Seymore Hersh's recent article regarding preparations for war against Iran and John McCain's adviser's recent remark on how a national security threat "would be a big advantage to McCain," are just two examples hinting that, still, many people in Washington and Tel Aviv are planning to paralyze the Iranian government before the new American president enters office next January.
Unexpectedly, even as prospects of negotiation over Iran's nuclear program seem more promising, the possibility of attacking Iran remains strong. Many believe that Iran's nuclear program is not the only concern the country poses to the West.
Regarding the 5+1 negotiations with Iran, it does not appear to be the American way to speak equally to all countries. For instance, a few months ago, a neo-conservative scholar on Iran told me that he believes the U.S. should scare Iranians to death before agreeing to sit behind the negotiations table.
Limited options exist in order to scare Iran to death. The United States and some of its allies in the Middle East have repeatedly accused Iranians of meddling in Iraq and have suggested Iranian forces are responsible for the deaths of some American troops in Iraq. This is something the current administration and mainstream media, supposedly, can use to rally support for another military strike.
That's why understanding the complex dynamic of the EU-Iran exchange is crucial at this time, especially before the general elections, given the possibility of a US-supported, Israeli-led attack against Iran.
At a United Nations press conference last Wednesday, Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki called the West's incentive package for stopping Iran's nuclear program "constructive" and called the atmosphere of the negotiations "respectful."
When I asked him if Iran would stop enriching uranium after a pre-negotiation phase, or after 40 days of freezing sanctions against Iran in response to Iran halting its enrichment program, Mottaki said in a positive tone that a response would soon be delivered to the Europeans.
The word "constructive" used by Iran's foreign minister shows that this time, the incentive package is not designed to fail. But any further unilateral action by any country that undermines the prospect of an agreement with Iran over its nuclear program and possibly other concerns of the West will lead the Middle East to hell. The region cannot withstand more reckless military action.
Based on what I heard in that press conference and what has been revealed in the past days, it appears that Iranians have agreed to not add to the current number of centrifuges in operation and to not inject any more centrifuges with hexafluoride gas an essential part of the uranium enrichment process. Spinning such a large number of centrifuges without gas supports the claims of Iranian authorities that the country intends to at least temporarily halt its nuclear program.
Iran's action fulfills the 5+1 countries' demand to stop enriching uranium and opens a door for further negotiations. It also allows Iran to save face among its people, who largely view the country's nuclear program as a matter of national pride.
Iranians have repeatedly said that halting enrichment would be a product of negotiation, not a pre-condition of it. Tehran's nuclear program has been a matter of national pride for many Iranians, and Tehran's "complicated response" to the EU package stems from a desire to compromise during the process, giving them more time to win popular domestic support for stopping the enrichment process.
That's why the EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Javier Solana described Tehran's response to the P5-plus-1 offer for halting uranium enrichment as a "complicated and difficult letter that must be thoroughly analyzed," (AFP). On Monday, three days after learning of Iran's response, Solana expressed a desire "to meet soon with Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili."
European countries and the United States know that sanctions cannot destroy but only weaken Iran's vast economy, given that rising oil prices have tripled Iran's revenue during the past two years.
If negotiations do not work, it's not difficult to imagine how the end of adopting sanctions will lead to a military action against Tehran. No surprise when I asked Jean-Maurice Ripert, France's new ambassador to the United Nations, whether the EU would support military action against Iran, he replied: "It means all means that are decided by the Security Council," and repeated for emphasis a few more times, " I mean all means." Doesn't that sound familiar?
Follow Omid Memarian on Twitter: www.twitter.com/omid_m
The Israelis "are a complex political group, but you should know this regime will be eventually destroyed and there is no need of any measure by Iranian people," he said when asked to comment on whether he has called for the destruction of Israel.
The entire article:http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1820899,00.html
So we have the infamous Iranian president stating that Iran will not attack Israel, the US intelligence conclusion that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear arms program and few visible hostile actions. No one seriously believes that Iran is the major force behind attacks on US soldiers in Iraq, although the administration trots that out every so often.
So, as rationale for war, the US has -- what? Ahmadinejad wears off-the-rack suits? Has a bad haircut?
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1820899,00.html
from the current issue of Time
There is also the possibility of an earlier-than-previously-contemplated weapon in Iran. The myriad of possibilities could lead a rational country to attack pre-emptively or even preventatively. This would be in accordance with the Cheney "one-percent solution," namely, that if there is even a one-percent probability of an attack, that is, in and of itself, an unreasonable risk - a risk that would justify a pre-emptive or a preventative attack.
The other possibility is that the US and Israel want to set Iran back to the stone age and take its oil and natural gas, "neutralize Iran," and/or gain access to routes for pipelines. There could even be a message to set an example to all others who defy the New World Order.
