Newsgroup: it.arti.cinema
Titolo: The United States, Israel, and the Possible Attack on Iran

Stephen Zunes | April 28, 2006
Foreign Policy In Focus
www.fpif.org
With even mainstream media outlets like the Washington
Post and The New Yorker publishing credible stories
that the United States is seriously planning a military
attack on Iran, increasing numbers of Americans are
expressing concerns about the consequences of the
United States launching another war that would once
again place the United States in direct contravention
of international law.
The latest National Security Strategy document
published earlier this year labeled Iran as the most
serious challenge to the United States posed by any
country. This should be an indication of just how safe
the United States is in the post-Cold War world, where
the "most serious challenge" is no longer a rival
superpower with thousands of nuclear weapons and
sophisticated delivery systems capable of destroying
the United States, but a Third World country on the far
side of the planet which, according to the latest
National Intelligence Estimate out of Washington, is at
least 10 years away from actually producing a usable
nuclear weapon. Furthermore, Iran has no capacity to
develop any delivery system in the foreseeable future
capable of landing a weapon within 10,000 miles of our
shores.
However, despite the fact that there is no evidence
that Iran is even developing nuclear weapons in the
first place, the Bush administration and Congressional
leaders of both parties argue that simply having the
technology which would make it theoretically possible
for Iran to manufacture a nuclear weapon at some point
in the future is sufficient casus belli. As part of his
desperate search for enemies, President Bush claimed in
January that a nuclear-armed Iran would be "a grave
threat to the security of the world," words that echoed
language he used in reference to Iraq prior to the 2003
invasion of that oil-rich country. Meanwhile, Vice
President Dick Cheney vowed "meaningful consequences"
if Iran did not give up its nuclear program and U.S.
Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton claimed
there would be "tangible and painful consequences" if
Iran did not cooperate.
The Washington Post quoted White House sources as
reporting that "Bush views Tehran as a serious menace
that must be dealt with before his presidency ends,"
apparently out of concern that neither a Democratic nor
Republican successor might be as willing to consider a
military option.
Not that he needs to worry about that. Senator Hillary
Rodham Clinton, widely seen as the front-runner for the
2008 Democratic presidential nomination, accused the
Bush administration in January of not taking the threat
of a nuclear Iran seriously enough, criticized the Bush
administration for allowing European nations to take
the lead in pursuing a diplomatic solution, and
insisted that the administration should make it clear
that military options were being actively considered.
Similarly, Democratic Senator Evan Bayh, another likely
contender for the Democratic presidential nomination,
accused the Bush administration of "ignoring and then
largely deferring management of this crisis to the
Europeans." Taking the diplomatic route, according to
Bayh, "has certainly been damaging to our national
security."
Despite the hostility of these two Democratic senators
toward diplomatic means of resolving the crisis and the
similarity of their rhetoric to the false claims they
made prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq that Saddam
Hussein's government was a threat to global security
and that diplomatic solutions were impossible, both
Clinton and Bayh are widely respected by their fellow
Democrats as leaders on security policy.
Indeed, in May of 2004, the U.S. House of
Representatives passed a resolution with only three
dissenting votes calling on the Bush administration to
"use all appropriate means"--presumably including
military force--to "prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear
weapons."
As with the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, both
Republican and Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill have
tended to call witnesses before the relevant committees
who would present the most alarmist perceptions as
fact. Last month, for example, Patrick Clawson of the
right-wing Washington Institute for Near East Policy
testified before the Senate International Relations
Committee that, "So long as Iran has an Islamic
Republic, it will have a nuclear-weapons program, at
least clandestinely." None of the senators present,
however, bothered to mention the inconvenient fact that
under the secular regime of the Shah that preceded the
Islamic Republic, Iran also had a nuclear program
(which was actively supported and encouraged by the
United States.) However, Clawson said that since a
nuclear program was inevitable under the Islamic
Republic, only by overthrowing the government--not
through a negotiated settlement--would the United
States be safe from the nuclear threat. He insisted,
therefore, that "the key issue" was not whether an arms
control agreement could be enforced, but "How long will
the present Iranian regime last?"
The Risks from a U.S. Attack on Iran
With the ongoing debacle in Iraq, any kind of ground
invasion of Iran by U.S. forces is out of the question.
Iran is three times bigger than Iraq, both in terms of
population and geography. It is a far more mountainous
country that would increase the ability of the
resistance to engage in guerrilla warfare and the
intensity of the nationalist backlash against such a
foreign invasion would likely be even stronger.
An attack by air and sea-launched missiles and bombing
raids by fighter jets would be a more realistic
scenario. However, even such a limited military
operation would create serious problems for the United
States.
The Washington Post, in a recent article about a
possible U.S. strike against Iran, quoted Reuel Marc
Gerecht, a former CIA Middle East specialist, as noting
how "The Pentagon is arguing forcefully against it
because it is so constrained" by ongoing operations in
neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan. Similarly, the Post
quoted a former Pentagon official in contact with his
former colleagues as observing how "I don't think
anybody's prepared to use the military option at this
point." Given that the growing opposition to Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld 's handling of the war in
Iraq within the leadership of the armed services, as
expressed by a number of prominent recently-retired
generals, would make a major military operation without
strong support from America's military leadership
particularly problematic.
Fears expressed by some opponents of possible U.S.
military action against Iran that the Iranians would
retaliate through terrorist attacks against American
interests are probably not realistic. Indeed, Iran's
control over foreign terrorist groups and its role in
terrorist operations has frequently been exaggerated by
American analysts.
for the rest of this article, go to
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3251
-- 
www.iaciners.org
Edna 'E' Mode: Luck favors the prepared.

 
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3251
-- 
www.iaciners.org
Elastigirl: Girls, come on. Leave the saving of the world up to the men? I
don't think so.