By Kenneth J. Theisen
The U.S. is currently involved in “hot” wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan as part of its war of terror. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan involve hundreds of thousands of U.S. and allied forces. The one in Pakistan so far has involved frequent U.S. missile strikes, a relative few U.S. “special ops” troops, U.S. military trainers, and Pakistani forces, either trained, bribed, or both, to fight on behalf of U.S. imperialism. In these various war fronts, millions of people are suffering as a direct result of U.S. actions.
But in addition to the hot wars, there is a silent war being waged against Iran. So far most of the violence has been limited to covert operations, assassinations, and other non-public forms of war. But U.S. imperialism has many tools in its deadly arsenal that do not always take the form of open warfare. Many of these tools have been and are being used against Iran.
So far these have involved a considerable amount of U.S. propaganda, both to isolate the Iranian regime and to prepare the political ground for possible overt warfare. The U.S. has also used diplomacy for the same two reasons, with the additional hope that the Iranian government may actually capitulate and start to do the bidding of the U.S., at least in regard to certain U.S. goals.
Economic sanctions have also played a considerable role in putting pressure on Iran. Most of these weapons have been used in conjunction with the U.S. claim that Iran is using its program to develop nuclear energy as a cover to actually develop nuclear weapons. The U.S. is trying to convince the world that Iran is a dangerous state that can in no way be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons and must be stopped at all costs from doing so.
Therefore it should come as no surprise to learn that U.S. intelligence agencies are now claiming that Iran has enough nuclear fuel to create a nuclear weapon should it choose to do so.
On September 9th Glyn Davies, the U.S. Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), used these reports to claim Iran has “possible breakout capacity” if the Iranians chose to enrich its uranium stockpile. Referring to Iran’s uranium enrichment program, Davies said ”This ongoing enrichment activity … moves Iran closer to a dangerous and destabilizing possible breakout capacity…Taken in connection with Iran’s refusal to engage with the IAEA regarding its past nuclear warhead-related work, we have serious concerns that Iran is deliberately attempting, at a minimum, to preserve a nuclear weapons option.” An IAEA report claims Iran now has a minimum of 3,153 pounds of low-enriched uranium hexafluoride according to Davies.
Twin Weapons of Diplomacy and Sanctions
This latest charge is being leveled at this time to strengthen the U.S. weapons of diplomacy and sanctions, but it could just as easily strengthen the U.S. ability to go to war against Iran should Obama choose to do so. Obama has been pressuring Iran to enter into negotiations regarding its nuclear enrichment program. Obama has given Iran until the end of this month to respond to an offer of “nuclear talks” with the “five plus one” group of permanent U.N. Security Council members and Germany. But this offer is similar to the offer made in the Godfather movie – an offer that can not be refused. The U.S. has made it quite clear that if the Iranians do not capitulate to U.S. demands, the U.S. will then move to further pressure U.S. allies to impose more severe sanctions against Iran later this month.
Among the additional sanctions that the U.S. is considering is the cutoff of gasoline to Iran. Even though Iran produces much oil, its ability to refine this into enough gasoline to be self-sustaining does not currently exist and Iran must import gasoline to run the country. Cutting off its gasoline supply would cripple the economy and in effect be an act of war. Iran has previously defied three sets of U.N. Security Council sanctions since 2006. Iran denies accusations that it is using its nuclear program to develop nuclear arms. Tehran has refused to stop its enrichment of uranium, declaring it has such a right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Iran though is certainly aware that it is being pressured to “negotiate.” On September 7th Iranian President Ahmadinejad stated, “We will continue our work in the framework of global regulations and in close cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency.” He further claimed he was willing to engage in “fair and logical” discussions to “solve global challenges” with the five plus one group. He said he expected a “change of approach” from them and went on to say “the nuclear issue is over” from Iran’s perspective.
On September 9th, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki gave Iran’s proposals for new negotiations to the six nation group’s ambassadors. Ali Asghar Soltanieh, an Iranian envoy to the IAEA, stated to reporters that, ”Regarding Iran’s nuclear issue, if there are any questions or ambiguities, we are well prepared to remove ambiguities in the context of the IAEA.”
In an earlier critical statement to the IAEA board, Soltanieh said it "should be recalled that the agency has been faced with continuous false and forged allegations" by the U.S.
He also stated, "I remind that the international community is carefully monitoring the attitude and conducts of the new U.S. administration. The world is observing curiously whether or not this administration follows the same trend and policy as the Bush administration, pursuing hostile political confrontation, using fabricated baseless allegations …" He did not have to remind anyone that the U.S. used the elimination of non-existent WMDs to justify the invasion of Iraq.
