Michael Klare (The Nation): The Iran War Buildup

[Jack Rabbit]

From The Nation
Dated Thursday July 21

The Iran War Buildup
By Michael Klare

There is no evidence that President Bush has already made the decision to attack Iran if Tehran proceeds with uranium-enrichment activities viewed in Washington as precursors to the manufacture of nuclear munitions. Top Administration officials are known to have argued in favor of military action if Tehran goes ahead with these plans--a step considered more likely with the recent election of arch-conservative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as Iran's president--but Bush, so far as is known, has not yet made up his mind in the matter. One thing does appear certain, however: Bush has given the Defense Department approval to develop scenarios for such an attack and to undertake various preliminary actions. As was the case in 2002 regarding Iraq, the building blocks for an attack in Iran are beginning to be put into place.

We may never know exactly when President Bush made up his mind to invade Iraq--some analysts say the die was cast as early as November 2001; others claim it was not until October 2002--but whatever the case, it is beyond dispute that planning for the invasion was well advanced in July 2002, when British intelligence officials visited Washington and issued what has come to be known as the Downing Street memo, informing Prime Minister Tony Blair that war was nearly inevitable.

What these officials undoubtedly discovered--as was being reported in certain newspapers at the time--was that senior officers of the US Central Command (CENTCOM) in Tampa, Florida, had already been developing detailed scenarios for an invasion of Iraq and that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had been deeply involved in these preparations. On July 5, 2002, for example, the New York Times revealed that "an American military planning document calls for air, land, and sea-based forces to attack Iraq from three directions--the north, south, and west." Further details of this document and other blueprints for war appeared in the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. At the same time, moreover, the Pentagon reportedly stepped up its aerial and electronic surveillance of military forces in Iraq.

This record is worth revisiting because of the many parallels to the current situation. Just as Bush gave ambiguous signals about his intentions regarding Iraq in 2002--denying that a decision had been made to invade but never ruling it out--so, today, he is giving similar signals with respect to Iran. "This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous," Bush declared in Belgium on February 22. He then added: "Having said that, all options are on the table." And, just as Bush's 2002 denials of an intent to invade Iraq were accompanied by intense preparations for just such an outcome, so, today, one can detect similar preparations for an attack on Iran.

Read more.

[wli]

1. much earlier than 2001

Check the PNAC whitepapers. Those date it at no later than 1997. The 1991 Iraq war also raises some questions about this.

[wli]

2. Iranian Oil Bourse to trade oil in Euros in 2006

The same "sin" as Saddam, only on a grander scale. That's why.

[The Doctor.]

3. Yep, we can't let that happen...

nor can we tell the average American that we have to invade Iran to prevent them from trading oil in Euros, thus floating (sinking) the dollar in the energy market and creating a potential economic crisis in America that would make the Great Depression look like a picnic.

Nope... just yell, "They're comin' right for us!"

[wli]

4. and that war will make WWII look like a picnic

China, Russia, and possibly India will be coming at us from all directions, assuming we actually fight them (presumably Iran itself has about as negligible a capacity to repel invasion as Iraq in 1991). It's like having knights in forward positions. Iraq pins Europe down, Afghanistan pins China and Russia down, and both face Iran.

They really should have thought about ways to avoid war, like merging currencies like the EU's done instead of playing some currency war game that can't be won. We were in decent fiscal shape after Clinton and could have done it then.

[The Doctor.]

6. Yep... Brilliantly put. (I'm a sucker for a chess analogy)

I seem to perceive that Russia is only pinned by it's proximity/relationship to China. I haven't enough to go on except that a series of US bases in eastern Afghanistan is a visible infringement.

I like the analogy with the knights because if such a model holds, then Iran is merely kept unsupported, as opposed to threatened by the positions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Which means that Iran is under threat by another piece... couldn't be the queen, she has no tolerance for king chimp. (I'm assuming the 'Queen' would have 'multilateral', and therefore 'UN mandated', powers.)
So will it be a rook or a bisop that 'takes' Iran?

I still see a vested interest in Iran by Europe .
And as more focus is applied, China will have a great deal more interest in Iran as well.

I believe I heard that China is starting to 're-evaluate' their currency with regard to it's fixed postion vs. the USD.

And I wonder what impact that will have on this dynamic.

I have many more questions than answers on the strategic implications.

As for the fiscal shape we were in due to Clinton...
That boggles the mind.

I agree that a North American Currency would have changed the dynamic drastically. I can picture the south-flowing of jobs having a great deal less impact on US economic welfare.

But I still have more questions than answers.

I might have supported the PNAC if it could have been pulled off without so much spilled blood because of the executors' incompetence.

