[Peace-discuss] US needs war in the Mideast

[C. G. Estabrook]

[I can't believe that the Obama administration will do it, but Obama has said 
consistently from the time he ran for the Senate, in 2004, that he would.  I 
think we do have to believe him. --CGE]

"The [US policy] being canvassed — but not so openly discussed — is to 
dramatically intensify action to compel Iran to accede to US demands. The case 
is argued in today’s New York Times by Howard Berman, the Democrat [sic] 
chairman of the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs. He declares: 'It is 
foolhardy to believe that the West could contain or deter Tehran were it to 
acquire the bomb ... If recalcitrant governments seek to block or dilute the 
ability of the United Nations to take strong swift action, then we Americans 
will have no choice but to act on our own' ... the only 'option' left, should 
sanctions fail to bring Iran to heel, is the military one. The transfer of 
bunker-buster bombs to Diego Garcia, along with a string of visits by top US 
generals to the Middle East in recent weeks and US assistance to Saudi Arabia 
and the Gulf States to bolster anti-missile systems, are all evidence of the 
advanced nature of US preparations for a military attack on Iran. While the 
outcome of the current debate in Washington is not yet clear, no one can rule 
out a reckless new US military adventure against Iran as the Obama 
administration seeks to extricate itself from a mounting political crisis both 
at home and abroad."

	US prepares for military confrontation with Iran
	By Peter Symonds
	20 March 2010

An article in the Scottish-based Sunday Herald last weekend provided an ominous 
reminder that the Obama administration has retained what is euphemistically 
described as the “military option” against Iran — that is, massive, unprovoked 
US air strikes.

The newspaper reported that the US military was moving 387 bunker-buster bombs, 
from California to the US base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, in 
preparation for a possible attack on Iran. Superior Maritime Services was 
contracted in January to transport 10 containers of munitions, including 195 
smart Blu-110 bombs and 192 huge 2,000 pound Blu-117 bombs, which are designed 
for use against hardened or underground structures.

The Sunday Herald cited Dan Plesch, director of the Centre for International 
Studies and Diplomacy (CISD) at the University of London, who said: “They are 
gearing up totally for the destruction of Iran. US bombers are ready today to 
destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours.” According to a CISD study in 
2007, the Pentagon’s war plans, drawn up under the Bush administration, would 
not only target Iran’s nuclear facilities but its air defences, military and 
industrial capacity.

None of the analysts interviewed by the newspaper described a US attack as 
imminent. But Plesch commented: “The US is not publicising the scale of these 
preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely. The US 
... is using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions”...


Shining a media spotlight on Chinese interests only underscores the fact that 
the US confrontation with Iran is not about its alleged plans to build a nuclear 
weapon. Rather, Washington is exploiting the issue to block the interests of its 
European and Asian rivals and to further its own ambitions for dominance in the 
energy-rich Middle East and Central Asia...

Washington’s diplomatic efforts are running into obstacles on other fronts. US 
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s trip to Moscow this week has turned into a 
debacle. In what can only be described as a calculated diplomatic snub, Russian 
President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia and Iran would complete the 
process of starting up the long-delayed, Russian-built power reactor at Bushehr 
within months. In a joint press conference with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei 
Lavrov on Thursday, Clinton criticised the plan as “premature” because “we want 
to send an unequivocal message to the Iranians”.

Clinton was obviously hoping for Russian support for stronger sanctions. Last 
year Obama shut down the planned US anti-ballistic missile system in Poland and 
the Czech Republic, which was bitterly opposed by Moscow, hoping for Russian 
support for sanctions against Iran in return. However, Lavrov made clear that 
Moscow would only back sanctions that were “not aggressive”—an obvious reference 
to Obama’s remarks on Wednesday—and did not target the Iranian population or 
have humanitarian consequences...

As Obama’s diplomatic campaign becomes bogged down, a debate has opened up in US 
ruling circles over the future course of action. Sections of the foreign policy 
establishment are proposing a policy of “containment” in the event that the US 
fails to prevent Iran building a nuclear weapon. An extensive essay entitled 
“After Iran Gets the Bomb” in this month’s issue of the influential Foreign 
Affairs magazine argues for aggressive policies to isolate Iran. Far from easing 
tensions in the Middle East, a strategy of “containment” would only heighten them.

The authors—James Lindsay and Ray Takeyh—call for the consolidation of US 
military alliances in the Middle East along the lines of the Central Treaty 
Organisation established in 1955 by the US, Britain, Turkey, Pakistan and Iran 
to counter Soviet influence. Washington would offer security guarantees to, and 
bolster the military capacity of, its allies, as well as laying down a series of 
three “red lines” that Tehran would cross at its peril. Chillingly, the article 
insisted that “it should also be made clear that the price of Iran’s violating 
these three prohibitions could be US military retaliation by any and all means 
necessary, up to and including nuclear weapons”.

The alternative being canvassed—but not so openly discussed—is to dramatically 
intensify action to compel Iran to accede to US demands. The case is argued in 
today’s New York Times by Howard Berman, the Democrat chairman of the US House 
Committee on Foreign Affairs. He declares: “It is foolhardy to believe that the 
West could contain or deter Tehran were it to acquire the bomb. A nuclear-armed 
Iran would usher in a dangerous new era of instability in the Gulf and Middle 
East… If recalcitrant governments seek to block or dilute the ability of the 
United Nations to take strong swift action, then we Americans will have no 
choice but to act on our own”...

What is left unsaid is that the only “option” left, should sanctions fail to 
bring Iran to heel, is the military one. The transfer of bunker-buster bombs to 
Diego Garcia, along with a string of visits by top US generals to the Middle 
East in recent weeks and US assistance to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States to 
bolster anti-missile systems, are all evidence of the advanced nature of US 
preparations for a military attack on Iran. While the outcome of the current 
debate in Washington is not yet clear, no one can rule out a reckless new US 
military adventure against Iran as the Obama administration seeks to extricate 
itself from a mounting political crisis both at home and abroad.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/mar2010/iran-m20.shtml

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.