US prepares for military confrontation with Iran

[Antid Oto]

REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

US prepares for military confrontation with Iran
By Peter Symonds
20 March 2010

An article in the Scottish-based Sunday Herald last weekend provided
an ominous reminder that the Obama administration has retained what is
euphemistically described as the “military option” against Iran—that
is, massive, unprovoked US air strikes.

The newspaper reported that the US military was moving 387
bunker-buster bombs, from California to the US base on Diego Garcia in
the Indian Ocean, in preparation for a possible attack on Iran.
Superior Maritime Services was contracted in January to transport 10
containers of munitions, including 195 smart Blu-110 bombs and 192
huge 2,000 pound Blu-117 bombs, which are designed for use against
hardened or underground structures.

The Sunday Herald cited Dan Plesch, director of the Centre for
International Studies and Diplomacy (CISD) at the University of
London, who said: “They are gearing up totally for the destruction of
Iran. US bombers are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in
a few hours.” According to a CISD study in 2007, the Pentagon’s war
plans, drawn up under the Bush administration, would not only target
Iran’s nuclear facilities but its air defences, military and
industrial capacity.

None of the analysts interviewed by the newspaper described a US
attack as imminent. But Plesch commented: “The US is not publicising
the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make
confrontation more likely. The US… is using its forces as part of an
overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.”

However, President Obama’s “overall strategy” appears increasingly in
disarray. Having set the end of last year as the deadline for Tehran
to meet US demands, the White House has been waging a sustained
diplomatic offensive this year to secure a UN resolution imposing
tough new sanctions on Iran. The US not only needs the agreement of UN
Security Council members, but is seeking support from Arab allies in
the Middle East and attempting to ensure that Israel does not take
unilateral, preemptive military action of its own against Iran.

On Wednesday, Obama declared again that the US would pursue
“aggressive sanctions” against Iran. However, as the Financial Times
pointed out yesterday, the effort to build a consensus for UN
sanctions “is looking increasingly under stress”. Any resolution “is
unlikely to reach the 15-member Security Council before June, if
then”. The main opponent is China, which has repeatedly dismissed
calls for fresh sanctions, reiterating as recently as Thursday its
commitment to “a peaceful solution through diplomatic means”. By
refusing to consider further sanctions, Beijing has encouraged other
UN Security Council members, including Russia, Turkey, Brazil and
Lebanon, to maintain an ambivalent position.

Washington had been exploiting the so-called P5+1 grouping—the
permanent UN Security Council members, the US, Britain, France, Russia
and China, plus Germany—as a forum to pressure Beijing into line.
However, no face-to-face meeting of the group has taken place since
January and none is scheduled. In recent weeks, top-level delegations
have visited Beijing—including from Israel, the US and, this week,
British Foreign Secretary David Milliband. They have attempted without
success to cajole and pressure China to agree to tough new penalties
against Tehran. Beijing’s opposition is a significant factor in the
increasingly tense relations with Washington over a range of issues.

The American and international press has highlighted the Chinese
economic interests at stake in Iran. In 2009, China became Iran’s top
trading partner, with bilateral trade worth $21.2 billion, up from
$14.4 billion three years earlier. Although Beijing still relies on
Saudi Arabia and Angola for more than half its oil imports, it has
increased Iran’s share to 11.4 percent and is investing heavily in oil
and gas projects there as well as other infrastructure. China National
Petroleum and its subsidiary Petrochina last year agreed to invest
more than $8 billion in one gas and two oil projects.

Shining a media spotlight on Chinese interests only underscores the
fact that the US confrontation with Iran is not about its alleged
plans to build a nuclear weapon. Rather, Washington is exploiting the
issue to block the interests of its European and Asian rivals and to
further its own ambitions for dominance in the energy-rich Middle East
and Central Asia. Tehran has repeatedly declared that it has no
intention of building a bomb, but is determined to develop a nuclear
energy program.

Washington’s diplomatic efforts are running into obstacles on other
fronts. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s trip to Moscow this
week has turned into a debacle. In what can only be described as a
calculated diplomatic snub, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced
that Russia and Iran would complete the process of starting up the
long-delayed, Russian-built power reactor at Bushehr within months. In
a joint press conference with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov
on Thursday, Clinton criticised the plan as “premature” because “we
want to send an unequivocal message to the Iranians”.

