Note: On Tuesday, the five
veto-wielding permanent members of the United
Nations Security Council (the United States,
China, Russia, France and the United Kingdom) and
Germany failed to reach an agreement on a Security
Council resolution with regard to Iran's nuclear
program that would open the possibility of
imposing sanctions on Iran. In his report to the
Security Council last Friday, International Atomic
Energy Agency director general Mohamed ElBaradei
said Iran had failed to halt its
uranium-enrichment activities within the 30-day
period prescribed by the Security Council on March
29.
With even mainstream media outlets
such as the Washington Post and The New Yorker
publishing credible stories that the
United
States is seriously planning a military attack on
Iran, increasing numbers of Americans are
expressing concerns about the consequences of the
US launching another war that would once again
place it in direct contravention of international
law.
The latest US National Security
Strategy document, published this year, labeled
Iran as the most serious challenge to the United
States posed by any country. This should be an
indication of just how safe the US is in the
post-Cold War world, where the "most serious
challenge" is no longer a rival superpower with
thousands of nuclear weapons and sophisticated
delivery systems capable of destroying the
country, but a Third World nation on the far side
of the planet that, according to the latest
National Intelligence Estimate out of Washington,
is at least 10 years away from actually producing
a usable nuclear weapon.
Furthermore, Iran
has no capacity to develop any delivery system in
the foreseeable future capable of landing a weapon
within 16,000 kilometers of US shores.
However, despite the fact that there is no
evidence that Iran is even developing nuclear
weapons in the first place, the Bush
administration and congressional leaders of both
main US parties argue that simply having the
technology that would make it theoretically
possible for Iran to manufacture a nuclear weapon
at some point in the future is sufficient casus
belli.
As part of his desperate search
for enemies, President George W Bush claimed in
January that a nuclear-armed Iran would be "a
grave threat to the security of the world", words
that echoed language he used in reference to Iraq
prior to the 2003 invasion of that oil-rich
country.
Meanwhile, Vice President Dick
Cheney vowed "meaningful consequences" if Iran did
not give up its nuclear program, and US Ambassador
to the United Nations John Bolton claimed there
would be "tangible and painful consequences" if
Iran did not cooperate.
The Washington
Post quoted White House sources as reporting that
"Bush views Tehran as a serious menace that must
be dealt with before his presidency ends",
apparently out of concern that neither a
Democratic nor Republican successor might be as
willing to consider a military option.
Not
that he needs to worry about that. Senator Hillary
Rodham Clinton, widely seen as the front-runner
for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination,
accused the Bush administration in January of not
taking the threat of a nuclear Iran seriously
enough, criticized the administration for allowing
European nations to take the lead in pursuing a
diplomatic solution, and insisted that the
administration should make it clear that military
options were being actively considered.
Similarly, Democratic Senator Evan Bayh,
another likely contender for the Democratic
presidential nomination, accused the Bush
administration of "ignoring and then largely
deferring management of this crisis to the
Europeans". Taking the diplomatic route, according
to Bayh, "has certainly been damaging to our
national security".
Despite the hostility
of these two Democratic senators toward diplomatic
means of resolving the crisis and the similarity
of their rhetoric to the false claims they made
prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq that Saddam
Hussein's government was a threat to global
security and that diplomatic solutions were
impossible, both Clinton and Bayh are widely
respected by their fellow Democrats as leaders on
security policy.
Indeed, in May 2004, the
US House of Representatives passed a resolution,
with only three dissenting votes, calling on the
Bush administration to "use all appropriate means"
- presumably including military force - to
"prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons".
As with the lead-up to the invasion of
Iraq, Republican and Democratic leaders on Capitol
Hill have tended to call witnesses before the
relevant committees who would present the most
alarmist perceptions as fact. Last month, for
example, Patrick Clawson of the right-wing
Washington Institute for Near East Policy
testified before the Senate International
Relations Committee: "So long as Iran has an
Islamic Republic, it will have a nuclear-weapons
program, at least clandestinely."
None of
the senators present, however, bothered to mention
the inconvenient fact that under the secular
regime of the shah that preceded the Islamic
Republic, Iran also had a nuclear program (which
was actively supported and encouraged by the
United States). However, Clawson said that since a
nuclear program was inevitable under the Islamic
Republic, only by overthrowing the government -
not through a negotiated settlement - would the US
be safe from the nuclear threat. He insisted,
therefore, that "the key issue" was not whether an
arms-control agreement could be enforced, but "how
long will the present Iranian regime last?"
