Bush's
Tactics Are A
'Declaration Of War' On Iran
By Anne Penketh
13 January, 2007
The
Independent
American
forces stormed Iranian government offices in northern Iraq, hours after
President George Bush issued a warning to Tehran that was described
as a "declaration of war".
The soldiers detained six
people, including diplomats, according to the Iranians, and seized documents
and computers in the pre-dawn raid which was condemned by Iran. A leading
UK-based Iran specialist, Ali Ansari, said the incident was an "extreme
provocation". Dr Ansari said that Mr Bush's speech on future Iraq
strategy amounted to "a declaration of war" on Iran.
"The risk is a wider
war. Because of the underlying tensions, we are transferring from a
'cold war' into a 'hot war'," he said.
In his speech, the President
accused Iran and Syria of providing material support for attacks on
US troops, and vowed to stop the "flow of support" from across
the border. "We will seek out and destroy the networks providing
advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq," he said.
Dr Ansari argued that the
Bush administration had decided to confront Iran at a time when public
opinion has been focused on the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia.
"There's been a shift of emphasis without anyone noticing,"
he said.
"Moderate" Sunni
Arab states who feel threatened by the rise of Shia Iran, thanks to
its influence in Iraq and its refusal to curb its nuclear programme,
could be expected to back the Bush approach, he said. The US Secretary
of State, Condoleezza Rice, is due to visit Egypt, Jordan and Saudi
Arabia this week.
Until now, the Bush administration
had been content to deal with the perceived Iranian threat diplomatically.
The United Nations adopted sanctions against Tehran on 23 December.
However, the economic measures adopted by the UN have failed to convince
Iran to halt its uranium-enrichment programme which could lead to production
of a nuclear weapon. The US is calling on allied states to adopt tougher
unilateral sanctions.
President Bush appointed
Admiral William Fallon to replace General John Abizaid as head of Central
Command for Iraq and Afghanistan last week in a sign that change could
be afoot. This week, Mr Bush ordered a second aircraft carrier to the
Gulf, along with its support ships, which could be used to contain Iran.
The US Treasury named Iran's
Bank Sepah as a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction on Tuesday,
banned US companies or citizens from doing business with it and blocked
any of its assets that come under American jurisdiction.
But if the US is preparing
to confront Iran militarily - which some top military officials in Israel
are reportedly recommending - the Bush administration will find itself
involved in conflicts on four fronts.
In Somalia, US special forces
have been pounding suspected al-Qa'ida suspects since early on Monday,
in a continuing operation that risks pulling the Americans back into
a conflict in a failed state. US forces are also active in southern
Afghanistan in the hunt for the al-Qa'ida leader, Osama bin Laden, and
his top associates. Al-Qa'ida has reactivated its Taliban allies who
have become bolder in their attacks on coalition forces.
In Iraq, US troops are losing
soldiers on an almost daily basis to the bombs of Sunni and Shia insurgents.
The Shia-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was warned
by Ms Rice yesterday that his days were numbered unless he was able
to take on Shia militias who are his allies in government.
Ms Rice followed up President
Bush's tough words on Iran by saying: "The President made very
clear last night that we know Iran is engaged in activities endangering
our troops... and that we're going to pursue those who may be involved
in those activities."
Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman,
Mohammad Ali Hosseini, protested against the raid by US forces in Arbil,
saying on Iranian state-run radio that it targeted a "diplomatic
mission" since the "presence of Iranian staffers in Irbil
was legal".
Ironically, Iran had been
contained by Saddam Hussein, until his overthrow by the Americans in
2003. Obsessed by a threat from "Persian hordes", Saddam maintained
ambiguity about his weapons of mass destruction so Iran would believe
that it had reason to fear its western neighbour. So have the Americans
made a strategic mistake by refusing to engage with Iran? "There's
no doubt that nothing good will come of this," said Dr Ansari.
© 2006 Independent News
and Media Limited
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights