By Kenneth J. Theisen, 4/13/06
The Bush regime is preparing for war, including possibly
nuclear war, against Iran.
The parallels between the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq
and the preparations happening now with Iran are very scary. This
pre-emptive war is not inevitable and must be stopped by the people in the U.S.
Seymour Hersh’s recent article in the New Yorker entitled,
THE IRAN PLANS: WOULD PRESIDENT BUSH GO TO WAR TO STOP TEHRAN FROM GETTING THE
BOMB? has focused attention on the real possibility of war against Iran. And recently in response to a question about
nuclear attack against Iranian nuclear facilities, Bush stated that ‘all
options are on the table.’
The idea of starting
another war while the U.S.
is bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan
would seem ludicrous. But to the Bush regime and the president who claims to
get directions from god on invading other countries, nothing is extreme.
Anyone who has studied the U.S.
propaganda campaign leading to the Iraq
war cannot help but notice the direct parallels to the spin now emanating from
the White House when Iran
is discussed. Remember when Bush, Cheney, Rice, etc. stated that we cannot
afford to wait for the “mushroom cloud” to prove that Iraq had
weapons of mass destruction. The Bush regime has repeatedly stated that it will
not allow Iran
to have a nuclear weapon. We are told nuclear weapons in such a volatile area
as the Middle East are inherently a threat to
the security of the world.
Yet we seldom hear any mention about the 10,000 nuclear warheads possessed by
the U.S. or the 300 to 400
nuclear weapons possessed by Israel,
a country that has waged repeated aggressive wars against its neighbors. U.S. nukes are on naval vessels all over the Middle East. And with the publication of the Hersh
article we know that U.S.
war planners are considering actually using such weapons “to take
out” the threat of Iran
acquiring such weapons. Can anyone in the Bush regime spell the word hypocrisy?
Which nation poses the greatest threat to world peace?
Another parallel to the buildup to the Iraq
war is the constant reference to terrorism when discussing Iran. The Bush
regime’s well oiled propaganda machine went out of its way, including making up
lies, to convince us that Saddam was connected to al-Queda and 9/11. Hardly a
day now goes by without someone from the White House charging Iran with
aiding terrorists.
The Bush regime in the buildup to the pre-emptive attack on Iraq also
pretended to be exploring all possible diplomatic solutions while it had
actually already made the decision to go to war and was actively preparing to
launch that war. At one point when Saddam backed down, Bush discussed with Tony
Blair possible ways to provoke Saddam, including painting a U.S. plane with
the U.N. flag and forcing Saddam to shoot at it.
Today the Bush administration also gives lip service to using diplomatic means
to avert a crisis with Iran, but after so many lies only a fool would buy the
“trust me” line coming from the White House. According to Hersh’s
sources the U.S. already has
covert military teams on the ground in Iran searching out and pinpointing
targets. The U.S. is also
spreading money around in Iran’s
ethnic areas to buy collaborators. Both actions were taken in the lead-up to
the Iraq invasion and also
the invasion of Afghanistan. They are part of the U.S. game plan
in prepping countries for full-scale attack.
While keeping Iran from
obtaining the bomb is the window dressing that is being used to prepare us for
war against Iran,
the real reason for the war is regime change. Bush states, “The world
cannot be put in a position where we can be blackmailed by a nuclear
weapon.” But what he really means is that the U.S. intends to maintain its
dominant position in the world. In order to do that it must control the vast
petroleum reserves of the Middle East, which is also a strategic location at
the intersection of Africa, Asia and Europe. Control of the Middle East is crucial to the U.S. plan to
dominate the world for the indefinite future.
Just like in Iraq, regime
change is necessary in Iran
for the U.S.
to achieve its goals. The Iranian government has ties to other powers such as Russia and China,
but it also pursues agendas that interfere with the U.S. agenda. For reasons of it own,
the Islamic regime supports forces in Lebanon,
Palestine, and Iraq
that conflict with U.S.
goals. In Iraq many of the
leading Shi’a clerics were in exile in Iran
during the years of Saddam’s rule and some still receive support from Iran.
But regime change poses serious challenges for the U.S. U.S. ground forces are
stretched in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Instead of being welcomed as liberators, as we were told repeatedly by such
luminaries as Dick Cheney, the U.S.
has faced heavy resistance in Iraq.
Even in Afghanistan,
which is portrayed as a major victory, resistance is growing.
The U.S. currently lacks the
forces to launch a major ground invasion of Iran. So other options are being
considered, according to Hersh. And one of these options is the use of nuclear
weapons or “bunker busters” for targets deep underground, such as
nuclear facilities in Iran.
Despite the recent attempts by the administration to play down this option, we
should not be misled.
In January 2001 an ad-hoc panel on nuclear forces sponsored by the National
Institute for Public Policy issued a report that recommended the treatment of
tactical nuclear weapons as an essential part of the U.S. weapons arsenal. It stated
that such weapons are particularly useful “for those occasions when the
certain and prompt destruction of high priority targets is essential and beyond
the promise of conventional weapons.” Unfortunately several of the signers
of this report are now high-level officials in the Bush Administration. Chief
among them is Bush’s National Security Advisor, Stephen Hadley. They also
include the Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, Stephen Cambone; and
the Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security,
Robert Joseph. These are some of the people now advising Bush about Iran, you are
correct.
Whether or not the U.S.
decides to use the nuclear option against Iran
or just launches a conventional attack, either would be major criminal
aggression which would cause widespread destruction, suffering, and chaos, not
only in the Middle East, but throughout the
world. The people in the U.S.
have a major responsibility to stop such aggression by the Bush regime. To find
out how to do so, please see: worldcantwait.org.
Kenneth J. Theisen is an organizer with The World Can’t Wait! Drive Out the
Bush Regime! He frequently writes about national and international issues.