The risks from a US attack on Iran With the ongoing debacle in Iraq, any kind of
ground invasion of Iran by US forces is out of the
question. Iran is three times as big as Iraq, in
terms of both population and geography. It is a
far more mountainous country that would increase
the ability of the resistance to engage in
guerrilla warfare, and the intensity of the
nationalist backlash against such a foreign
invasion would likely be even stronger.
An
attack by air- and sea-launched missiles and
bombing raids by fighter jets would be a more
realistic scenario. However, even such a limited
military operation would create serious problems
for the US.
The Washington Post, in a
recent article about a possible US strike against
Iran, quoted Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former Central
Intelligence Agency Middle East specialist, as
noting that "the Pentagon is arguing forcefully
against it because it is so constrained" by
ongoing operations in neighboring Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Similarly, the Post quoted a
former Pentagon official in contact with his
former colleagues as observing, "I don't think
anybody's prepared to use the military option at
this point." Given the growing opposition to
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld 's handling of
the war in Iraq within the leadership of the armed
services, as expressed by a number of prominent
recently retired generals, a major military
operation without strong support from America's
military leadership would be particularly
problematic.
Fears expressed by some
opponents of possible US military action against
Iran that the Iranians would retaliate through
terrorist attacks against US interests are
probably not realistic. Indeed, Iran's control
over foreign terrorist groups and its role in
terrorist operations have frequently been
exaggerated by US analysts.
However, there
are a number of areas in which the United States
would be particularly vulnerable to Iranian
retaliation. One would be in the Persian Gulf,
where US Navy ships could become easy targets for
Iranian missiles and torpedoes.
Perhaps
more serious problems would be in Iraq, where US
troops are operating against the Sunni-led
insurgency alongside Iranian-backed pro-government
militias. If these Iranian-backed militias also
decided to turn their guns on American forces, the
US would be caught in a vise between both sides in
the country's simmering civil war with few places
to hide.
It would be difficult for the US
to label militias affiliated with the ruling
parties of a democratically elected government
fighting foreign occupation forces in their own
country as "terrorists" or to use such attacks as
an excuse to launch further military operations
against Iran. (Given that the Iraqi government is
ruled by two pro-Iranian parties, recent charges
by the Bush administration that Iran is aiding the
anti-government Sunni insurgency are utterly
ludicrous and have been rejected by Baghdad.)
A US air strike would be a clear violation
of the UN Charter and would be met by widespread
condemnation in the international community. It
would further isolate the US as a rogue superpower
at a time in which it needs to repair its damaged
relations with its European and Middle Eastern
allies.
Even Britain has expressed its
opposition to military action. Pro-Western Arab
states, despite their unease at Iran's nuclear
program, would react quite negatively to a US
strike, particularly since it would likely
strengthen anti-American extremists by allowing
them to take advantage of popular opposition to
the US utilizing force against a Muslim nation in
order to defend the US-Israeli nuclear monopoly in
the region.
As a result, the negative
consequences of a US attack may be strong enough
to persuade even the Bush administration not to
proceed with the military option.
Israel as a proxy Though direct
US military action against Iran is still very
possible, it is more likely that the United States
will encourage Israel to take military action
instead. In such a scenario, US officials believe
that the United States would gain the perceived
benefits of a military strike against Iran while
limiting the damage to the US by focusing the
world's wrath on Israel.
Fox News has
reported that Bush administration officials in
effect told the Israelis that "we are doing the
heavy lifting in Iraq and Afghanistan ... and that
Israel needs to handle this themselves".
Israel has repeatedly demonstrated its
willingness to violate international legal norms
and - with US veto power blocking the Security
Council from imposing sanctions on Israel, and the
United States providing vast sums of unconditional
military and economic assistance to the Israeli
government - its ability to get away with doing
so.
The Israeli government is convinced
that the US occupation of Iraq has radicalized the
Iranian clerical leadership and that Iran, unlike
Iraq in the final years of Saddam Hussein, poses a
risk to Israel's national-security interests.
However, for reasons mentioned above, Israeli
leaders have been reported to believe that the US
will not move militarily against Iran and that
they will end up using their own forces instead.
