Middle East Madness

Administration rhetoric is heated and the dominant

media keep trumpeting it. It signals war with Iran of

the "shock and awe" kind - intensive, massive and

maybe with nuclear weapons. Plans are one thing,

action another, and how things play out, in fact,

won’t be known until the fullness of time that may not

be long in coming. For now, waiting and guessing games

continue, and one surmise is as good as another. The

more threatening they are, the less likely they’ll

happen, or at least it can be hoped that’s so.

It’s not media critic, activist and distinguished

professor emeritus Edward Herman’s view. He writes

"the situation now is even more menacing than we faced

in 2002-2003 when the Bush gang was readying us for

the invasion (and) occupation of Iraq. There is strong

evidence that Bush-Cheney and company are about to

attack Iran (and) the groundwork is being set with a

flood of propaganda, helped by the media and

Democrats." It may be "his last (crazed) hope for

immortality" and possible attempt to revive

"Republican strength through this classic maneuver of

cornered-rat politicians."

Most frightening is that the Bush administration

doesn’t have enough of a bad thing and may want more

of it. This time, however, the stakes are

incalculable, the risks over the top, and the chance

for success (from an American perspective) almost nil

if post-WW II history is a good predictor.

Distinguished historian Gabriel Kolko notes in all its

conflicts since 1950, America never lost a battle and

never won a war. It’s a world class bumbler, never

learns from its mistakes, and only succeeds, in

Kolko’s words, in making an "unstable world far more

precarious" than if it left well enough alone.

Enter Iran with George Bush having a way with words

about the Islamic Republic. They’re hotting up and

sending ominous signals. At the American Legion Reno

convention August 28, Bush, with typical bluster,

accused Iran of threatening the Middle East with a

nuclear holocaust and said he authorized US military

commanders in Iraq to "confront Tehran’s murderous

activities." He accused the Ahmadinejad government of

supporting violent Iraqi forces he calls "radicals and

extremists....Either the forces of extremism (or

freedom) succeed. Either our enemies advance their

interests in Iraq, or we advance" ours.

Earlier in the month, Bush threatened Iran stating:

"When we catch you playing a non-constructive role,

there will be a price to pay." He added recent

US-Iranian meetings in Baghdad were "to send a message

that there will be consequences for....people

transporting, delivering EFPs (roadside bombs)....that

kill Americans in Iraq."

This type language points to a widened Middle East war

with Iran the target in mind and sanity of those

planning it in question. Or maybe not? Questions

remain in the run-up to the September 11 Iraq progress

report General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will

deliver to Congress. Packaging is everything, and the

date chosen was planned to heighten public fear of the

event on that day that may help explain what’s going

on - not attacking the Islamic Republic but shoring up

flagging support for a war gone sour and worry later

about more of it with Iran.

Or maybe not, according to a report called

"Considering a war with Iran: A discussion paper on

WMD in the Middle East." On August 28, the Raw Story

web site published a summary of what two respected

figures wrote. They are: British scholar and arms

expert Dan Plesch, Director of the Centre for

International Studies and Diplomacy of the School of

Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) at the University

of London and Martin Butcher, former Director of the

British American Security Information Council (BASIC)

and former adviser to the Foreign Affairs Committee of

the European Parliament.

Their work compliments others saying war with Iran is

coming, and things are too far along to stop it. Their

analysis is detailed, elementary in their opinion, and

very frightening. They conclude the Pentagon has plans

for a "massive, multi-front, full-spectrum" shock and

awe-type attack on Iran short of a ground invasion. In

involves destroying enough of the country’s military

capacity and armed forces, nuclear energy sites,

economic infrastructure and more to destabilize and

oust its regime or reduce its status to "a weak or

failed state." It continues saying:

— 10,000 sites are targeted using bombers and long

range missiles;

— the US has enough ground, air and Marine forces in

the region to devastate Iran on short notice;

— covert US (and possibly UK) and armed popular

resistance activities are already ongoing in the

Iranian provinces of Azeri, Balujistan, Kurdistan and

the country’s major oil producing region of Khuzestan

in the southwest bordering Iraq and the Persian Gulf.

