Why Iran will lead to World War 3
Mike Whitney



August 8, 2005


"As President Bush scans the world's horizon there is no greater
potential flashpoint than Iran, the President and his Foreign Policy team
believe the Islamic regime in Tehran is actively pursuing nuclear
weapons." Chris Wallace, FOX News

The facts about Iran's "alleged" nuclear weapons program have never
been in dispute. There is no such program and no one has ever produced a
shred of credible evidence to the contrary. That hasn't stopped the Bush
administration from making spurious accusations and threats; nor has it
deterred America's "imbedded" media from implying that Iran is hiding a
nuclear weapons program from the IAEA (International Atomic Energy
Agency). In fact, the media routinely features the unconfirmed claims of
members of terrorist organizations, like the Mujahedin Klaq, (which is on
the State Depts. list of terrorist organizations) to make it appear that
Iran is secretively developing nuclear arms. These claims have proved to
be entirely baseless and should be dismissed as just another part of
Washington's propaganda war.

Sound familiar?

Iran has no nuclear weapons program. This is the conclusion of
Mohammed el-Baradei the respected chief of the IAEA. The agency has
conducted a thorough and nearly-continuous investigation on all suspected
sites for the last two years and has come up with the very same result
every time; nothing. If we can't trust the findings of these comprehensive
investigations by nuclear experts than the agency should be shut down and
the NPT (Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty) should be abandoned. It is just
that simple.

That, of course, is exactly what the US and Israel would prefer
since they have no intention of complying with international standards or
treaties and are entirely committed to a military confrontation with Iran.
It now looks as though they may have the pretext for carrying out such an
attack.

Two days ago, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman formally rejected a
plan submitted by the EU members that would have barred Iran from
"enrichment-related activities". Foreign Minister Hamid Reza Asefi said,
"The Europeans' submitted proposals regarding the nuclear case are not
acceptable for Iran."

Asefi did the right thing; the offer was conspicuously hypocritical.
The United States doesn't allow any intrusive inspections on its nuclear
weapons sites even though it is the only nation that has ever used nukes
in battle and even though it is developing a whole new regime of tactical
"bunker-buster" bombs for destroying heavily-fortified weapons sites
buried beneath the ground.

The US is also the only nation that claims the right to use nukes in
a "first-strike" capacity if it feels that its national security interests
are at stake.

The NPT is entirely designed to harass the countries that have not
yet developed nuclear weapons and force them to observe rules designed by
the more powerful states. It was intended to maintain the existing
power-structure not to keep the peace.

Even so, Iran is not "violating" the treaty by moving ahead with a
program for "enriching uranium". They don't even have the centrifuges for
conducting such a process. The re-opening of their facility at Isfahan
signals that they will continue the "conversion" process to produce the
nuclear fuel that is required in nuclear power plants. This is all
permitted under the terms of the NPT. They temporarily suspended that
right, and accepted other confidence-building measures, to show the EU
their willingness to find a reasonable solution to mutual concerns. But,
now, under pressure from the Bush administration, the EU is trying to
renege on its part of the deal and change the terms of the treaty itself.

No way.

So far, Iran has played entirely by the rules and deserves the same
considerations as the other signatories of the treaty. The EU members
(England, Germany, and France) are simply back-pedaling in a futile effort
to mollify Washington and Tel Aviv. Besides, when Iran re-opens its plant
and begins work, the UN "watchdog" agency (IAEA) will be present to set up
the necessary surveillance cameras and will resume monitoring everything
that goes on during the sensitive fuel-cycle process.

Iran has shown an unwillingness to be bullied by Washington. The
Bush administration has co-opted the EU to enforce its double-standards by
threatening military action, but that doesn't' conceal the duplicity of
their demands. Why should Iran forgo the processing of nuclear fuel for
peaceful purposes if it is written right into the treaty? Would Israel or
Pakistan accept a similar proposal?

