| Topic: |
Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus |
| User: |
"=?utf-8?B?VGhlIExhc3QgMjQ5MyBkYXlz4oSiIOKZpQ==?=" |
| Date: |
21 Feb 2006 01:54:17 AM |
| Object: |
World War III or Bust: Implications of a US Attack on Iran |
February 20, 2006
World War III or Bust: Implications of a US Attack on Iran
by Heather Wokusch
February 19, 2006
globalresearch.ca (Global Research Exclusive)
"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is
simply ridiculous... Having said that, all options are on the table."
George W. Bush, February 2005
Witnessing the Bush administration=E2=80=99s drive for an attack on Iran is
like being a passenger in a car with a raving drunk at the wheel.
Reports of impending doom surfaced a year ago, but now it=E2=80=99s officia=
l:
under orders from Vice President Cheney=E2=80=99s office, the Pentagon has
developed =E2=80=9Clast resort=E2=80=9D aerial-assault plans using long-dis=
tance B2
bombers and submarine-launched ballistic missiles with both
conventional and nuclear weapons.
How ironic that the Pentagon proposes using nuclear weapons on the
pretext of protecting the world from nuclear weapons. Ironic also that
Iran has complied with its obligations under the Non-Proliferation
Treaty, allowing inspectors to =E2=80=9Cgo anywhere and see anything,=E2=80=
=9D yet
those pushing for an attack, the USA and Israel, have not.
The nuclear threat from Iran is hardly urgent. As the Washington Post
reported in August 2005, the latest consensus among U.S. intelligence
agencies is that =E2=80=9CIran is about a decade away from manufacturing the
key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous
estimate of five years.=E2=80=9D The Institute for Science and International
Security estimated that while Iran could have a bomb by 2009 at the
earliest, the US intelligence community assumed technical difficulties
would cause =E2=80=9Csignificantly delay.=E2=80=9D The director of Middle E=
ast
Studies at Brown University and a specialist in Middle Eastern energy
economics both called the State Department=E2=80=99s claims of a
proliferation threat from Iran=E2=80=99s Bushehr reactor =E2=80=9Cdemonstra=
bly
false,=E2=80=9D concluding that =E2=80=9Cthe physical evidence for a nuclear
weapons program in Iran simply does not exist.=E2=80=9D
So there=E2=80=99s no urgency - just a bad case of d=C3=A9j=C3=A0 vu all ov=
er again.
The Bush administration is recycling its hype over Hussein=E2=80=99s suppos=
ed
WMD threat into rhetoric about Iran, but look where the charade got us
last time: tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians, a country
teetering on civil war and increased global terrorism.
Yet the stakes in Iran are arguably much higher.
Consider that many in the US and Iran seek religious salvation through
a Middle Eastern blowout. =E2=80=9CEnd times=E2=80=9D Christian fundamental=
ists
believe a cataclysmic Armageddon will enable the Messiah to reappear
and transport them to heaven, leaving behind Muslims and other
non-believers to face plagues and violent death. Iran=E2=80=99s new Shia
Islam president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, subscribes to a competing version
of the messianic comeback, whereby the skies turn to flames and blood
flows in a final showdown of good and evil. The Hidden Imam returns,
bringing world peace by establishing Islam as the global religion.
Both the US and Iran have presidents who arguably see themselves as
divinely chosen and who covet their own country=E2=80=99s apocalypse-seeking
fundamentalist voters. And into this tinderbox Bush proposes bringing
nuclear weapons.
As expected, the usual suspects press for a US attack on Iran. Neo-cons
who brought us the =E2=80=9Ccakewalk=E2=80=9D of Iraq want to bomb the coun=
try.
There=E2=80=99s also Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, busy coordinating the acti=
on
plan against Iran, who just released the Pentagon=E2=80=99s Quadrennial
Defense Review calling for US forces to =E2=80=9Coperate around the globe=
=E2=80=9D
in an infinite =E2=80=9Clong war.=E2=80=9D One can assume Rumsfeld wants to=
bomb a
lot of countries.