Finally, there could be a bluff going on until diplomatic solutions are in place.
Iran agrees to give the US and its allies who believe they have credible intelligence on Iran's nuclear threat unfettered access to inspect Iran's alleged nuclear program. If a credible threat is found, the US and its parteners in this diplomatic exercise will have full rights to disarm the program.
If, however, the US and its diplomatic partners do not find credible evidence of nuclear threat capability,
(comparable to finding no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq despite all of the so-called intelligence), then the US and its diplomatic partners would pay what would amount to punitive damages to Iran---let's say the amount of our current military expenditures for two years of war in Iraq. I don't know how many billions that would be but someone in the Administration must.
Unfortunately, you, like many writers, have gotten bogged down in the rhetoric of the day, leaving us without any historic perspective.
First, Iran has the right under international treaty, to which we and all those other E+s are also signatories, to enrich its own uranium on its own soil.
WE HAVE ALL AGREED THAT IRAN HAS A RIGHT TO ENRICH URANIUM - an INALIENABLE right.
In fact, in those treaties, we agreed to HELP Iran to enrich uranium.
We cannot have a rational discussion of the Iran-US situation without including the legitimacy of Iran's insisting that it has the right to enrich uranium.
Iran's claims are manifestly legitimate.
Second, why do you not mention that Iran has already suspended its uranium enrichment program, FOR TWO YEARS, while the IAEA performed the most rigorous inspections anywhere in the world, before it concluded there was NO EVIDENCE of a nuclear weapons program.
Only when Iran got middle-fingered by the then E-3 in response to its enrichment suspension did Iran resume its program.
So, where the FF do we and the E+s have any moral grounds to demand that Iran AGAIN suspend its LEGAL enrichment program before we again twist the knife into the backs of the Iranian people for carrying on what many other countries do already?
It's the insanity of this whole thing that you're missing, Omid.
We need some perspective on this insanity.
So on the track record, Iran is far more likely to be the attacked that the attacker. This, of course, conforms to the functional use of nuclear weapons. While either useless or enormously problematic as aggressive weapons because they inevitably lead to mutual annihilation, nuclear weapons are without peer as a defensive weapon. Nations that have one can't lose a conventional war on their own territory. That the worst they face is terrorism.
For Iran, that's a trade-up. They know better than anyone the odds of the neo-cons launching an attack on them, and also know that their own behavior will make not a scrap of difference to the outcome.
For the neo-cons, that's a loss. They WANT to attack Iran for geopolitical reasons having everything to so with oil & nothing at all to do with fearing a nuclear attack from Iran. They're not crazy and they know Iran's not crazy, either. However, they also know that if Iran manages to queen it's nuclear pawn, that option's off the table.
It is actually quite reasonable that nations might desire to enrich Uranium, NOT to build and detonate a nuclear bomb in an American city, but for ... power.
In fact, when Iran (et al...) is currently making so damm much money from oil sold to the United States, it is actually a pretty-far stretch to think that they really want to use the stuff, say, "to blow-up New York."
We should all sternly remind ourselves that in America we are dealing with an ==industry== of war. And, we should remind ourselves that this is an industry that can pull-down more than $1 million a MINUTE from the Treasury. What does such an industry desire most? Exactly: an enemy much like itself.
Militarily speaking, a nuclear weapon is not much use to anyone. Sure, it can wipe out a city in a single blast, but you can't thereafter occupy the city because you will swiftly die of radiation poisoning. This industry is not based upon ACTUAL USE of nuclear weapons... rather, it is richly endowed by the IDEA.
Almost nothing imaginable would compare with the catastrophe for both Israel and the US that would follow a military strike on Iran.
Military consequences would likely include large losses by the Israeli air force, heavy damage to Tel Aviv and other cities and massive loss of life, and attacks on nuclear installations in and near Israel. If the aircraft pass over Saudi territory, their oil fields may also be struck. Israeli nuclear weapons are useless against close-in retaliation by Hizbollah and Hamas.
There is no missile defense system in place to thwart a large-scale, regional Iranian missile attack.
The US and other industrial nations would experience uncontrollable economic dislocations resulting from runaway oil prices, the probable closure of the Strait of Hormuz. We'd see possible loss of US aircraft carriers and other major vessels. Riots, economic depression and unforeseeable reactions by other Muslim nations would be in the offing.
The US lacks the forces to successfully invade and occupy Iran. There's a limit to what air strikes can achieve, and it doesn't include taking out nuclear enrichment facilities under Iranian mountains. The attack might delay the Iranian bomb program, but it will succeed, especially if motivated by an attack.
If our leaders and the Israelis are really contemplating this, they are stark raving mad.