[Peace-discuss] Will Bush attack Iran?

[ppatton at uiuc.edu]

Published on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 by Al Jazeera
Sleepwalking to Disaster in Iran
by Scott Ritter
 

Late last year, in the aftermath of the 2004 Presidential
election, I was contacted by someone close to the Bush
administration about the situation in Iraq. There was a
growing concern inside the Bush administration, this source
said, about the direction the occupation was going. The Bush
administration was keen on achieving some semblance of
stability in Iraq before June 2005, I was told.

When I asked why that date, the source dropped the bombshell:
because that was when the Pentagon was told to be prepared to
launch a massive aerial attack against Iran, Iraq's neighbour
to the east, in order to destroy the Iranian nuclear programme.

Why June 2005?, I asked. 'The Israelis are concerned that if
the Iranians get their nuclear enrichment programme up and
running, then there will be no way to stop the Iranians from
getting a nuclear weapon. June 2005 is seen as the decisive date.'

To be clear, the source did not say that President Bush had
approved plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, as has been widely
reported. The President had reviewed plans being prepared by
the Pentagon to have the military capability in place by June
2005 for such an attack, if the President ordered.

But when Secretary of State Condi Rice told America's European
allies in February 2005, in response to press reports about a
pending June 2005 American attack against Iran, she said that
'the question [of a military strike] is simply not on the
agenda at this point -- we have diplomatic means to do this.'

President Bush himself followed up on Rice's statement by
stating that 'This notion that the United States is getting
ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous.' He quickly added,
'Having said that, all options are on the table.' In short,
both the President and the Secretary of State were being
honest, and disingenuous, at the same time.

Truth to be told, there is no American military strike on the
agenda; that is, until June 2005.

It was curious that no one in the American media took it upon
themselves to confront the President or his Secretary of State
about the June 2005 date, or for that matter the October 2004
review by the President of military plans to attack Iran in
June 2005.

The American media today is sleepwalking towards an American
war with Iran with all of the incompetence and lack of
integrity that it displayed during a similar path trodden
during the buildup to our current war with Iraq.

On the surface, there is nothing extraordinary about the news
that the President of the United States would order the
Pentagon to be prepared to launch military strikes on Iran in
June 2005 . That Iran has been a target of the Bush
administration's ideologues is no secret: the President
himself placed Iran in the 'axis of evil' back in 2002, and
has said that the world would be a better place with the
current Iranian government relegated to the trash bin of history.

The Bush administration has also expressed its concern about
Iran's nuclear programmes - concerns shared by Israel and the
European Union, although to different degrees.

In September 2004, Iran rejected the International Atomic
Energy Agency's call for closing down its nuclear fuel
production programme (which many in the United States and
Israel believe to be linked to a covert nuclear weapons
programme).

Iran then test fired a ballistic missile with sufficient range
to hit targets in Israel as well as US military installations
in Iraq and throughout the Middle East.

The Iranian response triggered a serious re-examination of
policy by both Israel and the United States.

The Israeli policy review was driven in part by the Iranian
actions, and in part by Israel's own intelligence assessment
regarding the Iranian nuclear programme, made in August 2004 .

This assessment held that Iran was 'less than a year' away
from completing its uranium enrichment programme. If Iran was
allowed to reach this benchmark, the assessment went on to
say, then it had reached the 'point of no return' for a
nuclear weapons programme. The date set for this 'point of no
return' was June 2005.

Israel's Defense Minister, Shaul Mofaz, declared that 'under
no circumstances would Israel be able to tolerate nuclear
weapons in Iranian possession'.

Since October 2003 Israel had a plan in place for a
pre-emptive strike against Iran's major nuclear facilities,
including the nuclear reactor facility in Busher (scheduled to
become active in 2005).

These plans were constantly being updated, something that did
not escape the attention of the Bush White House.

The Israeli policy toward Iran, when it comes to stopping the
Iranian nuclear programme, has always been for the US to lead
the way.

'The way to stop Iran', a senior Israeli official has said,
'is by the leadership of the US, supported by European
countries and taking this issue to the UN, and using the
diplomatic channel with sanctions as a tool and a very deep
inspection regime and full transparency.'

It seems that Tel Aviv and Washington, DC aren't too far
removed on their Iranian policy objectives, except that there
is always the unspoken 'twist': what if the United States does
not fully support European diplomatic initiatives, has no
interest in letting IAEA inspections work, and envisions UN
sanctions as a permanent means of containment until regime
change is accomplished in Tehran, as opposed to a tool
designed to compel Iran to cooperate on eliminating its
nuclear programme?

Because the fact is, despite recent warm remarks by President
Bush and Condi Rice, the US does not fully embrace the EU's
Iran diplomacy, viewing it as a programme 'doomed to fail'.

The IAEA has come out with an official report, after extensive
inspections of declared Iranian nuclear facilities in November
2004, that says there is no evidence of an Iranian nuclear
weapons programme; the Bush administration responded by trying
to oust the IAEA's lead inspector, Mohammed al-Baradei.

And the Bush administration's push for UN sanctions shows
every intention of making such sanctions deep, painful and
long-lasting.

Curiously, the date for the Bush administration's move to call
for UN sanctions against Iran is June 2005.

According to a US position paper circulated in Vienna at the
end of last month, the US will give the EU-Iran discussions
until June 2005 to resolve the Iranian standoff.

'Ultimately only the full cessation and dismantling of Iran's
fissile material production efforts can give us any confidence
that Iran has abandoned its nuclear weapons ambitions,' the US
draft position paper said.

Iran has called such thinking 'hallucinations' on the part of
the Bush administration.

The American media today is sleepwalking towards an American
war with Iran Economic sanctions and military attacks are not
one and the same. Unless, of course, the architect of
America's Iran policy never intends to give sanctions a chance.

Enter John Bolton, who, as the former US undersecretary of
state for arms control and international security for the Bush
administration, is responsible for drafting the current US
policy towards Iran.

In February 2004, Bolton threw down the gauntlet by stating
that Iran had a 'secret nuclear weapons programme' that was
unknown to the IAEA. 'There is no doubt that Iran has a secret
nuclear weapons production programme', Bolton said, without
providing any source to back up his assertions.

This is the same John Bolton who had in the past accused Cuba
of having an offensive biological weapons programme, a claim
even Bush administration hardliners had to distance themselves
from.

John Bolton is the Bush official who declared the European
Union's engagement with Iran 'doomed to fail'. He is the Bush
administration official who led the charge to remove Muhammad
al-Baradai from the IAEA.

And he is the one who, in drafting the US strategy to get the
UN Security Council to impose economic sanctions against Iran,
asked the Pentagon to be prepared to launch 'robust' military
attacks against Iran should the UN fail to agree on sanctions.

Bolton understands better than most the slim chances any
US-brokered sanctions regime against Iran has in getting
through the Security Council.

The main obstacle is Russia, a permanent member of the
Security Council who not only possesses a veto, but also is
Iran's main supporter (and supplier) when it comes to its
nuclear power programme.

Since October 2003 Israel had a plan in place for a
pre-emptive strike against Iran's major nuclear facilities

John Bolton has made a career out of alienating the Russians.
Bolton was one of the key figures who helped negotiate a May
2002 arms reduction treaty signed by Presidents George W. Bush
and Vladimir Putin in Moscow.

This treaty was designed to reduce the nuclear arsenals of
both America and Russia by two thirds over a 10 year period.

But that treaty - to Russia's immense displeasure - now
appears to have been made mute thanks to a Bolton-inspired
legal loophole that the Bush administration had built into the
treaty language.

John Bolton knows Russia will not go along with UN sanctions
against Iran, which makes the military planning being
conducted by the Pentagon all the more relevant.

John Bolton's nomination as the next US Ambassador to the
United Nations is as curious as it is worrying. This is the
man who, before a panel discussion sponsored by the World
Federalist Association in 1994, said 'There is no such thing
as the United Nations.'

For the United States to submit to the will of the Security
Council, Bolton wrote in a 1999 Weekly Standard article, would
mean that 'its discretion in using force to advance its
national interests is likely to be inhibited in the future.'

But John Bolton doesn't let treaty obligations, such as those
incurred by the United States when it signed and ratified the
UN Charter, get in the way. 'Treaties are law only for US
domestic purposes', he wrote in a 17 November 1997 Wall Street
Journal Op Ed. 'In their international operation, treaties are
simply political obligations.'

John Bolton believes that Iran should be isolated by United
Nations sanctions and, if Iran will not back down from its
nuclear programme, confronted with the threat of military action.

And as the Bush administration has noted in the past,
particularly in the case of Iraq, such threat must be real and
meaningful, and backed by the will and determination to use it.

And the Bush administration's push for UN sanctions shows
every intention of making such sanctions deep, painful and
long-lasting. John Bolton and others in the Bush
administration contend that, despite the lack of proof, Iran's
nuclear intentions are obvious.

In response, the IAEA's Muhammad al-Baradai has pointed out
the lack of a 'smoking gun' which would prove Iran's
involvement in a nuclear weapons programme. 'We are not God',
he said. 'We cannot read intentions.'

But, based upon history, precedent, and personalities, the
intent of the United States regarding Iran is crystal clear:
the Bush administration intends to bomb Iran.

Whether this attack takes place in June 2005, when the
Pentagon has been instructed to be ready, or at a later date,
once all other preparations have been made, is really the only
question that remains to be answered.

That, and whether the journalists who populate the mainstream
American media will continue to sleepwalk on their way to
facilitating yet another disaster in the Middle East.

Scott Ritter former UN Chief Weapons inspector in Iraq,
1991-1998 author of 'Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of
America's Intelligence Conspiracy'.
__________________________________________________________________
Dr. Paul Patton
spring semster 2005
Visiting Assistant Professor
Department of Biology, Williams College
Williamstown, MA
phone: (413)-597-3518

Research Scientist
Beckman Institute  Rm 3027  405 N. Mathews St.
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign  Urbana, Illinois 61801
work phone: (217)-265-0795   fax: (217)-244-5180
home phone: (217)-344-5812
homepage: http://netfiles.uiuc.edu/ppatton/www/index.html

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious.  It is the
source of all true art and science."
-Albert Einstein
__________________________________________________________________