Proxy war could soon turn to direct conflict, analysts warn
US strikes on Iran predicted as tension rises over arms smuggling
and nuclear fears
Julian Borger and Ian Black
Saturday September 15, 2007
The Guardian
The growing US focus on confronting Iran in a proxy war inside Iraq
risks triggering a direct conflict in the next few months, regional
analysts are warning.
US-Iranian tensions have mounted significantly in the past few days,
with heightened rhetoric on both sides and the US decision to establish a
military base in Iraq less than five miles from the Iranian border to
block the smuggling of Iranian arms to Shia militias.
The involvement of a few hundred British troops in the
anti-smuggling operation also raises the risk of their involvement in a
cross-border clash.
US officers have alleged that an advanced Iranian-made missile had
been fired at an American base from a Shia area, which if confirmed would
be a significant escalation in the "proxy war" referred to this week by
General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq.
"The proxy war that has been going on in Iraq may now cross the
border. This is a very dangerous period," Patrick Cronin, the director of
studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said.
Iran's leaders have so far shown every sign of relishing the
confrontation. The supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, declared
yesterday that American policies had failed in the Middle East and warned:
"I am certain that one day Bush and senior American officials will be
tried in an international court for the tragedies they have created in
Iraq."
In such circumstances, last week's Israeli air strike against a
mystery site in northern Syria has triggered speculation over its motives.
Israel has been silent about the attack. Syria complained to the UN
security council but gave few details. Some say the target was Iranian
weapons on their way to Hizbullah in Lebanon, or that the sortie was a dry
run for a US-Israeli attack on Syria and Iran. There is even speculation
that the Israelis took out a nuclear facility funded by Iran and supplied
by North Korea
The situation is particularly volatile because the struggle for
influence threatens to exacerbate a confrontation over Tehran's nuclear
ambitions.
The US has called a meeting of major powers in Washington next
Friday to discuss Iran's defiance of UN resolutions calling for its
suspension of uranium enrichment. It comes amid signs that the Bush
administration is running out of patience with diplomatic efforts to curb
the nuclear programme. Hawks led by the vice-president, ***** Cheney, are
intensifying their push for military action, with support from Israel and
privately from some Sunni Gulf states.
"Washington is seriously reviewing plans to bomb not just nuclear
sites, but oil sites, military sites and even leadership targets. The talk
is of multiple targets," said Mr Cronin. "In Washington there is very
serious discussion that this is a window that has to be looked at
seriously because there is only six months to 'do something about Iran'
before it will be looked at as a purely political issue."
US presidential elections are due in November 2008, and military
action at the height of the campaign is usually seen by voters as
politically motivated.
Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counter-terrorism chief who is now
a security analyst, said: "The decision to attack was made some time ago.
It will be in two stages. If a smoking gun is found in terms of Iranian
interference in Iraq, the US will retaliate on a tactical level, and they
will strike against military targets. The second part of this is: Bush has
made the decision to launch a strategic attack against Iranian nuclear
facilities, although not before next year. He has been lining up some
Sunni countries for tacit support for his actions."
US and British officials have complained to Iran about the use by
Shia militias in Iraq of what they say are Iranian-made weapons. The main
concern is the proliferation of roadside bombs that fire a bolt of molten
metal through any thickness of armour, which the officials say must have
been made in Iran.
A US military spokesman in Baghdad, Major General Kevin Bergner,
raised the stakes when he said the 240mm rocket that hit the US military
headquarters outside Baghdad this week, killing an American soldier and
wounding 11, had been supplied to Shia militants by Iran.
Gen Bergner used to work in the White House, where he was aligned
with administration hawks, and his dispatch to Baghdad was seen by some as
a move to increase pressure on Iran.
"There are an awful lot of lower level officers who are very angry
about the deaths from explosively formed projectiles said to come from
Iran. There is a certain amount of military pressure to do something about
this," said Patrick Clawson, the deputy director for research at the
Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "That said, it is very
difficult for us to do anything without much better evidence. In that
respect, border control is a sensible solution."
Any US decision to attack Iran would force Gordon Brown to choose
between creating a serious rift in the transatlantic alliance and
participating in or endorsing American actions. British officials insist
that Washington has given no sign it is ready to abandon diplomacy and
argue that UN sanctions are showing signs of working. They point to the
resurgence in Iran of Hashemi Rafsanjani, seen as a pragmatic
counterweight to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Hopes that a new war could still be avoided have also been boosted
by Gen Petraeus's claim that Iran's covert Quds force alleged to be
supporting Shia attacks on coalition forces had been pulled out of Iraq.
If true, it could be that in the stand-off between the US and Iran, Iran
has blinked first.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0%2C%2C2169798%2C00.html
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