An Israeli strike is not inevitable,
however. Public opinion polls show that a majority
of Israelis oppose the idea. Policy analyst Steve
Clemons was quoted in the Washington Monthly as
saying, "I have witnessed far more worries about
Iranian President [Mahmud] Ahmadinejad's
anti-Holocaust and anti-Israel rhetoric in the US
than I did in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem ... Nearly
everyone I spoke to in Israel, who ranged in
political sympathies from the Likud right to ...
left, thought that ... Israel thought it
wrong-headed and too impulsive to be engaged in
saber-rattling with Iran at this stage."
He added, "Israeli national-security
bureaucrats - diplomats and generals - have far
greater confidence that there are numerous
potential solutions to the growing Iran crisis
short of bombing them in an invasive, hot attack."
There is no indication that Iran would
ever contemplate a first strike against Israel or
any other country. Tehran, like other Islamic
governments in the region, has used Israel's
repression of the Palestinians for propaganda
purposes, but has rarely done anything actually to
help the Palestinians. It is inconceivable that
the Iranians would ever consider launching a
nuclear attack on Israel - which possesses at
least 300 nuclear weapons and sophisticated
missiles and other delivery systems that could
destroy Iran - for the sake of the Palestinians,
many thousands of whom would die as well. However,
an Israeli attack could give Iran grounds for
retaliation.
Despite these dangers, Israel
- with US encouragement - has long considered the
possibility of an attack against Iran.
In
the mid-1990s, prior to the election of the
US-backed Likud government of Benjamin Netanyahu
to office, the peace process with the Palestinians
was progressing steadily, a peace treaty had been
signed with Jordan, and diplomatic and commercial
ties with other Arab states was growing.
With the prospects of a permanent
Israeli-Arab peace, US arms exporters and their
allies in Congress and the administration of
president Bill Clinton, along with their hawkish
counterparts in Israel, began emphasizing the
alleged threat to Israel from Iran as
justification for the more than $2 billion worth
of annual US taxpayer subsidies for US arms
exporters for them to send weapons to Israel.
Among these was an agreement to provide
Israel with sophisticated F-15 fighter-bombers. As
the peace process faltered because of increased
repression and colonization by Israel and
increased terrorism from radical Palestinian
groups and as reformists appeared to be gaining
momentum in Iran, Israel began focusing on more
immediate threats closer to home, though
deliveries of the F-15s continued through 2001.
Last year, however, the US unexpectedly
provided Israel with an additional 30 long-range
F-15s at a cost of $48 million each. The US has
also recently provided Israel with 5,000 GBU-27
and GBU-28 weapons, better known as
"bunker-busters", warheads guided by lasers or
satellites that can penetrate up to 10 meters of
earth and concrete to destroy suspected
underground facilities.
Reuters reported a
senior Israeli security source as noting, "This is
not the sort of ordnance needed for the
Palestinian front. Bunker-busters could serve
Israel against Iran ..." Israel also has at least
five submarines armed with sea-launched missiles
that could easily get within range of Iranian
targets.
One scenario reportedly has
Israel sending three squadrons of F15s to fly over
Jordanian and Iraqi airspace, currently controlled
by the US Air Force, to strike at major Iranian
facilities. The US would provide satellite
information for the attack as well as refueling
for the Israeli jets as they leave Iranian air
space for their return to Israel.
The
London Sunday Times has reported that the Israelis
have been "coordinating with American forces" for
such a scenario. That same article described
Israeli commando training operations at a
full-sized mockup of Iran's Natanz nuclear
facility at a military facility in Israel's Negev
Desert and the dispatch of clandestine Israeli
Special Forces units into Iran. Meanwhile, the
Israeli Ofek-6 spy satellite is now reported to
have been moved to an orbit over Iranian
facilities.
As far back as April 2004,
Bush exchanged letters with Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon in which he stated, in reference to Iran,
that "Israel has the right to defend itself with
its own forces".
Despite the widely held
tail-wagging-the-dog assumptions, history has
shown that the US has frequently used Israel to
advance its strategic interests in the region and
beyond, such as aiding pro-Western governments and
pro-Western insurgencies, keeping radical
nationalist governments such as Syria in check,
and engaging in covert interventions in Jordan,
Lebanon, and now Kurdistan.
During the
1980s, Israel was used to funnel arms to third
parties the US could not arm directly, such as the
apartheid regime South Africa, the Guatemalan
junta, the Nicaraguan Contras and, ironically, the
Iranian mullahs. Israel's bombing of Iraq's Osirak
nuclear reactor in 1981 - despite formal criticism
- was enthusiastically supported by the
administration of US president Ronald Reagan.