Of course, not. Both countries ignored the treaty altogether and
built their own nuclear weapons behind the back of the international
community. Only Iran has been singled out and punished for COMPLYING with
the treaty. This demonstrates the power of Washington to dictate the
international agenda.

Iran's refusal puts the EU in a position to refer the case to the
IAEA, where the board members will make their determination and decide
whether the case should be sent to the UN Security Council. Whether the
IAEA passes the case along or not makes little difference. Bush, Sharon
and the western media will exploit the details in a way that condemns Iran
and paves the way for a preemptive attack. The drive to war will not be
derailed by mere facts.

Iran has weathered the media criticism and the specious claims of
the Bush administration admirably. They have responded with caution and
discipline seeking reasonable solutions to thorny issues. Never the less,
they have been unwavering in defending their rights under the NPT. This
consistency in behavior suggests that they will be equally unswerving if
they are the targets of an unprovoked attack. We should expect that they
will respond with full force; ignoring the threats of nuclear retaliation.
And, so they should. One only has to look at Iraq to see what happens if
one does not defend oneself. Nothing is worth that.

The Iranian people should be confident that their government will do
whatever is their power to defend their borders, their national
sovereignty and their right to live in peace without the threat of foreign
intervention. That, of course, will entail attacking both Israel and US
forces in Iraq. Whether or not the US actually takes part in the initial
air raids is immaterial; by Mr. Bush's own standards, the allies of "those
who would do us harm" are just as culpable as those who conduct the
attacks. In this case, the US has provided the long-range aircraft as well
as the "bunker-busting" munitions for the planned assault. The
administration's responsibility is not in doubt.

We should anticipate that the Iranian government has a long-range
strategy for "asymmetrical" warfare that will disrupt the flow of oil and
challenge American interests around the world. Certainly, if one is facing
an implacable enemy that is committed to "regime change" there is no
reason to hold back on doing what is necessary to defeat that adversary.
So far, none of the terrorist bombings in London, Spain, Turkey,
Indonesia, Saudi Arabia or the US have implicated even one Iranian
national. That will certainly change. Iranian Intelligence has probably
already planned covert operations that will be carried out in the event of
an unprovoked attack on their facilities. Iran is also likely to become an
active supporter of international terrorist groups; enlisting more
recruits in the war against American interests. After all, any attack on
Iran can only be construed as a declaration of all-out war.

Isn't that so?

If Iran retaliates against Israel or the US in Iraq, then both
nations will proceed with a plan that is already in place to destroy all
of Iran's biological, chemical and conventional weapons sites. In fact,
this is the ultimate US strategy anyway; not the elimination of the
"imaginary" nuclear weapons facilities. Both the US and Israel want to
"de-fang" the Mullah-regime so that they can control critical resources
and eliminate the possibility of a regional rival in the future.

In the short term, however, the plan is fraught with difficulties.
At present, there is no wiggle room in the world's oil supply for massive
disruptions and most experts are predicting shortages in the 4th quarter
of this year. If the administration's war on Iran goes forward we will see
a shock to the world's oil supplies and economies that could be
catastrophic. That being the case, a report that was leaked last week that
***** Cheney had STRATCOM (Strategic Command) draw up "contingency plans
for a tactical nuclear war against Iran", is probably a bit of
brinksmanship intended to dissuade Iran from striking back and escalating
the conflict.

It makes no difference. If Iran is attacked they will retaliate;
that much is certain.
It is always the mistake of extremists to misjudge the behavior of
reasonable men; just as it is always the mistake of reasonable men to
mistake the behavior of extremists.

We should not expect the Bush administration to make a rational
choice; that would be a dramatic departure from every preceding decision
of consequence.
The President of the United States always has the option of
unleashing Armageddon if he so chooses. Normally, however, sanity
prevails.

When the bombs hit the bunkers in Iran; World War 3 will be
underway.

Courtesy and copyright Mike Whitney







:: Article nr. 14453 sent on 09-aug-2005 05:46 ECT


:: The address of this page is : www.uruknet.info?p=14453