Bush
And Neocons Beating War
Drums For Attack On Iran
By Linda S. Heard
05 April, 2006
Online
Journal
The lunatics have taken over
the asylum. Even as most rational people realize that the invasion of
Iraq was oiled on the back of fake pretexts and downright lies, the
US and its allies are beating their war drums against Iran, using exactly
the same pretexts.
The really frightening component
is that so many of us are willing to be conned all over again just three
years on.
A few days ago, I watched
the latest “Doha Debate” on BBC World, moderated by Tim
Sebastian. The motion was “Iran poses the greatest threat to security
in the region," supported by more than 36 percent of the audience.
It’s surely mind-boggling
that so many consider Iran the greatest threat when it is a signatory
to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and there is absolutely
no proof that it is developing nuclear weapons.
Conversely, Israel isn’t,
though it has at least 200 nuclear warheads pointing at Middle Eastern
states, nuclear-armed submarines patrolling the Gulf, and has actually
threatened to bomb Iranian nuclear sites, just as it did Iraq’s
Osirak reactor in June 1981.
One member of the audience,
who said he was an American, told the panel that he considered the US
posed the greatest threat to the region -- a comment which received
hearty applause.
It’s hard to believe
that just five years ago, Iran was quietly going about its business,
opening up, liberalizing and sending positive signals to the international
community.
Those were the day when CNN’s
Christiane Amanpour, award-winning journalist and Washington insider,
took us on a sentimental journey to her childhood home and introduced
us to some of her more liberal friends.
During a Feb. 28, 2000, interview,
Amanpour said: “I believe the United States has been very aware
of the changes taking place ever since the election of (Mohammed) Khatami,
nearly three years ago.
“And I believe that
Khatami’s interview with me -- the only interview he’s given
-- when he extended an olive branch to the United States, was a first
step. I believe it is now up to the United States to take a fresh approach
to Iran and to come up with significant gestures . . . Whenever I go
to Iran, I am overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of people telling me
that they, too, wish to have renewed ties with the United States”
Around the same time, the
BBC’s John Simpson was also reported that young Iranians were
excited at the prospect of change.
Just a year later, the US
duly came up with a significant gesture.
But instead of praising Iran
for its newly enlightened path, it was included in George Bush’s
“Axis of Evil." This, more than anything, proves to me that
the Bush administration had no intention of cementing friendly ties
with Iran due to a long-held agenda. Since, just like Iraq, Iran can
do no right.
However, unlike Iraq, which
attempted to appease the Security Council by reopening its doors to
weapons inspectors in 2002, Iran is flexing its military muscle in the
expectation of US or Israeli pre-emptive strikes.
It’s becoming clear
that Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad isn’t prepared
to dance a diplomatic tango, as did Saddam Hussein. And, frankly, who
can blame him when he looks at the state of Iran’s neighbor, for
whom “democracy” has become a dirty, or more accurately,
a bloody word.
The Iranian government realizes
that appeasement won’t necessarily lead to peace and security.
It has gone on the offensive apparently recruiting 40,000 human “time
bombs” to be used in case of conflict, carrying out massive military
exercises in the Gulf and testing long-range near-stealth missiles as
well as a high-speed torpedo.
Rather less in our face is
Western saber rattling. While Condoleezza Rice and her UK counterpart,
Jack Straw, are traveling around urging a diplomatic solution, the Daily
Telegraph’s defense correspondent Sean Rayment provides an inkling
of what’s going on behind closed doors.
“The (British) government
is to hold secret talks with defense chiefs tomorrow to discuss possible
military strikes against Iran,” writes Rayment. “It is believed
that an American-led attack, designed to destroy Iran’s ability
to develop a nuclear bomb, is ‘inevitable’ if Tehran’s
leaders fail to comply with United Nations demands to freeze their uranium
enrichment program."
This follows on from a report
in the Aug. 1, 2005, issue of “The American Conservative,"
beginning: “In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same
people in and around the administration that brought you Iraq are preparing
to do the same for Iran.”
The report says a plan drawn
up by the Pentagon, on instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney,
includes a large-air assault on Iran employing both conventional and
tactical weapons. “Several senior Air Force officers involved
in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what
they are doing -- that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear
attack -- but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any
objections.”
It is believed that small
tactical nuclear weapons might be used -- of the type able to destroy
facilities deep underground.
Lately, I’ve discussed
the possibility of a US strike on Iran with a broad range of experts,
Middle East watchers and intellectuals. Almost without exception, they
believe such aggression won’t happen, pointing to the lives and
treasure the US has already squandered in Iraq and the difficulties
in selling a new war to the American public that is becoming ever more
jaundiced.
Some observers contend the
US is merely engaged in a complex game of poker and when push comes
to shove would not risk endangering the world’s oil market and
pushing up prices to unimaginable heights. Are they right?
If any other US administration
were in the White House, I might feel the same way. But when you have
a born-again president, who believes his wars are Creator-inspired,
advised by a bunch of “Israel first” neocon ideologues,
and others whose pockets are bulging from war-related defense or reconstruction
contracts, then the answer to “will they, or won’t they?”
is, sadly, anyone’s guess.
Linda S. Heard is a British
specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback and
can be contacted by email at [email protected].