US
complicit in Israel war plans for
Iran By Kaveh L Afrasiabi
After supplying Israel with the massive
bunker-buster bombs that would be critical in any
Israeli military strike on Iran, the US government
now wants to have it both ways, trying to shield
itself from any backlash by insisting it would not
be "complicit" in such an Israeli gambit.
General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US
Joint Chiefs of Staff, raised some eyebrows last
week, especially in the Israeli media, by stating
publicly: "I don't want to be complicit if they
[Israel] choose to do it." As if intent on
convincing Iran of US's determination to stay out
of a Tehran-Tel Aviv duel, over the
weekend there were unconfirmed
reports of secret talks between Tehran and
Washington, although this has been adamantly
denied by the White House.
Regardless,
according to various sources, including Hezbollah
leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, Iran could strike
at US bases in the region if attacked by Israel.
This echoes the sentiment of several Iranian
military officials including commanders of the
revolutionary guards who have warned in the past
of making no distinctions between US and Israel if
the latter dared to attack Iran.
From
Iran's vantage point, Iran's threat against the US
forces stationed in Iran's vicinity acts as a
deterrent against any Israeli strike and,
therefore, the US's attempt to jettison itself out
of the equation is actually an inducement to the
military scenario, much as it is interpreted in
Israel and the West as a sign of US's disapproval
of an Israeli strike.
According to a
Tehran political science professor who spoke with
the author on the condition of anonymity, the US's
"neutrality posture" rings hollow because
Washington has supplied the "30,000 pounds
deep-earth penetrators" that will likely be used
against Iran. "During the Iran-Iraq war Iran made
the mistake of not holding the Western suppliers
of chemical weapons to Saddam Hussain accountable
and Iran will not make that mistake again," says
the Tehran professor.
Regarding those
bunker-buster bombs, last September the US
admitted that it had delivered 55 of those monster
bombs (sure to inflict major "collateral damage")
to Israel, after being approved by the Obama
administration in 2009. In effect, this means that
by making the fateful decision to arm Israel with
the necessary military muscle to initiate a
unilateral attack on Iran, the US has sealed its
image as "complicit" irrespective of how its top
generals want to create a safe buffer for their
forces in the region; this is not to mention the
likely US intelligence sharing with Israel that
would go into preparation for any attack on Iran.
Henceforth, the only scenario whereby Iran
would not retaliate against the US would be a US
guarantee that the US-made bombs would not be used
by Israel, ie, a virtual impossibility. This is
partly because although the US arms sales to
Israel are rationalized as purely defensive and,
yet, Israel's rationalization of "preemptive
strike" on Iran as an act of "self-defense" brings
it into line with the terms of those arms sales.
Regardless of such pseudo-rationalizations
that would certainly not wash with the rest of the
international community, in light of the Tehran
summit of the Non-Aligned Movement last week that
resulted in a unanimous statement in support of
Iran's nuclear program, not to mention Germany's
and France's warning to Israel not to attack Iran,
it is amply clear now that US would inevitably be
dragged into any Iran-Israel conflict. This could
well take the form of naval confrontations in the
Persian Gulf in case Iran retaliates by closing
the Strait of Hormuz.
Meanwhile, as if
realizing that Israel has a great deal of work to
do to convince the Western governments and publics
regarding the imminent Iran "nuclear threat,"
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's new tactic is
to exhort the West to draw a "clear red line" on
Iran. Yet, chances are that Netanyahu's call will
go unanswered, due principally to the absence of a
legal justification for the western opposition to
Iran's possession of dual nature nuclear
technology that gives it latent nuclear weapons
capability.
In other words, neither the US
nor any of its Western allies can possibly declare
a "red line" on Iran's nuclear weapons capability
by virtue of its potential to cross the threshold
of "weaponization" above all by producing
weapons-grade enriched uranium. But, as long as
all of Iran's enrichment activities are monitored
by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
and there is no evidence of either military
diversion or weapons-grade enrichment, Iran
theoretically remains immune from the impositions
of any "red line".
"In essence what Israel
is requesting from Americans is to draw an
arbitrary line," says the Tehran professor, adding
that the US "would only isolate itself in the
world if it appeased Israel."
Tehran's
counter-strategy has been to give further
assurance of its peaceful nuclear activities, in
part by showcasing the enrichment facilities to
the visiting Mongolian president over the weekend.
Such efforts are meant to alleviate the
international concerns over the latest IAEA report
that cites a doubling of Iran's centrifuges in the
underground facility known as Fordo.
Yet,
Iran's position is that it has not breached its
obligations by increasing its enrichment
activities that are "fully monitored by the IAEA
inspections as well as cameras," to paraphrase
Iran's envoy to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh in
a recent conversation with the author. In fact,
the US media often give the misleading impression
that Fordo is outside the IAEA inspection regime
and that the atomic agency would fail to detect
any weapons grade enrichment and or military
diversion.
Conclusion: Need for new
US-Iran dialogue In conclusion, there are
compelling reasons for a bilateral US-Iran
dialogue that would cover both the nuclear
standoff as well as a host of regional issues,
including Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. Indeed
there is more than sufficient reason for a
superpower and a regional power to set aside their
hesitations and engage in face-to-face
communication on a broad range of issues of mutual
concern.
With respect to Syria, Iran has
endorsed Egypt's proposal for a four-country
contact group consisting of Egypt, Turkey, Iran,
and Saudi Arabia, which is a timely regional
initiative to address the deadly Syrian quagmire.
Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN special envoy on Syria,
has explicitly opposed the idea of foreign
intervention in Syria, and the economically
hard-pressed Europeans simply lack the resources
to embark on a Libyan-style "no-fly" operation.
These, together with the huge influx of radical
Jihadists into the Syrian civil war, raise the
chances for the regional effort mentioned above.
The Israelis and their lobbyists in Washington may
dread the mere thought of a behind-the-scene
US-Iran talks, yet few in the US nowadays fail to
recognize the importance of such an initiative.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