And there=E2=80=99s Israel, keen that no other country in the region gains
access to nuclear weapons. In late 2002, former Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon said Iran should be targeted =E2=80=9Cthe day after=E2=80=9D Iraq was
subdued, and Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the Likud Party, recently
warned that if he wins the presidential race in March 2006, Israel will
=E2=80=9Cdo what we did in the past against Saddam=E2=80=99s reactor,=E2=80=
=9D an obvious
reference to the 1981 bombing of the Osirak nuclear facility in Iraq.
It doesn=E2=80=99t help that Iran=E2=80=99s Ahmadinejad has called the Holo=
caust a
myth and said that Israel should be "wiped off the map."
In the eyes of the Bush administration, however, Iran=E2=80=99s worst
transgression has less to do with nuclear ambitions or anti-Semitism
than with the petro-euro oil bourse Tehran is slated to open in March
2006. Iran=E2=80=99s plan to allow oil trading in euros threatens to break
the dollar=E2=80=99s monopoly as the global reserve currency, and since the
greenback is severely overvalued due to huge trade deficits, the move
could be devastating for the US economy.
So we remain pedal to the metal with Bush for an attack on Iran.
But what if the US does go ahead and launch an assault in the coming
months? The Pentagon has already identified 450 strategic targets, some
of which are underground and would require the use of nuclear weapons
to destroy. What happens then?
You can bet that Iran would retaliate. Tehran promised a =E2=80=9Ccrushing
response=E2=80=9D to any US or Israeli attack, and while the country =E2=80=
=93
ironically - doesn=E2=80=99t possess nuclear weapons to scare off attackers,
it does have other options. Iran boasts ground forces estimated at
800,000 personnel, as well as long-range missiles that could hit Israel
and possibly even Europe. In addition, much of the world=E2=80=99s oil supp=
ly
is transported through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow stretch of ocean
which Iran borders to the north. In 1997, Iran=E2=80=99s deputy foreign
minister warned that the country might close off that shipping route if
ever threatened, and it wouldn=E2=80=99t be difficult. Just a few missiles =
or
gunboats could bring down vessels and block the Strait, thereby
threatening the global oil supply and shooting energy prices into the
stratosphere.
An attack on Iran would also inflame tensions in the Middle East,
especially provoking the Shiite Muslim populations. Considering that
Shiites largely run the governments of Iran and Iraq and are a potent
force in Saudi Arabia, that doesn=E2=80=99t bode well for calm in the regio=
n=2E
It would incite the Lebanese Hezbollah, an ally of Iran=E2=80=99s,
potentially sparking increased global terrorism. A Shiite rebellion in
Iraq would further endanger US troops and push the country deeper into
civil war.
Attacking Iran could also tip the scales towards a new geopolitical
balance, one in which the US finds itself shut out by Russia, China,
Iran, Muslim countries and the many others Bush has managed to offend
during his period in office. Just last month, Russia snubbed Washington
by announcing it would go ahead and honor a $700 million contract to
arm Iran with surface-to-air missiles, slated to guard Iran=E2=80=99s nucle=
ar
facilities. And after being burned when the US-led Coalition
Provisional Authority invalidated Hussein-era oil deals, China has
snapped up strategic energy contracts across the world, including in
Latin America, Canada and Iran. It can be assumed that China will not
sit idly by and watch Tehran fall to the Americans.
Russia and China have developed strong ties recently, both with each
other and with Iran. Each possesses nuclear weapons, and arguably more
threatening to the US, each holds large reserves of US dollars which
can be dumped in favor of euros. Bush crosses them at his nation=E2=80=99s
peril.
Yet another danger is that an attack on Iran could set off a global
arms race - if the US flaunts the non-proliferation treaty and goes
nuclear, there would be little incentive for other countries to abide
by global disarmament agreements either. Besides, the Bush
administration=E2=80=99s message to its enemies has been very clear: if you
possess WMD you=E2=80=99re safe, and if you don=E2=80=99t, you=E2=80=99re f=
air game. Iraq
had no nuclear weapons and was invaded, Iran doesn=E2=80=99t as well and
risks attack, yet that other =E2=80=9CAxis of Evil=E2=80=9D country, North =
Korea,
reportedly does have nuclear weapons and is left alone. It=E2=80=99s also
hard to justify striking Iran over its allegedly developing a secret
nuclear weapons program, when India and Pakistan (and presumably
Israel) did the same thing and remain on good terms with Washington.
