Bush
Administration Concocts
A “Dossier” For War Against Iran
By Peter Symonds
14 February, 2007
World
Socialist Web
The
Bush administration stepped up its propaganda war against Iran with
a press briefing in Baghdad on Sunday, setting out claims that the Iranian
regime is supplying arms to anti-US militias in Iraq. While the “dossier”
fails to prove a case against Tehran, its release demonstrates that
the White House is intent on manufacturing a justification for a military
confrontation with Iran.
The obvious parallel is with
the lies about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction that
were concocted as the pretext for the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003.
The timing of the press briefing points to its real purpose. Even though
the US has, for more than a year, accused Iran of supplying sophisticated
roadside bombs to Iraqi groups, it is only now, amid an American military
buildup in the Persian Gulf, that the so-called evidence has been released.
The threadbare character
of the “dossier” has itself been the subject of debate within
the Bush administration. Its release was delayed twice because, as National
Security Adviser Stephen Hadley bluntly explained, “we thought
the briefing overstated”. State Department and intelligence officials
privately told the media that the evidence was “inconclusive”.
In the end, the press conference in Baghdad was given, not by US ambassador
Zalmay Khalilzad as previously announced, but by three American military
officials, who insisted on remaining unnamed.
On display to the select
audience of reporters were an array of mortar shells and rocket-propelled
grenades with serial numbers, which the officials claimed linked the
weapons to Iranian factories. Emphasis was placed on a type of roadside
bomb known as an explosively formed penetrator (EFP) capable of punching
through most armour, including that of an Abrams tank. According to
the presenters, the weapon has been responsible for the deaths of more
than 170 US troops since June 2004.
No proof, however, was provided
that the Iranian regime was directly involved. One of the three officials,
described as a senior defence analyst, insisted that the weapons smuggling
was organised by a special unit of Iran’s Islamic Republican Guard
Corps known as the Quds Force. The involvement of the IRGC-Quds Force,
he declared, meant that operations were being directed “from the
highest levels of the Iranian government”. Questioned about evidence,
he admitted that it was just “an inference”.
The New York Times pointedly
noted: “Nonetheless that inference, and the anonymity of the officials
who made it, was bound to generate skepticism among those suspicious
that the Bush administration is trying to find a scapegoat for its problems
in Iraq, and perhaps even trying to lay the groundwork for war with
Iran.” In other words, it is widely recognised in US ruling circles
that the present accusations against Iran are simply the excuse for
an attack on Iran.
Evidence for the involvement
of the IRGC-Quds Force in Iraq is also flimsy. The US officials claimed
that IRGC-Quds Force members were among the Iranians arrested in separate
raids in Baghdad in December and in the northern city of Irbil in January.
The only Iranian official named was Mohsin Chizari, whose arrest in
Baghdad, along with at least four others, provoked protests not only
from Iran, but also from the Iraqi government. Two of those arrested
were credentialled diplomats invited by Iraqi President Jalal Talibani
to Baghdad for talks.
The arrests highlighted the
contradictions of the Bush administration’s policies. In ousting
the regime of Saddam Hussein, the US has had to rely on a puppet government
in Baghdad dominated by Shiite fundamentalist parties that have longstanding
associations with neighbouring Iran. While claiming a UN mandate to
protect the Iraqi government, US officials are accusing associated Shiite
militias of obtaining assistance from Iran.
At the press briefing the
accusations were directed primarily against “rogue elements”
of the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr, which is the main target of the
“surge” of US troops in Baghdad. US officials also charged,
however, that weapons had reached the Badr Brigade connected to the
Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI)—one
of Washington’s closest allies in Iraq.
Iran has vigorously denied
supplying arms to Iraqi militias. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
dismissed the allegations, saying that his country’s security
was dependent on stability in Iraq. Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad
Ali Hosseini declared: “Such accusations cannot be relied upon
or be presented as evidence. The United States has a long history in
fabricating evidence. Such charges are unacceptable.”
