Symphony of another 'shock and awe'

July 16 2007

Symphony of another 'shock and awe'

by pv vivekanand


THE US administration has reportedly shifted back to the option of military action against Iran in the name of Tehran's nuclear programme before President George W Bush leaves office in 18 months. The shift, reported by the British Guardian newspaper on Tuesday, is seen as a triumph of the hawkish neoconservative camp working through senior administration officials headed by Vice-President Dick Cheney.
The purported losers are the relative moderates led by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defence Secretary Robert Gates who favour diplomacy and sanctions to resolve the nuclear dispute with Iran.
Scott Horton, a New York attorney an expert in international law, especially human rights law and the law of armed conflict who lectures at Columbia Law School, pins the blame directly on Cheney.
Horton writes on www.harpers.org:
"For the dead-ender neoconservatives (and indeed, neoconservatives are by their psychology just the sort of people who make excellent dead-enders), the solution to the current dilemma Ð a catastrophic failure in Iraq, badly miscast plans in Lebanon, an increasingly angry American electorate Ñ is simple: we need a new war. Nothing focuses the mind and silences the opposition quite like a good little war, they believe. And while times may be difficult for the neocons generally, not to worry Ð they still have the key man. One man is the 'decider' on questions respecting Iran. His name is Dick Cheney."
The elements at play have not changed much during the period when talk of military action against Iran was toned down at the insistence of Rice and Gates, with never-say-die Cheney looking for the right tool to silence the call for diplomacy.
Today, the US military remains bogged down in Iraq despite the "surge" in troop strength since February with little sign that the insurgency is being brought under control let alone being fought off.
Washington accuses Iran of fanning the flames of the insurgency by supplying arms and explosives to anti-US groups in Iraq and Afghanistan and training Iraqis in guerrilla warfare. The US administration's contentions, critics say, are designed to convince Americans to accept military action against Iran on the ground that Iran is behind the killing of American soldiers.
The charges, which are rejected outright by Iran, might or might not be true. It might also be possible that non-governmental Iranian groups are involved in anti-US activities in Iraq while the Tehran regime looks the other way.
Reason dictates that Iran wants a peaceful and stable Iraq ruled by its allied groups there, but they want an Iraq without the US military hanging around. Iran fears that it would be the next target for "regime change" if the US military is able to stabilise Iraq and hence it is understandable that Tehran is not exactly very anxious to help Washington pacify the Iraqis.
Parallel to the developments in Iraq, Iran continues to defy calls for suspending its nuclear enrichment programme and implicitly dares the US to take military action. Obviously, Tehran believes Washington knows it well that the Iranians and their proxies in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere could wage a devastating defensive war against the US.
But then, concerns over how Iran would retaliate for military action might not figure much in the hard-line camp in Washington, some argue. The neocons wants the US to go to war with Iran and then let the conflict takes its own course regardless of what it might entail.
As Charlie Reese, an American journalist with 50 years of experience, observes: "The neocons are not only idiots, they are evil. They show a complete disdain for peace, a callous disregard for human life, and utter contempt for the rule of law."
Indeed, we do have in Iraq the best example of the neocon posture, which refuses to acknowledge the realities on the ground and maintains that the US should continue to absorb heavy human and material losses and press ahead with the military option. It should be stunning to the international community that a handful of such people are calling the shots for the world's sole superpower.
In the immediate context, no one seems to have accurate information on the status of Iran's nuclear programme with varying estimates of how long it would take it to build nuclear weapons despite Tehran's denials that its nuclear activities are strictly for peaceful purposes.
Israel is growing impatient by the hour to have a go at Iran's nuclear facilities because the Jewish state feels it cannot afford to have anyone in the Middle Eastern neighbourhood Ñ except itself Ñ to have even the technology that could lead to nuclear weaponisation and possibly challenge its nuclear-based military posture in the regional conflict.
Caught in the middle of the verbal fireworks are the region's countries, which are already reeling back from the direct and indirect impact of the crisis in Iraq and are anxious to avert yet another military conflict in the region.
Drowned in the din of the war of words between the US and Iran are reason and logic that call for serious and substantial dialogue to address the roots of the ever-growing US-Iranian hostility that has to do more with US policies in the Middle East than anything else.
The Iranians are no angels either. They have their own agenda, and many suspect that Tehran hard-liners have dusted off their campaign ÑÊthat was shelved because of the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s ÑÊto export their "Islamic revolution" to the immediate Gulf region and beyond and thus threaten what the US considers as its strategic interests.
According to Monday's Guardian report, the Washington "moderates" prevailed over Bush until recently ÑÊand hence the freezing of military plans against Iran ÑÊbut an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department over the last month gave fresh life to the military option.
Cheney, who is known to favour military action against Iran, engineered the shift by convincing Bush by expressing "frustration" at the lack of progress in pressuring Iran and give up its nuclear programme and an assessment that diplomatic manoeuvring would still be continuing in January 2009, according to the Guardian.
"The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern," according to a source quoted by the paper.
"Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo," says another source cited in the report.
"Cheney has limited capital left, but if he wanted to use all his capital on this one issue, he could still have an impact," Patrick Cronin, the director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, is quoted as saying in the report.
No one is overlooking the Israeli angle.
"The red line is not in Iran. The red line is in Israel. If Israel is adamant it will attack, the US will have to take decisive action," according to Cronin. "The choices are: tell Israel no, let Israel do the job, or do the job yourself."
However, despite the presence of a large US naval force in the region, including two aircraft carrier groups, no decision on military action is expected until next year as the State Department continues to pursue the diplomatic route. That seemed to be a concession given to the moderate camp led by Rice, the secretary of state.
As such, in the short term, efforts would be intensified for an agreement among UN Security Council members for a new round of sanctions against Iran, with Washington seeking tough measures and Russia and China favouring low-profile action.
In the meantime, the ground is being prepared for military action. The US Senate recently adopted a bill that contains an amendment deploring alleged Iranian anti-US activities in Iraq. The amendment accuses Iran of murdering American soldiers, and of committing other acts of war, and that is enough justification and implicit "authorisation" for the Bush administration to launch military action against that country.
Respected commentator Jim Lobe observes on www.antiwar.com: "It may be that the American people are opposed to another war in the Middle East: that may even be the last thing on their minds. Yet our elected 'representatives' could not care less about popular opinion, or else they would have gotten us out of Iraq last year. The lobby is plumbing for war with Iran, and the tom-toms are beating out their message of fear, intimidation, and vaunting Ñ the prelude to another symphony of 'shock and awe'."