards the WW IV (counting the Cold War as WW
\nIII) that they have been both favoring and
\npredicting….an appalling concept” he says must be
\navoided.<\/p>\n

It will be if global intelligence company Stratfor
\nfounder and head George Friedman is right. In an
\nAugust 4 Barrons interview (reported on Iran’s Press
\nTV), he called Israeli war games and tough US talk
\ngeopolitical head-fake leading to an “amicable endgame
\nin Iran.” Why? Because given today’s global economy,
\nthe alternative risks far outweigh potential benefits.
\nBesides, Iran poses at most a “negligible nuclear
\nthreat” and nowhere near reason enough to go to war
\nover.<\/p>\n

Further, Iran has helped reduce sectarian violence in
\nIraq by reigning in Shia militias, and that’s a key
\nreason for lower US casualties. Barrons noted that
\nStratfor has a record of making accurate assessments
\nand gained a large client base as a result. Friedman
\nbelieves the US and Israel are using psychological
\nwarfare to intimidate Iran to make it more
\naccommodative to their policies. He also says a major
\nattack would have grave repercussions for the global
\neconomy at a time when it’s most vulnerable. Iran’s
\npotential retaliatory strength might cripple a sizable
\namount of world oil trade, cause prices to skyrocket,
\nand exacerbate an already shaky situation at the worst
\ntime.<\/p>\n

He says the Pentagon has war-gamed an attack, and
\nbelieves it can make short work of Iran’s shore-based
\nmissile batteries and attack ships. De-mining
\noperations would take much longer. In the meantime,
\noil prices could hit $300 a barrel, shipping insurance
\nand tanker lease rates would soar, and economic
\nstability would collapse. In the near-term, it would
\nbe “cataclysmic to the global economy and stock
\nmarket.”<\/p>\n

Up to now, two years of talks on Iran’s nuclear
\nprogram have been more “Kabuki theater” than a real
\neffort at serious negotiation. In addition, Friedman
\nsays Iran is “decades away” from developing a credible
\nnuclear weapons capacity even if it intends to pursue
\none. At best, in his judgment, it may be able to come
\nup with a crude device like the North Koreans managed
\nand apparently tested in 2006. No reason to go to war
\nover if he’s right and one among many more vital
\nissues that influential American figures cite to
\noppose one.<\/p>\n

Pentagon Crosscurrents on Iran<\/p>\n

In late June, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Michael
\nMullen, visited Israel – his second trip there since
\nhis October 1 appointment, but this time with a clear
\n(official US) message according to defense analyst and
\nformer Pentagon official Anthony Cordesman of the
\nCenter for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).
\nIt was that “the US did not give the green light for
\nan Israeli attack on Iran….George Bush made it clear
\nto all parties that the first option is diplomacy,”
\nand no attack should be undertaken without White House
\napproval. Mullen further suggested that US policy
\nlikely will remain unchanged under George Bush, and
\nthat future plans will be up to the next incumbent – a
\nstrong hint that cooler high-level Washington figures
\nknow the folly of a wider Middle East war and want no
\npart of one.<\/p>\n

Nonetheless, there’s no assurance they’ll win out, and
\nanalyst Michael Oren of the Shalem Centre told CBS
\nNews that Bush administration officials assured
\nIsraelis that Iran wouldn’t be allowed to develop a
\nnuclear weapons capacity with strong hints of an
\nattack if one continues. Then on March 11, CENTCOM
\ncommander William Fallon was sacked following reports
\nthat he sharply disagreed with Bush administration
\nMiddle East policy. On April 24 Iraq commander, and
\nnoted super-hawk, David Petraeus was named to replace
\nhim, and following an easy Senate confirmation will
\ntake over in September.<\/p>\n

In June 2007, another change of command occurred when
\nGeorge Bush replaced Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace
\nbecause of his public disagreement over policy. On
\nFebruary 17, 2006 at a National Press Club luncheon,
\nhe responded to a question: “It is the absolute
\nresponsibility of everybody in uniform to disobey an
\norder that is either illegal or immoral.” He later
\nadded that commanders should “not obey illegal and
\nimmoral orders to use weapons of mass
\ndestruction….They cannot commit crimes against
\nhumanity.” Nor should they go along with wrong-headed
\nillegal schemes of remaking the Middle East and other
\nregions militarily, but until Admiral Mullen’s
\ncomments to Israelis it looked like a compliant
\nPentagon team was in place to pursue it.<\/p>\n

Whatever’s ahead, it appears high-level opposition
\nfigures have surfaced with practical (past and
\npresent) trilateralists among them. Figures like
\nBrzezinski, Jim Baker, Henry Kissinger, George Tenet,
\nPaul Volker, Jimmy Carter, George Soros, David
\nRockefeller, many other top business executives, and
\neven GHW Bush. Their concern over present policy is
\nhaving an effect, but there’s no certainty about which
\nside will prevail. However, with Congress out until
\nSeptember, things are on hold, and time is fast
\nrunning out on a lamer-than-lame duck administration,
\naccording to some.<\/p>\n

Even The New York Times is sending mixed messages it
\nwill have to clarify in coming weeks. In a June 10
\neditorial, it said: “If sanctions and incentives
\ncannot be made to work, the voices for military action
\nwill only get louder. No matter what aides may be
\ntelling Mr. Bush and Mr. Olmert – or what they may be
\ntelling each other – an attack on Iran would be a
\ndisaster,” implying it’s wrong, won’t work and will
\ndevastate the economy. Then on July 18, it then gave
\nIsraeli historian and apologist Benny Morris op-ed
\nspace for a vicious and Orwellian headlined diatribe:
\n“Using Bombs to Stave Off War.”<\/p>\n

In it, he states “Israel will almost surely attack
\nIran’s nuclear sites in the next four to seven months
\n(conventionally).” Should that “assault fail to
\nsignificantly harm or stall the Iranian program….a
\nnuclear (attack) will most likely follow.” The world
\nhas “only one option if it wishes to halt Iran’s march
\ntoward nuclear weaponry: the military” one by “either
\nthe United States or Israel.” But America is bogged
\ndown in two wars, and “the American public has little
\nenthusiasm” for more.<\/p>\n

“Which leaves only Israel – the country threatened
\nalmost daily with destruction by Iran’s
\nleaders….Iran’s leaders would do well to rethink
\ntheir gamble and suspend their nuclear program.”
\nOtherwise, an Israeli attack “will destroy their
\nnuclear facilities (even though) this would mean
\nthousands of Iranian casualties and international
\nhumiliation.”<\/p>\n

It’s high time The New York Times (and other major
\nmedia voices) took a stand. Is it opposed to further
\nregional conflict, or in James Petras’ words: is it
\nfor “the nuclear incineration of 70 million Iranians
\nand the contamination of the better part of a billion
\npeople in the Middle East, Asia and Europe” plus an
\nunimaginable amount of retaliatory fallout with the
\nentire Muslim world against the West and Israel.<\/p>\n

Yet a June 2008 Presidential Task Force on the Future
\nof US-Israeli Relations statement calls for
\n“Cooperation on the Iranian Nuclear Challenge” and to
\nconsider “coercive options” against it, including
\nembargoing Iranian oil and “preventive military
\naction.” It was at the time Haaretz reported that
\nIsrael conducted large-scale exercises (focusing on
\nlong-range strikes) “that appeared to be a rehearsal
\nfor a potential bombing attack” on Iran. Statfor’s
\nGeorge Friedman downplayed them, called them
\n“psychological warfare” saber-rattling, not
\npreparations for war, and why would Israel telegraph
\nplans if that’s what it has in mind. In 1981, it gave
\nno hint it intended to bomb Iraq’s Osirak reactor, and
\nwhen it came it was a surprise.<\/p>\n

Other Crosscurrents<\/p>\n

For brief moments earlier, positive developments
\nsurfaced, only to be swept aside by a torrent of
\nanti-Iranian hostility. The Baker Commission December
\n2006 report recommended engaging Iran and Syria
\n“constructively” and called for a “New Diplomatic
\nOffensive without preconditions,” all for naught. Then
\nlast December the National Intelligence Assessment
\n(representing the consensus of all 16 US spy agencies)
\nconcluded that Iran “halted” its nuclear weapons
\nprogram in 2003, and it remains frozen, again without
\neffect.<\/p>\n