The most horrific impact of a US assault on Iran, of course, would be
the potentially catastrophic number of casualties. The Oxford Research
Group predicted that up to 10,000 people would die if the US bombed
Iran=E2=80=99s nuclear sites with conventional weapons, and that an attack =
on
the Bushehr nuclear reactor could send a radioactive cloud over the
Gulf. If the US uses nuclear weapons, such as earth-penetrating
=E2=80=9Cbunker buster=E2=80=9D bombs, radioactive fallout would become eve=
n more
disastrous.
Given what=E2=80=99s at stake, few allies, apart from Israel, can be expect=
ed
to support a US attack on Iran. While Jacques Chirac has blustered
about using his nukes defensively, it=E2=80=99s doubtful that France would
join an unprovoked assault, and even loyal allies, such as the UK,
prefer going through the UN Security Council.
Which means the wildcard is Turkey. The nation shares a border with
Iran, and according to Noam Chomsky, is heavily supported by the
domestic Israeli lobby in Washington, permitting 12% of the Israeli air
and tank force to be stationed in its territory. Turkey=E2=80=99s crucial
role in an attack on Iran explains why there=E2=80=99s been a spurt of
high-level US visitors to Ankara lately, including Secretary of State
Condoleeza Rice, FBI Director Robert Mueller and CIA Director Porter
Goss. In fact, the German newspaper Der Spiegel reported in December
2005 that Goss had told the Turkish government it would be =E2=80=9Cinformed
of any possible air strikes against Iran a few hours before they
happened=E2=80=9D and that Turkey had been given a "green light" to attack
camps of the separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in Iran =E2=80=9Con
the day in question.=E2=80=9D
It=E2=80=99s intriguing that both Valerie Plame (the CIA agent whose identi=
ty
was leaked to the media after her husband criticized the Bush
administration=E2=80=99s pre-invasion intelligence on Iraq) and Sibel Edmon=
ds
(the former FBI translator who turned whistleblower) have been linked
to exposing intelligence breaches relating to Turkey, including
potential nuclear trafficking. And now both women are effectively
silenced.
The US public sees the issue of Iran as backburner, and has little
eagerness for an attack on Iran at this time. A USA Today/CNN Gallup
Poll from early February 2006 found that a full 86% of respondents
favored either taking no action or using economic/diplomatic efforts
towards Iran for now. Significantly, 69% said they were concerned
=E2=80=9Cthat the U.S. will be too quick to use military force in an attempt
to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.=E2=80=9D
And that begs the question: how can the US public be convinced to enter
a potentially ugly and protracted war in Iran?
A domestic terrorist attack would do the trick. Just consider how long
Congress went back and forth over reauthorizing Bush=E2=80=99s Patriot Act,
but how quickly opposing senators capitulated following last week=E2=80=99s
nerve-agent scare in a Senate building. The scare turned out to be a
false alarm, but the Patriot Act got the support it needed.
Now consider the fact that former CIA Officer Philip Giraldi has said
the Pentagon=E2=80=99s plans to attack Iran were drawn up =E2=80=9Cto be em=
ployed
in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United
States.=E2=80=9D Writing in The American Conservative in August 2005, Giral=
di
added, =E2=80=9CAs in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on
Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against
the United States.=E2=80=9D
Chew on that one a minute. The Pentagon=E2=80=99s plan should be used in
response to a terrorist attack on the US, yet is not contingent upon
Iran actually having been responsible. How outlandish is this scenario:
another 9/11 hits the US, the administration says it has secret
information implicating Iran, the US population demands retribution and
bombs start dropping on Tehran.