Apparently as a result of past embarrassment to the U.S. intelligence community, according to the New York Times, the latest intelligence reports state that Iran has chosen not to take the critical last steps to make a nuclear weapon. This is consistent with past intelligence reports that Iran halted attempts to design a nuke back in 2003. This was the view of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIA) given to President Bush in 2007. That NIA was allegedly based on information collected by U.S. intelligence agencies from Iran’s military computer networks. But because this latest “intelligence” claims Iran has enough nuclear fuel to create a weapon if it chose to do so at some point, it strengthens the hand of those who advocate military action against Iran.
Aside from hawks within the U.S. government, this included the Israelis. Various officials within the Israeli government have wanted to “take out” Iran’s nuclear capability for quite some time. Because they see Iran as an “existential threat” to Israel, they have stated that if the U.S. does not deal with the problem, they will. This is not an idle threat: Israeli forces have struck alleged nuclear targets in Iraq and Syria before. The attack against Iraq occurred in 1981, but the one against Syria occurred in 2007.
According to the Times article, Israel claims that there is evidence that the Iranians “resumed” the effort to design a nuclear weapon in 2005. They claim Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei ordered this, but the Israelis can not produce a copy of this alleged order. A senior Israeli intelligence official told the Times, “We’re all looking at the same set of facts. We are interpreting them quite differently than the White House does.”
Both the Israeli and U.S. government believe that Iran could have nuclear weapons within the next 6 years. Haaretz, a leading Israeli newspaper wrote that Mossad head Meir Dagan reported to the Israeli Parliament in June 2009 that Iran will have its first bomb by 2014. But despite this public report, most Israeli officials believe Iran could have a bomb more quickly. U.S. officials estimate Iran could produce a nuclear weapon sometime between 2010 and 2015 with the latter date being more likely. Israel has shown reluctance to wait to find out how long, if ever, it may take. According to the Times, Israel approached President Bush and sought “bunker-busting bombs, refueling capability and overflight rights over Iraq, in case it moved to strike Iran’s facilities.” Bush refused the requests.
According to the Times piece, “Israeli officials say privately that the Obama administration is deluding itself in thinking that diplomacy will persuade Iran to give up its nuclear program…At a meeting with a senior Obama administration official several months ago, Israeli officials pressed for intelligence and other help that would be necessary for a strike, according to one official with knowledge of the exchange.” The Times did not report what answer the Israelis received.
It is unlikely that the Israelis would ever attack Iran without first getting a green light from the U.S. But the possibility of that green light being given should not be dismissed. But one reason it may never be given is that it is not likely Israel has the military capability to destroy Iran’s nuclear program with certainty. The program is widely dispersed and would require multiple attacks. Only the U.S. possibly has that military potential.
Tomorrow May Be Too Late to Act
It appears at this time that the U.S. will use non-military means to achieve it immediate goals regarding Iran’s nuclear program. But these means are not mutually exclusive. Propaganda, diplomacy, and sanctions can all be used as a buildup to the use of military means. Keep in mind that all three were used in the buildup to the invasion of Iraq. The Obama administration can argue that it used other means to get the Iranians to give in, but when that failed it had no other means to achieve its goal of deterring Iran from obtaining nukes. This argument has been used often before as a prelude to war.
Some would also argue that the U.S. can not attack Iran at this time because it is bogged down in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. But if the U.S. were to launch a military attack on Iran in the near future, it will not take the same form as the invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan. It will not be a land offensive by U.S. forces. It would likely come via the air. The U.S. has bombers within the continental U.S. that can fly to Iran and drop their deadly loads. It has missiles that can also be launched far from Iranian territory. It has naval forces in the Persian Gulf and other waters capable of launching devastating attacks. The U.S. also has special operations forces capable of land attacks, such as sabotage. It further has enough ground forces to seize oilfields within Iran. Of course none of this capability guarantees success for any U.S. attack. Nor does it mean that such an attack is imminent. But it does mean that we should not expect that a long buildup to a war against Iran would be necessary like it was preceding the invasion of Iraq. It also means that we should not be lulled into forgetting that Iran has been in the sites of U.S. imperialism for decades.
We need to be vigilant.But even if war is not on the immediate horizon, we should also remember that the U.S. is using its other weapons right now and we can not afford to let this go unchallenged. Sanctions also kill. A half million Iraqi children died as a result of sanctions begun by Bush 1, continued by Democrat Bill Clinton, and then by Bush 2. Also the U.S. does not call all the shots. If the sanction of a gasoline cutoff is implemented, we do not know what the Iranian regime may do. The U.S. could push Iran to such an extent that Iran may “fire the first shot.” But regardless of who fires first, we must oppose the actions of our government.
The Iranian people deserve to be free of their oppressors in the Iranian regime, but they will free themselves. We already know what happens when the U.S. invades from the tragedies that have occurred in Afghanistan and Iraq. Because of this we can not afford to wait until war is imminent. We must expose and oppose all U.S. moves that make war more likely or even those that continue to oppress the Iranian people such as sanctions. Tomorrow may be too late to act.