In Baghdad, senior Shiite
leader Abu Firas al-Saedi pointed out to Time magazine that the US was
making accusations against Iran, while remaining silent on the support
flowing to Sunni militias from countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait
and Jordan. “We don’t deny that Iran has an interest in
Iraq, and that is a matter of concern,” he said. “But the
real question is: ‘Why are the Arab states allowing terrorists
to enter Iraq through their borders, and why are they financing them?’”
The explanation lies in the
fact that the accusations against Tehran are nothing more than an excuse
as the Bush administration prepares for a military attack. Washington
remains silent on the involvement of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan
in Iraq because it has for the past several months been engaged in a
sustained diplomatic effort to secure an alliance with these Arab states
against alleged “Iranian expansionism”. As well as moving
additional warships into the Persian Gulf, the US has been supplying
Patriot anti-missile systems to bolster the defence of the Gulf States
and their US military bases.
It is an open secret in Washington
that the Bush administration, or a significant section led by Vice President
Dick Cheney, is aggressively pushing for an attack on Iran. On the CBS
program “Face the Nation” last Sunday, Democratic Senator
Chris Dodd expressed “a degree of skepticism” in the latest
allegations against Iran, pointing to the recent Pentagon inspector-general’s
report detailing the activities of the Under Secretary of Defence for
Policy Douglas Feith in manufacturing “intelligence” to
justify the Iraq invasion.
Asked directly if the Bush
administration was laying the groundwork to attack Iran, Dodd answered:
“Well, it could be. There are certainly those who I think are
in favor of that. We’ve seen that in the past, that they would
like nothing more than to build a case for that. Some of us call this,
the year 2007, the year of Iran in a sense, and I’m worried about
that. That’s how we got into the mess in Iraq. That’s why
some of us supported those resolutions, because of doctored information.
“So I’m very
skeptical, based on recent past history, about this administration leading
us in that direction. It worries me. It’s not to say I’m
not worried about Iran. I am worried about Iran, and there’s steps
that could be taken, I think, to try and change the direction they seem
to be heading in. But I’m very nervous about what the groundwork
being laid here as a premise for military action in Iran.”
There is nothing in Dodd’s
remarks to indicate that either he or the Democratic Congress would
oppose a war on Iran, any more than they opposed the invasion of Iraq
or Bush’s current escalation of the war. The American ruling elite
as a whole is determined to establish and maintain US dominance over
the Middle East and its huge energy reserves. But there is a distinct
nervousness that an attack on Iran would have disastrous consequences
and lead to a widening war throughout the region.
In a comment in yesterday’s
New York Times entitled “Scary Movie 2,” columnist Paul
Krugman warned of the danger of a re-run of the war on Iraq. “Attacking
Iran would be a catastrophic mistake, even if all the allegations now
being made about Iranian actions are true. But it wouldn’t be
the first catastrophic mistake this administration has made, and there
are indications that, at the very least, a powerful faction of the administration
is spoiling for a fight,” he wrote.
Krugman pointed out that
one of the White House’s reasons for focussing on the supply of
Iranian arms to Iraq was to avoid the need for Congressional approval.
“If you can claim that Iran is doing evil in Iraq, you can assert
that you don’t need authorisation to attack—that Congress
has already empowered the administration to do whatever is necessary
to stabilise Iraq. And by the time the lawyers are finished arguing—well,
the war would be in full swing,” he commented.
The same pretext could be
used to justify an attack on Iran without UN Security Council approval.
Senior US military officials in Baghdad emphasised to the media that
the press briefing showed their concern for “force protection,”
which, they claimed, was already guaranteed under the UN resolution
authorising the US occupation of Iraq. By claiming to defend US troops,
the Bush administration is seeking to sidestep the objections of US
rivals as it prepares another war of aggression.
While the American media
has highlighted the alleged threat to US forces posed by Iranian-made
weapons, the very last concern of the Bush administration in fabricating
its “dossier” is for the lives of American troops in Iraq.
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights