Revolution #59, September 3, 2006
People
close to Bush are telling you-if you listen to what they are
saying-that the Bush regime is undertaking serious preparations for a
war on Iran in 2007. A U.S. attack on Iran may very well involve
nuclear weapons, and in any event would take the initial form of a
massive bombing attack, with terrible human consequences, and terrible
political consequences.
The horrible destruction in
Lebanon, the murder of a thousand people and the displacement of a
quarter of the population of the country, has been described by
Condoleezza Rice as “the birth pangs of a new Middle East.” And an
attack-again, very possibly a nuclear attack-on Iran would be of far
greater magnitude, with the prospect of much greater suffering and
death.
The political consequences, in their own way, are
just as terrible. In the absence of a visible, powerful movement in
this country opposed to the whole Bush Regime, the U.S.-backed Israeli
invasion drove even non-religious people in Lebanon into the arms of
Islamic fundamentalists. Imagine what a nuclear strike on the world’s
largest and most powerful Islamic theocracy would set in motion! All
this would further strengthen the two poles of U.S. imperialism
rampaging the world with Bibles and nukes-on the one hand-and
obscurantist religious-fundamentalist forces who are setting the terms
for oppositional forces in many of the oppressed nations of the world.
Neither
of these two “alternatives” poses anything positive for people of the
world. Part of creating conditions for the people of the world to break
free of that framework-both in the imperialist countries and in the
oppressed nations-is a powerful movement right here, now, against this
war and against the whole Bush Regime.
On another level,
bringing forward real resistance in this country – resistance that
breaks out of the mold of just trying to “register our complaints” with
those in power – helps create conditions, along with all-around
communist ideological work by revolutionaries – for people to be open
to, and to take up a real alternative model for how society
can be run. Where people are envisioning and fighting for a world where
the tremendous productive resources, and people themselves, are not
subordinated to the dog-eat-dog process of extracting profit (including
through wars against rebels and rivals), but instead are organized and
mobilized to serve the needs of humanity in a way that unleashes
individuality and creativity while people consciously change themselves
and the world.
The Threat of War on Iran in 2007
In the August 21 issue of The New Yorker magazine,
investigative journalist Seymour Hersh revealed information leaked
anonymously by people close to, or formerly close to, the Bush
administration. Hersh’s piece exposed the role of the Bush
administration in planning Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, and that the
war in Lebanon was viewed by the Bush administration as preparation,
and a trial run, for a U.S. attack on Iran. Speaking of the Israeli
attack on Lebanon, a U.S. government consultant with close ties to
Israel told Hersh. “Why oppose it? We’ll be able to hunt down and bomb
missiles, tunnels, and bunkers from the air. It would be a demo for Iran.” (our emphasis)
Hersh
reports that “according to a former senior intelligence official, the
Israeli plan for Lebanon was “the mirror image of what the United
States has been planning for Iran.”” He reports that this includes, in
part, “U.S. Air Force proposals for an air attack to destroy Iran’s
nuclear capacity, which included the option of intense bombing of
civilian infrastructure targets inside Iran.” Hersh writes that the
Bush administration sees its mission as carrying out this war before it
leaves office. A former senior intelligence officer told Hersh that
Vice President Cheney’s office pushed Israel to move quickly against
Lebanon in the framework of a timetable for U.S. moves against Iran.
Hersh says this source told him that Cheney’s office “told Israel,
“Look, if you guys have to go, we”re behind you all the way. But we
think it should be sooner rather than later-the longer you wait, the
less time we have to evaluate and plan for Iran before Bush gets out of
office.””
While Bush called Hersh’s article “wild speculation” (note that he did not say
it wasn’t true!), political operatives close to Bush are sending
signals themselves, and interpreting Bush’s position in a way that
confirms a war on Iran is a real possibility in early 2007.
William Kristol’s newspaper, the Weekly Standard,
is a neo-conservative insider’s journal for the Bush Regime. In July,
he laid out the case for smashing the Islamic Republic of Iran as the
key link in the larger Bush/neocon agenda of establishing the U.S. as
the sole, unchallenged, and unchallengeable superpower:
“Regimes
matter. Ideological movements become more dangerous when they become
governing regimes of major nations. Communism became really dangerous
when it seized control of Russia. National socialism became really
dangerous when it seized control of Germany. Islamism became really
dangerous when it seized control of Iran-which then became, as it has
been for the last 27 years, the Islamic Republic of Iran.
“No
Islamic Republic of Iran, no Hezbollah. No Islamic Republic of Iran, no
one to prop up the Assad regime in Syria. No Iranian support for Syria
(a secular government that has its own reasons for needing Iranian help
and for supporting Hezbollah and Hamas), little state sponsorship of
Hamas and Hezbollah. And no Shiite Iranian revolution, far less of an
impetus for the Saudis to finance the export of the Wahhabi version of
Sunni Islam as a competitor to Khomeini’s claim for leadership of
militant Islam-and thus no Taliban rule in Afghanistan, and perhaps no
Hamas either.”
On Fox News (August 22), after the Israeli
invasion of Lebanon produced mixed results at best, for the U.S., as a
warm-up for a war on Iran, Kristol said, “I think we could be in a
military confrontation with Iran much sooner than people expect. I
don’t think this is an issue that’s going to wait two and a half years
until President Bush leaves the presidency. I think he will decide at
some point next year-in 2007-he”ll have to make some very tough
decisions about what the U.S. and the world can tolerate in terms of
this regime””
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews summed up the situation
: “I keep hearing from people on the right-Robert Kagen and Bill
Kristol, the guys who are the most hawkish and the most articulate in
making their case and they may be right-that at the end of this
administration, this hawkish administration-that was willing to go into
Iraq and Afghanistan-if this president is not willing to knock out
those facilities no future president is likely to do it. We”ll be stuck
with a nuclear armed Iran which can rant and rave around that region,
threatening Israel, Saudi and everybody else. And we”ll be stuck with
it. So their argument is try the diplomatic route, try everything but
in the end we have to hit “em.” (August 23)
The Nuclear Terror Nightmare-a U.S. Nuclear Attack on Iran
Basic
facts: Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons, and is not threatening to use
nuclear weapons against the United States. The United States does have
nuclear weapons, and is not only threatening their use, but a
nuclear attack appears to be a significant element of current U.S. war
planning against Iran.
Seymour Hersh’s August 21 piece in the New Yorker
reveals that the tactic of mass bombing of civilian infrastructure was
a model and test for a U.S. attack on Iran. The strategy was to create
enough terror and death that Christian and Sunni Muslim forces in
Lebanon would be driven to align with the United States. U.S. military
strategists are focused on death from the skies as their strategic
approach to a war on Iran. Iran, of course, presents a much more
formidable target than Lebanon, and even the massive air assault on
Lebanon was not enough to achieve the goals of that attack.
Hersh
reported that, “One of the [U.S.] military’s initial option plans, as
presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the
use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11,
against underground nuclear sites. One target is Iran’s main centrifuge
plant, at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran.” And Hersh
writes that, “The elimination of Natanz would be a major setback for
Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but the conventional weapons in the American
arsenal could not insure the destruction of facilities under
seventy-five feet of earth and rock, especially if they are reinforced
with concrete.”
Hersh’s August 21 piece also says that less
extreme tactics (other than nuclear weapons) might be effective if the
U.S. knew more about the location and construction of Iranian nuclear
energy facilities. But according to Hersh’s sources, the U.S. does not
have good enough military intelligence for those options to work. He
writes that, “The lack of reliable intelligence leaves military
planners, given the goal of totally destroying the sites, little choice
but to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons.” It appears from
Hersh’s article that some of his sources are connected with forces in
or around the top ranks of elements of the U.S. military who are
skeptical that any amount of bombing, even nuclear bombs, will destroy
the capacity of the Iranian regime to retaliate and resist a U.S.
attack, and are very concerned that the over-stretched U.S. ground
forces will get even more deeply bogged down in conflict in the region.
But, Hersh reports, in spite of this resistance, “[T]he idea of using
tactical nuclear weapons in such situations has gained support from the
Defense Science Board, an advisory panel whose members are selected by
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.”
Such weapons of mass
destruction would create death, destruction, and horrors far beyond
what was seen in Israel’s U.S.-sponsored war on Lebanon. A former
intelligence official told Hersh, “We”re talking about mushroom clouds,
radiation, mass casualties, and contamination over years.”
Who’s NOT Gonna Stop This War”
There
is a logic to an attack on Iran not only from the standpoint of the
neocons and Bush, but for the “opposition” Democratic Party as well.
For the neocons, a U.S. dominated Iran is key to radically reshaping
the Middle East, come what may. It is a critical part of their
articulated vision of the U.S. as the world’s new Roman Empire-a sole,
unchallengeable superpower. For the Democrats, who may have had
reservations about embarking on this adventure in Iraq, or may have
regrets about how it worked out, they are-in the words of Al
Gore-“lashed to the mast of our ship of state.” Like it or not, they
are along for the ride because to bail now would-judged by the
interests of U.S. imperialism -represent a major and destabilizing
setback for U.S. imperialism.
A revolutionary
understanding of the forces driving all this is explored in a very
in-depth and strategic way in recent talks by Bob Avakian, Chairman of
the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA-in particular in the talk “Why We”re in the Situation We’re In Today”And What To Do About It: A Thoroughly Rotten System and the Need for Revolution.” That talk, and six other critical recent talks by Bob Avakian, are available for download at bobavakian.net, or revcom.us.
Nobody with any serious impact in the Democratic Party is even raising serious concerns or reservations about
the potential horrors and dangers involved in a war against Iran. Look,
for example, at the Democrats” response to the House Subcommittee on
Intelligence Policy’s report of U.S. intelligence on Iran. (The report
was mainly written by a former CIA officer who had been a special
assistant to UN Ambassador John R. Bolton, who opposes any negotiations
with Tehran. The New York Times wrote that “the report seems
intended to signal the intelligence community that the Republican
leadership wants scarier assessments that would justify a more
confrontational approach to Tehran.” Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern
characterized the report as a “challenge set before the Intelligence
Community … to get religion, climb aboard, and ‘recognize’ Iran as a
strategic threat.” [See “WMD Lies All Over Again“])
Did
the Democrats in Congress immediately denounce this report as a call
for concocted “evidence” justifying a war with Iran? Did they at least
express worry and concern that this was the WMD hoax all over again?
No. Most said nothing, but they let the ranking Democrat on the
Intelligence subcommittee, Rush D. Holt, represent for the Democrats.
He said, “What you have that is new here is an attempt to bring the
body of information that is available into one place to present to the
American people.” (Time magazine, 8/24). And the New York Times quoted Holt saying that “some in the intelligence community are a bit gun-shy about appearing to be warmongering.” (8/24).
Holt’s
endorsement of the report, and concerns that the “intelligence
community” is “gun-shy” about “appearing to be warmongers” might sound
simply mealy-mouthed if the whole context is not taken into account.
But it represents an endorsement of this whole approach by
the Democratic Party. Here you have the hawks in Congress demanding
that the intelligence services “get religion,” as Ray McGovern
insightfully put it, and cook the books to justify war on Iran a la the
role they played in the whole “Weapons of Mass Destruction” lie that
was used to justify the war against Iraq. In this context, Holt’s
endorsement of the report-the only substantial response by
congressional Democrats-aligns the Democrats with the whole “let’s
create a new hoax to start a war” process. The Wall Street Journal wrote
in an August 24 editorial, “Anyone who still thinks a nuclear-armed
Iran won’t pose a serious, and perhaps mortal, threat ought to consult
this week’s bipartisan staff report from the House Intelligence Committee.” (our emphasis).
The
endorsement, or endorsement in the form of silence, from leading
Democrats, is in line with the Democrats” strategy of positioning
themselves as tougher on “national security.” In mid-August,
the Democratic Party ran a TV ad claiming that Iran is “developing
nuclear weapons.” (The ad was withdrawn after protests by Latino
organizations who objected to the ad’s association of Latino immigrants
with terrorism.)
In spring 2004, Senator John Kerry told the Washington Post
that the Bush Administration has not “been tough on the [Iran] issue””
(May 29, 2004), and Nancy Pelosi’s position earlier this year was that
“For too long, leaders of both political parties in the United States
have not done nearly enough to confront the Russians and the Chinese,
who have supplied Iran as it has plowed ahead with its nuclear and
missile technology.” (Speaking to the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee, May 24, 2005.) And Democratic Senator Barack Obama, who many
progressive people have deluded themselves into seeing as an opponent
of the Bush agenda, told the Chicago Tribune in 2004
that “[T]he big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these
pressures [to stop its nuclear program], including economic sanctions,
which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point”if
any, are we going to take military action?”
Who CAN put a HALT to all this”and HOW
In
his powerful protest song “Ohio,” written in response to the National
Guard murder of protesters at Kent State University in Ohio in 1970,
Neil Young sang, “How can you run when you know?”
If you’ve read this far, you know.
A terrible danger confronts the world-as we said in the beginning of
this article, a terrible cost in human life, and a terrible political
setback in terms of locking the world into a confrontation between
McCrusade and Jihad.
There is no opposition to this from the Democratic Party. Kerry, Dean, Pelosi, and Obama are on record demanding that Bush get tough with Iran!
The initial call from World Can’t Wait-Drive Out the Bush Regime included the following:
“That
which you will not resist and mobilize to stop, you will learn-or be
forced-to accept. There is no escaping it: the whole disastrous course
of this Bush regime must be STOPPED. And we must take the
responsibility to do it.”
And the statement “October 5: There is a Way! There is a Day!” from World Can’t Wait says:
“Imagine
if, from out of this huge reservoir of people, a great wave were
unleashed, moving together on the same occasion, making, through their
firm stand and their massive numbers, a powerful political statement
that could not be ignored: refusing that day to work, or walking out
from work, taking off from school or walking out of school-joining
together, rallying and marching, drawing forward many more with them,
and in many and varied forms of creative and meaningful political
protest throughout the day, letting it be known that they are
determined to bring this whole disastrous course to a halt by driving
out the Bush Regime through the mobilization of massive political
opposition.“If that were done, then the possibility of
turning things around and onto a much more favorable direction would
take on a whole new dimension of reality.“It would go from something only vaguely hoped for, by millions of
isolated individuals, and acted on by thousands so far, to something
that had undeniable moral force and unprecedented political impact.”
Right
now, a bad dynamic is in effect-and far too many people feel paralyzed.
They don’t see any “cracks” in the ruling structure. The “options” for
people are still framed as choosing between McWorld and Jihad. People
don’t see a force of people like themselves out there creating the
“undeniable moral force” that World Can’t Wait is calling for.
But
if everyone who said “I wish there was such a force” throws themselves
heart and soul into the movement to Drive Out the Bush Regime, takes up
building for the October 5th mobilizations-which will put the movement
to drive out the Bush Regime on a whole new level-then there would be such
a force. And the emergence of a massive movement determined to drive
out the Bush Regime would in turn impact the situation among the rulers
of this society, opening up more potential for the movement of the
people to develop that would actually bring the whole Bush agenda to a
HALT.
There are a thousand and one reasons calling out to
people to build a powerful movement to bring the crimes of the Bush
Regime to a halt, and to launch that movement onto a whole new level on
October 5th. But the real, imminent danger and potential horrors of a
U.S. attack on Iran, very possibly involving nuclear weapons, is reason
enough for everyone with a critical mind and conscience to throw
themselves whole-heartedly into that movement. Now.