That=E2=80=99s the worst-case scenario, but even the best case doesn=E2=80=
=99t look
good. Let=E2=80=99s say the Bush administration chooses the UN Security
Council over military power in dealing with Iran. That still leaves the
proposed oil bourse, along with the economic fallout that will occur if
OPEC countries snub the greenback in favor of petro-euros. At the very
least, the dollar will drop and inflation could soar, so you=E2=80=99d think
the administration would be busy tightening the nation=E2=80=99s collective
belt. But no. The US trade deficit reached a record high of $725.8
billion in 2005, and Bush & Co.=E2=80=99s FY 2007 budget proposes increasing
deficits by $192 billion over the next five years. The nation is
hemorrhaging roughly $7 billion a month on military operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq, and is expected to hit its debt ceiling of $8.184
trillion next month.
So the white-knuckle ride to war continues, with the administration=E2=80=
=99s
goals in Iran very clear. Recklessly na=C3=AFve and impetuous perhaps, but
clear: stop the petro-euro oil bourse, take over Khuzestan Province
(which borders Iraq and has 90% of Iran=E2=80=99s oil) and secure the Strai=
ts
of Hormuz in the process. As US politician Newt Gingrich recently put
it, Iranians cannot be trusted with nuclear technology, and they also
"cannot be trusted with their oil."
But the Bush administration cannot be trusted with foreign policy. Its
military adventurism has already proven disastrous across the globe.
It=E2=80=99s incumbent upon each of us to do whatever we can to stop this
race towards war.
Heather Wokusch is a free-lance writer working on a book for
progressives. She can be contacted via her web site at:
www.heatherwokusch.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole
responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of
the Centre for Research on Globalization.
To become a Member of Global Research
The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca
grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles in
their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites,
as long as the text & title are not modified. The source must be
acknowledged and an active URL hyperlink address to the original CRG
article must be indicated. The author's copyright note must be
displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or
other forms including commercial internet sites, contact:
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We
are making such material available to our readers under the provisions
of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of
political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to
use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must
request permission from the copyright owner.
To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion at Global
Research's News and Discussion Forum
For media inquiries:
=C2=A9 Copyright Heather Wokusch, globalresearch.ca (Global Research
Exclusive), 2006
The url address of this article is:
www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=3DviewArticle&code=3DWOK20060219&ar=
ticleId=3D2002
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
UNCLE WALLY 'S WORLD WAR III NEWZ FILEZ ... We can attack Iran, says US commander -- SUNDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2007
WORLD WAR III NEWS....28/8/6 --Iran tests submarine-to-surface missile
WORLD WAR III NEWS, Wednesday, April 12th, 2006 AD....Saudi Arabia seeks Russian help to prevent US strike on Iran
WORLD WAR III NEWZ 26/5/7..... US Wargames off Iran's Coast, Amphibious Landing Exercise in Kuwait
World War III **NEWS** Tuesday, September 30, 2003..Iran warns Israel against strike on nuclear sites
UNCLE WALLY 'S WORLD WAR III NEWZ CENTER (20/9/7) 13:23 A.E.S.T. Iran: Retaliation for any Israeli attack
=?utf-8?q?World_War_III_NEWS....11/5/6...The_president_of_Iran_wants_to_talk_=E2=80=93_why_don't_we=3F?=
World War III NEWS, Thursday, April 6th, 2006 AD....Iran Test-Fires 'Top Secret' Missile
| 2 articles: (1.) World has reached 'pivotal moment' regarding Iran: Israeli PM --- (2.) Target Iran - Countdown Timeline
World War III NEWS, Friday, May 5th, 2006 AD....Iran military plays down threat to strike Israel
World War III ***NEWS*** Update 6/7/4........Iran's supreme leader warns US of global retaliation to any attack
WORLD WAR III NEWS, Sunday, April 9th, 2006 AD........Report: U.S. plans air attack on Iran; IAEA inspectors in Tehran
WORLD WAR III NEWZ -- COMING VERY SOON BTW -- MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN THE ONLY WAY SAYS ISRAEL'S IDF
WORLD WAR III NEWS, SUNDAY, MARCH 12th, 2006 AD....Iran threatens to use oil as weapon
World War III NEWS, Wednesday, April 5th, 2006 AD.....Iran says it can handle any invasion
|
|
|