— nuclear weapons are deployed but unlikely to be

used short of clear evidence Iran already has them,

may in short order, or if its believed only these

weapons can destroy its hardened Natanz nuclear

facility;

— the Bush administration has avoided publicizing its

war preparations leading Plesch and Butcher to believe

confrontation is more likely;

— no information is available on possible Iranian WMD

weapons, but the authors state its military "has

missiles and probably some chemical capacity;" those

aren’t WMDs and many other nations also have them; at

least eight of them (not Iran) have nuclear ones as

well, several are prepared to use them, and the US

states it as first-strike policy;

— significant "risks and impediments" exist but

eliminating Iran as a regional power and regime change

are stated goals in the administration’s National

Security Strategy (updated in 2006);

— except for the UK and Israel, no other nations are

known to support US plans;

— according to anonymous UK military sources, the

Bush administration switched its main focus to Iran

after March, 2003 even when its forces became bogged

down in Iraq;

— region-based Marines outside Iraq are deployed to

protect oil tankers, shipping lanes in the Gulf, the

Straits of Hormuz and be able to confront and destroy

Iranian forces;

— US Special Forces will continue covert search and

destroy missions in Iran and efforts to incite

internal uprisings against the Iranian government;

— there’s no assurance Iraqi Shias will support their

Iranian allies; their leaders may act in their own

best interests inside Iraq that may preclude backing

Iran under US attack;

— US 2008 presidential candidates are posturing to

see who can be toughest on confronting a potential

Iranian threat even though there is none; Europeans

are puzzled that political expediency trumps reality

especially concerning a wider Middle East war; the

Bush administration may worry most about an "Iran of

the regions" and may attack the Islamic Republic to

avoid it;

— if an attack on Iran succeeds (with long odds

against it) and the US is better able assert "its

global military dominance....then the risks to

humanity....and to states of the Middle East are grave

indeed."

Enter the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

IAEA’s August 30 report on Iran was bad news for the

Bush administration based on what its Director,

Mohamed ElBaradei, told the press: "This is the first

time Iran is ready to discuss all outstanding issues

which triggered the crisis in confidence. It’s a

significant step. There are clear guidelines, so it’s

not, as some people are saying, an open-ended

invitation to dallying with the agency or a ruse to

prolong negotiations to avoid sanctions....I’m clear

at this stage you need to give Iran a chance to prove

its stated goodwill."

The Bush administration was dismissive to enraged in

response with statements claiming the agreement is

inadequate and Tehran must suspend all (its perfectly

legal) nuclear enrichment, or else. State Department

spokesman Tom Casey disdainfully said: "There is no

partial credit here. Iran has refused to comply with

its international obligations, and as a result of that

the international community (meaning the US and other

nations it can bully, bribe or threaten) is going to

continue to ratchet up the pressure."

The message is clear and all known information

confirms it. Washington wants regime change in Iran.

The open question is by what means and when. It

doesn’t matter that Iran is a signatory to the 1970

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), is in full

compliance with it, and in 1974 entered into an

agreement with the IAEA "for the application of

safeguards in connection with the Treaty on the

Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons" to remain in

force as long as Iran is so obligated under NPT

provisions. The agreement stipulates all Iranian

"source or special fissionable materials" and

activities relating to them are subject to IAEA

Safeguards "with a view to preventing diversion of

nuclear energy from peaceful purposes."

IAEA reported Iran’s uranium enrichment program

slowed, is operating well below capacity, and isn’t

producing nuclear fuel in significant amounts. As of

August 19, it had 1968 centrifuges operating and 656

others in various stages of assembly or testing. IAEA

verified this level of enrichment is well below what’s

needed to build a nuclear bomb. IAEA also said an

outstanding issue related to plutonium experiments was

satisfactorily resolved.

Iran and IAEA also announced a timetable to resolve by

year end "all outstanding questions" regarding the

implementation of Iran’s Safeguards Agreement as well

as other non or less relevant questions. They include:

lab experiments involving minute amounts of plutonium

and plutonium-210 and the source of the enriched

uranium micro-contamination at a technical University

in Tehran. Although not obligated to do so, Iran also

agreed to resolve other minor issues as a show of good

faith. As it’s now proceeding, Iran is on track to

verify total compliance with its Safeguard Agreement

obligations by yearend. That should make it less

vulnerable to a US attack, but don’t bet on it. Bush

administration officials are never short on reasons to

justify its plans and facts on the ground won’t deter

them.

They’ve already denounced the IAEA report as an

Iranian ploy to buy time and seems to imply IAEA

partnered with Iran against Washington. ElBaradei’s

response to this was: "My responsibility is to look at

the big picture. If I see a situation deteriorating

(and) it could lead to war, I have to raise the alarm

or give my advice." Earlier he said: "I have no brief

other than to make sure we don’t go into another war

or that we go crazy into killing each other. You do

not want to give (an) additional argument to the new

(Bush administration) crazies who say ’let’s go and

bomb Iran.’ "

Bush Administration Strategy: Usually Wrong but Never

in Doubt

In the run-up to its March, 2003 attack on Iraq, the

Bush administration proved it didn’t lack tricks and

schemes to justify war. Iran now faces the same

threat with one provocative act from Washington after

another. In an unprecedented and outrageous move

against a sovereign state, the New York Times and

Washington Post reported August 15 the administration

plans to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (a

major branch of its military) a "global terrorist"

organization. It’s based on unsubstantiated claims

IRGC’s elite Quds Force is arming, training and

directing Shiite militias involved in attacking US

Iraqi troops.