At the same time, battle plans are in place under code
\nname TIRRANT for Theater Iran Near Term. And under a
\ntop secret “Interim Global Strike Alert Order” and
\nCONPLAN (contingency\/concept plan) 8022, Washington
\nmay preemptively strike targets anywhere in the world
\nusing so-called low-yield extremely powerful nuclear
\nbunker buster weapons. Iran is the apparent first
\ntarget of choice, and US Naval carrier strike groups
\nare strategically positioned in the Persian Gulf and
\nMediterranean to proceed on command.<\/p>\n

A recent May World Tribune report cited a second
\ncarrier group in the Gulf and secret (approved but not
\nimplemented) US naval and air plans for an Iran
\n“counterstrike” in response to “escalating tensions
\nthat would peak with an Iranian-inspired insurgency
\nstrike against US” forces – that might easily be
\nanother Gulf of Tonkin-type incident. So the question
\nremains, are we heading for war or is it just
\n“head-fake” as George Friedman believes?<\/p>\n

Sy Hersh On “Preparing the Battlefield”<\/p>\n

On June 29 in the New Yorker magazine, Hersh reported
\nmore crosscurrents and added to what’s covered above.
\nOn the one hand, Congress will fund “a major
\nescalation of covert operations against Iran,”
\naccording to his high-level sources. As much as $400
\nmillion will go to minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi
\ndissident groups, to “destabilize the country’s
\nreligious leadership,” aim for regime change, and gain
\nintelligence on Iran’s “suspected nuclear-weapons
\nprogram.”<\/p>\n

The plan apparently involves stepped up covert CIA and
\nJoint Special Operations Command (JSOC) operations
\nauthorized by a highly classified Presidential Finding
\nabout which some congressional leaders have little
\nknowledge and have voiced concern. By law, party
\nleaders and ranking intelligence committee members
\nmust be briefed, but apparently it’s been done
\nselectively.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, Hersh says Pentagon military and
\ncivilian leaders are concerned about “Iran’s nuclear
\nambitions,” but disagree “whether a military strike is
\nthe right solution.” Some oppose one, want diplomacy
\ninstead, and apparently Robert Gates is one of them –
\na former Iraq Study Group member until he became
\nSecretary of Defense in December 2006. In late 2007,
\nhe apparently warned the Democrat Senate caucus of
\ngrave consequences if the Bush administration
\npreemptively attacked Iran – saying it would create
\n“generations of jihadists, and our grandchildren will
\nbe battling (them) in America.”<\/p>\n

Admiral Mullen also is “pushing back very hard”
\nagainst an attack along with “at least ten senior flag
\nand general officers, including combatant commanders”
\nin charge of military operations around the world. One
\nof them is Admiral Fallon who lost his CENTCOM job for
\nopposing an attack even though he agrees on Iran’s
\npossible threat.<\/p>\n

Looking Ahead<\/p>\n

More good news for what it’s worth. On August 2, tens
\nof thousands across the US and Canada protested
\nagainst a possible attack on Iran. On the bad side,
\nunprecedented numbers, in vain, did as well ahead of
\nthe Iraq war, but this time influential Washington
\nfigures support them.<\/p>\n

With Congress on recess, it’s too soon to know what’s
\nahead, but one thing’s for sure. Neocons still run
\nthings. Dick Cheney leads them, and he claims Iran
\nintends to destroy Israel, is developing nuclear
\nweapons, and is a “darkening cloud….right at the top
\nof the list” of world trouble spots and needs to be
\naddressed (along with Syria) as the next phase of “the
\nroad map to war.” With five months to go and heavy
\nfirepower to call on, he and George Bush have plenty
\nof time left (as this writer said earlier) to
\nincinerate Iran and end the republic if that’s what
\nthey have in mind. Better hope they don’t or that
\ncooler heads win out for a different way.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Stephen Lendman – RINF | There’s good news and bad, mostly the latter but don’t discount the good. On May 22, (non-binding) HR 362 was introduced in the House – with charges and proposals so outlandish that if passed and implemented will be a blockade and act of war. It accused Iran of: — […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[34],"class_list":{"0":"post-4301","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-contributions","7":"tag-iran"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4301","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4301"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4301\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4301"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4301"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4301"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}