How Bush Would
Gain From
War With Iran
By Dan Plesch
17 August, 2005
The
Guardian
President
Bush has reminded us that he is prepared to take military action to
prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. On Israeli television this weekend,
he declared that "all options are on the table" if Tehran
doesn't comply with international demands.
In private his officials
deride EU and UN diplomacy with Iran. US officials have been preparing
pre-emptive war since Bush marked Iran out as a member of the "axis
of evil" back in 2002. Once again, this war is likely to have British
support.
A plausible spin
could be that America and Britain must act where the international community
has failed, and that their action is the responsible alternative to
an Israeli attack. The conventional wisdom is that, even if diplomacy
fails, the US is so bogged down in Iraq that it could not take on Iran.
However, this misunderstands the capabilities and intentions of the
Bush administration.
A US attack is unlikely
to be confined to the suspected WMD locations or to involve a ground
invasion to occupy the country. The strikes would probably be intended
to destroy military, political and (oil excepted) economic infrastructure.
A disabled Iran could be further paralysed by civil war. Tehran alleges
US support for separatists in the large Azeri population of the north-west,
and fighting is increasing in Iranian Kurdistan.
The possible negative
consequences of an attack on Iran are well known: an increase in terrorism;
a Shia rising in Iraq; Hizbullah and Iranian attacks on Israel; attacks
on oil facilities along the Gulf and a recession caused by rising oil
prices. Advocates of war argue that if Iran is allowed to go nuclear
then each of these threats to US and Israeli interests becomes far greater.
In this logic, any negative consequence becomes a further reason to
attack now - with Iran disabled all these threats can, it is argued,
be reduced.
Iraq is proving
an electoral liability. This is a threat to the Bush team's intention
to retain power for the next decade - perhaps, as the author Bob Woodward
says, with President Cheney at the helm. War with Iran next spring can
enable them to win the mid-term elections and retain control of the
Republican party, now in partial rebellion over Iraq.
The rise in oil
prices and subsequent recession are reasons some doubt that an attack
would take place. However, Iran's supplies are destined for China -
perceived as the US's main long-term rival. And the Bush team are experienced
enough to remember that Ronald Reagan rode out the recession of the
early 1980s on a wave of rhetoric about "evil empire".
Even if the US went
ahead, runs the argument, Britain would not be involved as Tony Blair
would not want a rerun of the Iraq controversy. But British forces are
already in the area: they border Iran around Basra, and will soon lead
the Nato force on Iran's Afghan frontier. The British island of Diego
Garcia is a critical US base.
It is hard to see
Britain uninvolved in US actions. The prime minister is clearly of a
mind to no more countenance Iran's WMD than he did Iraq's. In Iran's
case the evidence is more substantial. The Iranians do have a nuclear
energy programme and have lied about it. In any event, Blair is probably
aware that the US is unlikely to supply him with the prized successor
to the Trident submarine if Britain refuses to continue to pay the blood
sacrifice of standing with the US. Tory votes might provide sufficient
"national unity" to see off Labour dissenters.
New approaches are
needed to head off such a dismal scenario. The problem on WMD is that
Blair and Bush are doing too little, not too much. Why pick on Iran
rather than India, Pakistan, Israel or Egypt - not to mention the west's
weapons? In the era of Gorbachev and Reagan, political will created
treaties that still successfully control many types of WMD. Revived,
they would provide the basis for global controls. Iran must not be dealt
with in isolation.
As the Iran debate
unfolds, we will no doubt again hear about the joint intelligence committee.
We should follow the advice of a former head of the committee, Sir Paul
Lever, to remove US intelligence officials from around the JIC table,
where they normally sit. Only in this way, argues Lever, can the British
take a considered view themselves.
We need to be clear
that our MPs have no mandate to support an attack on Iran. During the
election campaign, the government dismissed any suggestion that Iran
might be attacked as ridiculous scaremongering. If Blair has told Bush
that Britain will prevent Iran's nuclear weapons "come what may",
we need to be equally clear that nothing short of an election would
provide the mandate for an attack.
Dan Plesch is the
author of The Beauty Queen's Guide to World Peace, about which he is
speaking at the Edinburgh Book Festival.
© 2005 Guardian
Newspapers, Ltd.