One Israeli analyst was quoted as saying
in the Washington Post during the Iran-Contra
scandal, "It's like Israel has become just another
federal agency, one that's convenient to use when
you want something done quietly." Nathan Shahan
wrote in Yediot Ahronot that his country serves as
the "Godfather's messenger", since Israel
"undertakes the dirty work of the Godfather, who
always tries to appear to be the owner of some
large, respectable business".
Israeli
satirist B Michael describes US aid to Israel as a
situation where "my master gives me food to eat
and I bite those whom he tells me to bite. It's
called strategic cooperation."
Just as the
ruling elites of medieval Europe used the Jews as
money-lenders and tax collectors to avoid the
wrath of an exploited population, the elites of
the world's one remaining superpower would
similarly be quite willing to use Israel to do
their dirty work against Iran. That way Israel,
not the US, will get the blame. (In fact, there
are those who blame Israel even when the United
States takes military action itself, such as the
various conspiracy theories now circulating that
the US invasion of Iraq was done on behalf of
Israel.)
It won't work A
military strike against Iran, either directly by
the US or through Israel, will not likely succeed
in curbing Iran's nuclear program. Indeed, it will
likely motivate the Iranian government, with
enhanced popular support in reaction to foreign
aggression against their country, to redouble its
efforts.
Iran has deliberately spread its
nuclear facilities over a wide geographical range,
in at least nine major locations. Even the
bunker-buster bombs may not fully penetrate a
number of these facilities, assuming all the
secret sites could be located.
The
US-backed Israeli raid of Iraq's Osirak reactor in
1981, according to virtually all accounts by Iraqi
nuclear scientists, was at most a temporary
setback for Saddam Hussein's nuclear program and
ultimately led to the regime accelerating its
timetable for the development of nuclear weapons
until it was dismantled under the watch of the
UN's International Atomic Energy Agency in the
early 1990s. Despite this, the US Congress passed
a resolution in 1991 defending Israel's action and
criticizing the UN for its opposition to Israel's
illegal military attack.
The only real
solution to the standoff over Iran's nuclear
program is a diplomatic one. For example, Iran has
called for the establishment of a
nuclear-weapons-free zone for the entire Middle
East in which all nations in the region would be
required to give up their nuclear weapons and open
up their programs to strict international
inspections. Iran has been joined in its proposal
by Syria, by US allies Jordan and Egypt, and by
other Middle Eastern states. Such
nuclear-weapons-free zones have already been
successfully established for Latin America, the
South Pacific, Antarctica, Africa and Southeast
Asia.
The Bush administration and
congressional leaders of both US parties have
rejected such a proposal, however, insisting that
the United States has the right to decide
unilaterally which countries get to have nuclear
weapons and which ones do not, in effect imposing
a kind of nuclear apartheid.
In 1958, the
US was the first country to introduce nuclear
weapons into the Middle East region, bringing
tactical nuclear bombs on its ships and planes.
Israel became a nuclear-weapons state by the early
1970s with the quiet support of the US government.
To Iran's east, Pakistan and India have developed
nuclear weapons as well, and the Bush
administration recently signed a nuclear
cooperation agreement with India and has provided
both countries with nuclear-capable jet
fighter-bombers.
Located in such a
dangerous region, then, it is not surprising that
Iran might be seeking a nuclear deterrent. The US
and Israel do not want Iran to have such a
deterrent, however, since it would challenge the
US-Israeli nuclear monopoly in that oil-rich
region. In other words, what those in the Bush
administration, the Israeli government and the
bipartisan leadership in Congress are concerned
about is protecting the hegemonic interests of the
US and its junior partner Israel, not stopping the
proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Such a
policy does not protect the interests of the
American or Israeli people, nor does it help the
people of Iran and the Middle East as a whole. It
remains to be seen, however, whether the American
public will once again allow the Bush
administration and the leadership of both parties
in Congress successfully to employ exaggerated
stories of potential "weapons of mass destruction"
controlled by an oil-rich country on the far side
of the world to justify a disastrous war.
Stephen Zunes is Middle East
editor for the Foreign Policy In Focus Project. He
serves as a professor of politics at the
University of San Francisco and is the author of
Tinderbox: US Middle East Policy and the Roots
of Terrorism (Common Courage Press, 2003).
