February 7, 2006
The current flurry of Western diplomacy will probably turn out to be groundwork for launching missiles at Iran.
Air attacks on targets in Iran are very likely. Yet many antiwar Americans seem eager to believe that won't happen.
Illusion 1: With the U.S. military bogged down in Iraq, the Pentagon is in no position to take on Iran.
But what's on the
horizon is not an invasion -- it's a major air assault, which the
American military can easily inflict on Iranian sites. (And if the task
falls to the Israeli military, it is also well-equipped to bomb Iran.)
Illusion 2: The Bush administration is in so much political trouble at home -- for reasons including its lies about Iraqi WMDs
-- that it wouldn't risk an uproar from an attack on Iran.
But the White
House has been gradually preparing the domestic political ground for
bombing Iran. As the Wall Street Journal reported days ago, "in recent
polls a surprisingly large number of Americans say they would support
U.S. military strikes to stop Tehran from getting the bomb."
Above
those words, the Journal's headline -- "U.S. Chooses Diplomacy on
Iran's Nuclear Program" -- trumpeted the Bush administration's game
plan. It's a time-honored scam: When you're moving toward aggressive
military action, emphasize diplomacy.
Donald
Rumsfeld proclaimed at a conference in Munich on Saturday that
-- to put a stop to Iran's nuclear program -- the world should work for
a "diplomatic solution." Yet the next day, the German daily newspaper
Handelsblatt reports, Rumsfeld said in an interview: "All options
including the military one are on the table."
Top
U.S. officials, inspired by the royal "W," aren't hesitating to speak
for the world. Over the weekend, Condoleezza Rice
said: "The world will not stand by if Iran continues on the path to a
nuclear weapons capability." Meanwhile, Rumsfeld declared: "The Iranian
regime is today the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. The
world does not want, and must work together to prevent, a nuclear
Iran."
Translation: First we'll be diplomatic, then we can bomb.
Illusion 3: The
U.S. won't attack Iran because that would infuriate the millions of
Iran-allied Shiites in Iraq, greatly damaging the U.S. war effort there.
But projecting
rationality onto the Bush administration makes little sense at this
point. The people running U.S. foreign policy have their own
priorities, and avoiding carnage is not one of them.
Non-proliferation
doesn't rank very high either, judging from Washington's cozy
relationships with the nuclear-weapons powers of Israel, India and
Pakistan. Unlike Iran, none of those countries are signatories to the
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Only Iran has been allowing
inspections of its nuclear facilities -- and it is Iran that the
savants in Washington are now, in effect, threatening to bomb.
With
sugar-plum visions of Iran's massive oil and natural-gas reserves
dancing in their heads, the Washington neo-cons evidently harbor some
farfetched hopes of bringing about the overthrow of the Iranian regime.
But in the real world, an attack on Iran would strengthen its most
extreme factions and fortify whatever interest it has in developing
nuclear arms.
"The
U.S. will not solve the nuclear problem by threatening military strikes
or by dragging Iran before the U.N. Security Council," Iran's 2003
Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi wrote in the Jan. 19 edition of
the Los Angeles Times, in an oped piece co-authored by Muhammad Sahimi,
a professor of chemical engineering at the University of Southern
California. "Although a vast majority of Iranians despise the country's
hard-liners and wish for their downfall, they also support its nuclear
program because it has become a source of pride for an old nation with
a glorious history."
The
essay added: "A military attack would only inflame nationalist
sentiments. Iran is not Iraq. Given Iranians' fierce nationalism and
the Shiites' tradition of martyrdom, any military move would provoke a
response that would engulf the entire region, resulting in countless
deaths and a ruined economy not only for the region but for the world.
Imposing U.N. sanctions on Iran would also be counterproductive,
prompting Tehran to leave the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its
'additional protocol.' Is the world ready to live with such prospects?"
While
calling for international pressure against Iran's serious violations of
human rights, Ebadi and Sahimi said that "Iran is at least six to 10
years away from a nuclear bomb, by most estimates. The crisis is not
even a crisis. There is ample time for political reform before Iran
ever develops the bomb."
Last
Friday, the Iranian Student News Agency quoted Iran's former president
Muhammad Khatami, who urged the Iranian government to offer assurances
that the country's nuclear program is only for generating electricity.
"It is necessary to act wisely and with tolerance so that our right to
nuclear energy will not be abolished," he said.
Though
he failed to develop much political traction for reform during his
eight years as president, Khatami was a moderating force against
human-rights abuses. His demagogic successor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a
menace to human rights and peace. But it's by no means clear that
Ahmadinejad can count on long-term support from the nation's ruling
clerics.
The
man he defeated in the presidential runoff last summer, former
president Hashemi Rafsanjani, wields significant power as head of the
government's Expediency Council. Though he has a well-earned reputation
as a corrupt opportunist, Rafsanjani is now a beacon of enlightenment
compared to Ahmadinejad.
In
early January, a pair of Iran scholars -- Dariush Zahedi and Ali
Ezzatyar, based at the University of California in Berkeley
-- wrote an LA Times piece making this point: "Contrary to popular
belief, the traditional conservative clerical establishment is
apprehensive about the possibility of violence inside and outside Iran.
It generally opposes an aggressive foreign policy and, having some
intimate ties with Iran's dependent capitalist class, is appalled at
the rapid slide of the economy since Ahmadinejad's inauguration. The
value of Tehran's stock market has plunged $10 billion, the nation's
vibrant real estate market has withered and capital outflows are
increasing."
And
the scholars added pointedly: "The history of U.S.-Iran relations shows
that the more Washington chastises Tehran for its nuclear ambitions,
the more it plays into the hands of the radicals by riling up fear and
nationalist sentiment."
Right
now, the presidents of Iran and the United States are thriving on the
belligerency of the other. From all indications, a military assault on
Iran would boost Ahmadinejad's power at home. And it's a good bet that
the U.S. government will do him this enormous favor. Unless we can
prevent it.
Norman Solomon's latest book is "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death." For information, go to: www.WarMadeEasy.com