Clinton was obviously hoping for Russian support for stronger
sanctions. Last year Obama shut down the planned US anti-ballistic
missile system in Poland and the Czech Republic, which was bitterly
opposed by Moscow, hoping for Russian support for sanctions against
Iran in return. However, Lavrov made clear that Moscow would only back
sanctions that were “not aggressive”—an obvious reference to Obama’s
remarks on Wednesday—and did not target the Iranian population or have
humanitarian consequences.

The sharp tensions between the US and Israel, which erupted last week
during US Vice President Joseph Biden’s visit, also cut across
Washington’s strategy on Iran. Israel’s announcement of new Jewish
settlements—while Biden was in Israel—was a direct rebuff to US
efforts to restart talks with Palestinian leaders and provoked a
furious response from Biden and Clinton. The US is not concerned in
the slightest about the fate of Palestinians. But by undermining the
sham peace process, Israel is damaging intense US efforts to enlist
the support of Arab allies, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf
states, to back sanctions against Iran, and weaken Syrian ties with Iran.

If the UN Security Council fails to pass new sanctions, the US has
already raised the prospect of further unilateral penalties. Over the
weekend, Finnish Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb, who was hosting a
meeting of EU foreign ministers, tentatively declared that there would
be “consensus enough” for unilateral EU sanctions, if a UN resolution
were not passed. The US Congress is also considering far-reaching
legislation to allow the US administration to penalise foreign
companies selling refined oil products to Iran or engaged in providing
insurance, reinsurance or shipping for such trade.

Even if finally put in place, unilateral US or European sanctions are
fraught with difficulties. Action against the sale of gasoline would
potentially have a severe impact on the Iranian economy, which imports
40 percent of its requirements due to a lack of refining capacity. But
such a measure would inevitably provoke widespread popular opposition
in Iran under conditions where Washington is still hoping to encourage
political opposition and some form of regime change in Tehran.
Moreover, Chinese corporations might increase their sales of gasoline
and diesel to Iran, as is already taking place. Congressional
sanctions against Tehran could provoke a further sharpening of
tensions with Beijing.

As Obama’s diplomatic campaign becomes bogged down, a debate has
opened up in US ruling circles over the future course of action.
Sections of the foreign policy establishment are proposing a policy of
“containment” in the event that the US fails to prevent Iran building
a nuclear weapon. An extensive essay entitled “After Iran Gets the
Bomb” in this month’s issue of the influential Foreign Affairs
magazine argues for aggressive policies to isolate Iran. Far from
easing tensions in the Middle East, a strategy of “containment” would
only heighten them.

The authors—James Lindsay and Ray Takeyh—call for the consolidation of
US military alliances in the Middle East along the lines of the
Central Treaty Organisation established in 1955 by the US, Britain,
Turkey, Pakistan and Iran to counter Soviet influence. Washington
would offer security guarantees to, and bolster the military capacity
of, its allies, as well as laying down a series of three “red lines”
that Tehran would cross at its peril. Chillingly, the article insisted
that “it should also be made clear that the price of Iran’s violating
these three prohibitions could be US military retaliation by any and
all means necessary, up to and including nuclear weapons”.

The alternative being canvassed—but not so openly discussed—is to
dramatically intensify action to compel Iran to accede to US demands.
The case is argued in today’s New York Times by Howard Berman, the
Democrat chairman of the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs. He
declares: “It is foolhardy to believe that the West could contain or
deter Tehran were it to acquire the bomb. A nuclear-armed Iran would
usher in a dangerous new era of instability in the Gulf and Middle
East… If recalcitrant governments seek to block or dilute the ability
of the United Nations to take strong swift action, then we Americans
will have no choice but to act on our own.” He calls for Obama “to
focus our efforts on the pressure track” and declares that
Congressional sanctions legislation will be ready in a matter of weeks.

What is left unsaid is that the only “option” left, should sanctions
fail to bring Iran to heel, is the military one. The transfer of
bunker-buster bombs to Diego Garcia, along with a string of visits by
top US generals to the Middle East in recent weeks and US assistance
to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States to bolster anti-missile systems,
are all evidence of the advanced nature of US preparations for a
military attack on Iran. While the outcome of the current debate in
Washington is not yet clear, no one can rule out a reckless new US
military adventure against Iran as the Obama administration seeks to
extricate itself from a mounting political crisis both at home and abroad.

http://wsws.org/articles/2010/mar2010/iran-m20.shtml

**********
Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst (D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66 uwvoornaam uwachternaam
Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
Het on-line archief is te vinden op: http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
**********