It contradicts Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki,

however, that Iran’s role in the region is

constructive. That comment runs counter to Bush

claiming Iran as "the world’s leading state sponsor of

terrorism, (is) active(ly) pursui(ng)....technology

that could lead to nuclear weapons (and) We will

confront this danger before it is too late."

Washington further insists IRGC is helping Taliban

fighters in Afghanistan, interfering in various other

ways in Iraq, and is aiding US-designated "terrorist"

groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. It has no evidence,

reports are CIA confirms it, but no matter. All that

counts is Washington claims it, case closed. That’s

how schoolyard bullies run playgrounds and global

godfathers do it everywhere.

In the long-running US-Iran saga, it remains to be

seen how events will play out. Expect more heated

rhetoric, and don’t ignore Dick Cheney’s influence.

Barnett Rubin’s recent comments about him from his

Global Affairs blog are all over the internet.

Cheney’s already unofficially on record urging war on

Iran and presently proposes bombing suspected Quds

Force sites in Iraq. Earlier reports were he and other

administration hard-liners considered air attacks

against Quds Force headquarters near Tehran. If they

come, it risks all-out war so, for now, they were

tabled.

Barnett now says he has a message from a

well-connected insider that "the Office of the

Vice-President (plans) to roll out a campaign for war

with Iran in the week after Labor Day" to be backed by

hawkish think tanks and similar elements in the

dominant media. It will involve a "heavy sustained

assault on the airwaves" to win over public support

that will be considered successful at "35 - 40

percent."

It’s already begun on-air and on the pages of the lead

and most influential proponent for war on Iraq in the

Judith Miller days, The New York Times. It may now be

playing the same role promoting war with Iran with one

example showing up in Michael Slackman and Nazila

Fathi’s September 3 article: "On Two Fronts, One

Nuclear, Iran Is Defiant." Its headlined tone

(differing from explanatory comments buried below)

contradicts IAEA evidence and claims "to reaffirm the

country’s refusal to back down to pressure from the

United States over its nuclear program and its role in

Iraq."

That came after an opening salvo that "Iran’s leaders

issued dual, defiant statements on Sunday (September

2)." It continued saying President Ahmadinejad claimed

the nation had 3,000 active centrifuges to enrich

uranium (IAEA inspections confirm 1968), and "the top

ayatollah (Ali Khamenei) appoint(ed) a new Islamic

Revolutionary Guards commander who once advocated

military force against students." This is just a

sampling of what’s ahead from the Times and other

dominant media elements. They’re enlisted, like in

2002, to beat the drums of war and maybe get one for

their efforts.

Then there’s Congress on both sides of the aisle and

presidential candidates hawkishly posturing for

whatever they imagine it gains them. The public

overwhelmingly opposes more war and wants the Iraq one

ended. But those ideas are nowhere in sight on the

campaign trail or Capitol Hill where the Iran

Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007 will likely pass

easily now that Congress is reconvened. It cleared the

House Foreign Affairs Committee 37 to 1 June 28 and

after passing both Houses will become effective

January 1, 2008. It hardens the existing Iran

Sanctions Act by closing loopholes in it with the

intent to thwart all foreign investment in Iran and

strangle the country economically.

It also prohibits nuclear cooperation between the US

and any nation aiding Iran’s commercial nuclear

program and requests the White House designate Iran’s

IRGC a "terrorist" group and block assets of any

nation, organization or group supporting it. As summer

wanes, fall approaches and the administration touts

progress in Iraq it claims will continue (with Bush’s

grandstanding six hour visit for a staged performance

at Al Asad Air Base in Al Anbar province part of it),

the prospect for more "progress" Iraqi-style awaits

Iran. That’s unless public pressure builds and/or

cooler heads in Washington and other capitals denounce

what some distinguished analysts believe may ignite WW

III if it comes. That’s incentive enough for us all to

become engaged and stop this rush to madness in the

Middle East not likely to be contained where it

starts.

---

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at

lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at http://sjlendman.blogspot.com and

listen to The Steve Lendman News and Information Hour

on TheMicroEffect.com Saturdays at noon US central

time.