[wli]

7. Israel is the bishop, nukes are the rook, and PNAC dishonesty...

PNAC may very well have been able to convince the public of what it considered "necessary" etc. but they were perversely dishonest and bungled every step of the way. The bases can't really operate that well in the midst of hostile hordes of Iraqis.

And frankly, if they truly wanted to use Iraq as a springboard, they could have done that better by allying with Saddam instead of bombing him. The ultimatum of "if you don't play nicely and let us have bases etc. we'll do it by force anyway" would have convinced him, and he was already offering to step down voluntarily when deposed.

The same with Afghanistan. The Taliban were, in the past, our allies against the USSR. And they were caving, too when the PNAC/AEI morons decided to blow up the country anyway, saying they'd give us free rein to search for bin Laden and possibly extradite him if they captured him themselves in exchange for vaguely normal proof. And even if bin Laden was a complete sham and the whole affair were MIHOP, just talking it out, saying "we're going to use Afghanistan with or without your cooperation" would probably have had them caving.

So even if you accept the imperialist agenda, both the wars are disastrous wastes of resources. An arms buildup could have taken the same amount of money used for this entire charade and made a strong army instead of a crippled one short on ammunition and flak jackets.

The last time we won a war, it was a righteous war, and a Democratic president behind it.

Deception. Incompetence. Bankruptcy. Catastrophic military defeat. All in a day's work for neoconservatism and the Republican party.

[The Doctor.]

8. While I'm not so sure Saddam would have given up his dream

of uniting all of the ME, it is true that sanctions had set him back enough that military conquest was out of the question. Perhaps you are correct that he would have allowed for US bases there, though I still believe the UN would have disputed our 'reasoning'.

I agree with the approach you have outlined. A slow subsumation of Afghanistan and Iraq might have been far more complicated (thus the reason these frat slobs couldn't do it), but an unsteady alliance rather than a hostile occupation would have been far better on our budget, our moral high ground, our international standing, our troop moral (and recruiting), and our ability to grow and proliferate our military.

That might have been a plan I could agree with, but these people are utterly incompetent.

When we were about to invade Iraq, I said we would be far better off sinking the resources into intelligence. This would not be a war fought on foreign soil, it would be a war of intelligence spanning the globe.

So I must come to the conclusion that either;

A) The administration wanted to bankrupt us and create more enemies.
-or-
B) They really are the most incompetent administration in American history.

- I also just can't shake the feeling that Chimpy just had to fire that big giant gun know as the US Military... almost like it was the most exciting item in the box of toys he got when he was given the presidency.

[Larkspur]

5. Bush will have a very difficult time justifying to Americans why we should

attack and/or invade Iran. Most Americans now realize that Bush lied us into a war against a nation that posed no threat to us, so they will be more suspicious if Bush reuses the old lines to justify the Iraq war.

Another factor, the Iraq war is going poorly for us and our Army is getting worn down. Also Iraq just made a significant defense and economic deal with Tehran, so if we use Iraq bases to attack Iran, look for those insurgent attacks to increase because this time it will come from the Shiites.

[teryang]

9. A new war may be necessary to maintain the engorged state

...of the military industrial energy complex which is the powerful alliance behind the current fascist regime. Whether the bush family maintains its control is another issue but the institutions and their beneficiaries are not about to give up their lucrative seat at the table. Another war could keep them in place. Troops be damned.

[wookie294]

10. America will not invade Iran

We don't have the troops or the money to invade Iran. And the American people won't support it.

[Dirk39]

12. I hope you're right.

Hello from Germany,
but they have no chance whatsoever to win the war in Iraq and they don't stop. They didn't have any plan what to do in Iraq after invading it and they did invade it anyway.
They are dangerous ruthless idiots and they might behave like Hitler: they will never give up, no matter what.
I wouldn't say I'm sure they don't do it.
Dirk

[Dirk39]

11. Scott Ritter, the former weapon-inspector: the war on Iran has begun

Hello from Germany,
I did listen to the lectures of Ritter and it is very interesting. I didn't have a clue what is already going on.
The lectures are between 20 and 30 mb each, but it's worth it, if you have the bandwidth.

Traprock Peace Center Radio: Scott Ritter- War on Iran has Begun
http://www.traprockpeace.org/audio/scott_ritter_talk_23jun05.mp3

Bush's New Wars on Iran and on America with Scott Ritter
Date Recorded: 2005-07-03
http://http.dvlabs.com/radio4all/ug/ug261-hour1mix.mp3
http://http.dvlabs.com/radio4all/ug/ug261-hour2mix.mp3

Peace and let us stop this nightmare!
Dirk