BUSH GONE WILD: Trying to Start War Against Iran

[Guest guest]

http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/

 

BUSH GONE WILD

Trying to Start War Against Iran

 

PARIS--We're already at war with Iran. The question isn't whether or

not they'll fight back. The question is when and how.

 

Bush used his State of the Union address to signal that Iran is his

next target of war, calling it " the world's primary state sponsor of

terror--pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the

freedom they seek and deserve. " Though Condoleezza Rice pledges that

war against Iran " is simply not on the agenda at this point, " she

issued similar assurances in 2002 when, in fact, Bush had already

green-lighted war against Iraq. " When asked [at her confirmation

hearing] whether the United States' goal was to replace the Islamic

Republic [of Iran], " reports the International Herald-Tribune, Rice

" did not say no. " And for good reason. As the White House confirms,

U.S. Special Forces commandos have been operating on Iranian soil

since last year, scoping out military bases as targets of future

airstrikes. United Press International reports that U.S. spy jets have

been deployed over Iran in order to goad defense radar stations into

locking in on them, revealing their positions for the coming war. Can

you imagine how Bush would react to news that Mexican ground troops

were snapping souvenir photos of Los Alamos, or that the Canadian air

force was jetting over the Midwestern stratosphere? There's no

difference. In such a case Bush could easily get the U.N. to sign off

on war. This is more than a one-time border incursion. This is

invasion, under international law the ultimate justification for a

declaration of war--by Iran.

 

Since they declared mission accomplished in Iraq a couple of years

ago, the hard-right Bush Administration's most bellicose zealots have

been itching to invade Iran. But Bush probably can't let Cheney,

Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz have their way. Afghanistan and Iraq have used

up all of our available troops and cash. Even cutting and running from

Iraq wouldn't do the trick. If 150,000 soldiers stationed in Iraq

can't defeat a few thousand resistance fighters with RPGs and IEDs,

how will they fare against Iran--a nation three times the size of

Iraq, whose terrain includes a range of big-ass mountains, which has a

half-million-man standing army equipped with modern hardware?

 

Denied their longed-for ground invasion, the neocons have fallen back

to the next best thing: using Israel to launch proxy airstrikes

against possible WMD and other military installations in Iran's

eastern desert. Placing Iran as the " top of the list " of the world's

most troublesome nations during a high-profile television appearance,

Dick Cheney referenced Israel's 1981 preemptive bombing of an Iraqi

nuclear reactor as a model for U.S. military action against Iran.

" They understand that they were overly optimistic about Iraq, " a

person in a position to know the Administration's intentions tells me.

" But they think they've learned from their mistakes, that young

Iranians want democracy. If we put the mullahs off-balance, they say,

the people will overthrow them. "

 

That's a big gamble. Iran already has, in Ian Bremmer's words, " one of

the most pluralist and (relatively) democratic regimes in the Middle

East. " Moreover, distrust of the United States--which overthrew Iran's

democratic government in 1953, backed the Shah's vicious dictatorship

and has worked tirelessly to ruin the Iranian economy through

sanctions and covert sabotage since the 1978 Islamic revolution--can

hardly be overstated. The kids may want freedom, but they don't

believe the U.S. will deliver it. And they live right next door to

Iraq, where American " liberation " leaves something to be desired.

 

In the middle to long run, " surgical " airstrikes on Iranian military

infrastructure would probably be even more costly to U.S. interests

than an outright ground invasion. Because Iranian officials have lived

under the threat of attack for 25 years, they've taken pains to

carefully conceal their extensive military infrastructure, which may

include nuclear weapons. Pentagon analysts concede that these efforts

have been effective enough to deny Israel or the U.S. the ability to

cripple Iran's ability to field fighter jets or launch missiles.

 

Iranian leaders already feel the squeeze between U.S.-occupied Iraq

and Afghanistan. The day after an Israeli or U.S. attack, Iranian

leaders would correctly surmise that failure to respond would

undermine their domestic political credibility. Jumping through

U.S.-imposed hoops, as Saddam did during the winter of 2002-3, would

be perceived by the Bushists as an indication of weakness.

Ex-president Hussein can tell you how well cooperation works.

 

The nightmare scenario happens to be the most likely. To stand a

chance in its confrontation with the United States, Iran would require

the support of neighboring Arab countries. But now that Iraq has been

neutered by partition, civil war and occupation, Iran is the only

large majority Shia nation in the Middle East. Since many Sunnis

consider Shiaism a heretical strain of Islam, Iranians would otherwise

suffer alone. Were Iran to retaliate against Israel--whether

responding to an attack originating from the U.S. or Israel wouldn't

matter since Iran's missiles could only reach the latter--that would

change. Arab states, forced to choose between Shia Iran and the Jewish

state, would yield to popular pressure to come to Iran's aid. If the

Iranians have managed to build one nuke, they might use it against Tel

Aviv. Cheney's half-baked rehash of 1981 could fulfill every late 20th

century's worst-case scenario by setting ablaze the entire Middle East.

 

If war follows its own internal logic, so does the clash of words and

gestures that leads up to it. The U.S. has backed Iran into a

geographic and diplomatic corner, breaking the first rule of

Machiavelli 101 by encouraging nuclear proliferation as the sole

guarantee against U.S.-led regime change. (Kim Jung Il, President

Khatami on Line 1.) Losing the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq made

the Bushists Gone Wild lose face; now they need a bigger win than

ever. One hopes for cool heads to prevail, but they are in short

supply. The two sides are locked in a death grip in which

self-perpetuation necessitates the other's destruction.

 

COPYRIGHT 2005 TED RALL

 

RALL 2/8/05