|
|
| |
Iran War: A Familiar Pattern, Dire Consequences
April, 2006
|
|
| |
The neocons are starting the Iran War the same way way they started Iraq
Joseph Cirincione points out a familiar pattern. ”The vice president of the United States gives a major speech focused on the threat from an oil-rich nation in the Middle East. The U.S. secretary of state tells congress that the same nation is our most serious global challenge. The secretary of defense calls the nation a leading supporter of global terrorism. The president blames it for attacks on U.S. troops. The intelligence agencies say the threat is 10 years away, but the director of intelligence paints a more ominous future. A new U.S. national security strategy trumpets preemptive attacks and highlights the country as a major threat [1].” This time, however, the target is Iran and this time the consequences for the United States could be far worse than the deaths of American troops, huge debts, and the loss of America’s prestige. An attack on Iran could result in terrorist retaliation within the United States and could draw the U.S. into a greater Persian Gulf War spreading beyond Iran and Iraq.
The justification is again Weapons of Mass Destruction that are not there
The principal justification for the Bush administration’s militant rhetoric focuses on Iran’s intentions to enrich uranium (increase uranium-235 content) at its own facilities rather than obtaining enrichment services from Russia [2]. Iran insists that their plan for enriching uranium is for peaceful purposes; i.e., as fuel for an electrical power reactor. Natural uranium contains less than 1% uranium-235, the isotope necessary to sustain a fission chain reaction. A typical power reactor requires only slightly enriched uranium. The U.S. and other nations are concerned, however, that an Iranian enrichment capability will be used to obtain highly enriched uranium to produce a nuclear weapon. In contrast to the situation in Iraq, the Iranians clearly have the materials and much of the hardware and facilities for fabricating a weapon. Nonetheless, intelligence estimates indicate that Iran’s ability to produce a nuclear weapon is a decade away [3].
This time, there may well be a nuclear weapons program
Although the day will eventually arrive when Iran will no longer be awash in oil, the claim that it now needs an enrichment capability for peaceful nuclear power purposes is difficult to accept. The fact that Russia has offered enrichment services makes Iran’s stated need even more difficult to accept.
But does this call for preemptive war, and possibly a nuclear attack on Iran?
Regardless, several questions must be asked. If Iran moves forward to develop a nuclear weapon, would the weapon ever be used against the United States? Would Iran, as a nuclear weapons state, represent a considerably greater threat to the United States than existing nuclear weapons states? Would Iran use a nuclear weapon against Israel? Is a threat to Israel sufficient justification for the U.S. to commit itself to a military showdown with Iran? These questions are open to speculation and debate. Although zFacts approaches speculation with caution, the same cannot be said about the Bush administration. Both the invasion of Iraq and the assumed consequences of the invasion were justified on speculations disguised as intelligence.
There is still plenty of time to avoid war
Given that an Iranian nuclear weapon is a decade away, a prudent approach would be to allow time for a peaceful solution by engaging in careful diplomacy with the assistance of the international community. This approach, however, is considered a weakness that is doomed to failure by the neoconservative policy makers within the administration. Despite the failure of neoconservative policy in Iraq, their continued presence in positions of power and the militant rhetoric from the highest levels of power suggests that their influence remains.
The planned war consists of hundreds of air strikes
If neoconservative policy remains intact, we can expect some kind of military intervention in Iran. Our military is already stretched thin in Iraq; consequently, an invasion of Iran similar to the invasion of Iraq is not feasible. More likely, intervention will be an air strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. The method and consequences of such an attack are also a matter of speculation, but the following scenarios appear to be likely:
a. Air strikes could be carried out by the United States, Israel, or a coalition of several nations. Even if air strikes are initiated by Israel, the War would escalate to involve the United States and other Persian Gulf Nations [4].
b. Hundreds of airstrikes would be required, before striking the nuclear facilities, in order to disable Iran’s vast air defenses [5].
c. Iran’s nuclear facilities are scattered around the country and airstrikes would be unlikely to do more than delay an Iranian nuclear weapons program [5].
d. Airstrikes would inflame the Muslim world, alienate reformers within Iran, and may unite the Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda terrorist groups [1].
e. Air strikes would be considered an act of war by Iran and Iran would strike back with terrorist attacks on the U.S. or U.S. facilities. Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence, Revolutionary Guards, and Hezbollah are better trained and equipped than al-Qaeda [5]; consequently, a terrorist retaliation by Iran could have devastating results.
References:
1. J. Cirincione, Fool Me Twice, Foreign Policy, March 27, 2006.
2. A. A. Dareini, Iran Confirms It Has Resumed Uranium Enrichment, AP, Feb. 14, 2006.
3. D. Linzer, Strong Leads and Dead Ends in Nuclear Case Against Iran, Wash. Post, Feb. 8, 2006.
4. R. Walker, Iran in Neo-Con Crosshairs, Amer. Free Press, Feb. 20, 2006.
5. D. Priest, Attacking Iran May Trigger Terrorism, Wash. Post, April 2, 2006.
|
|
http://zfacts.com/p/280.html | 01/18/12 07:25 GMT
Modified: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 23:05:14 GMT
|
|
