Is Iran next on the US hit list?

[maruf]

Is Iran next on the US hit list?

Over the past few weeks, statements issued by President Bush and his officials have ripened speculation that America is about to change the regime in Iran. During his State of the Union speech on Wednesday, Bush declared, “Today, Iran remains the world's primary state sponsor of terror - pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve...To the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you”. On 21/01/05 during his inauguration address, Bush said, "We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.” This statement was widely interpreted by the world’s media that Bush is to adopt an interventionist approach in ending regimes that promote tyranny and replacing them with pro-American democratic regimes. The immediate focus of this doctrine appears to be Iran. Earlier in the day, US Vice President **** Cheney described Iran as the number one trouble spot in the world. He said, "You look around the world at potential trouble spots, Iran is right at the top of the list."

In fact Iran is part of a growing list of countries, which America has earmarked for regime change. On 18/01/05 Condoleezza Rice, while speaking before the Senate said, “We must remain united in insisting that Iran and North Korea abandon their nuclear weapons ambitions, and choose instead the path of peace... There remain outposts of tyranny and America stands with oppressed people on every continent... in Cuba, and Burma, and North Korea, and Iran, and Belarus, and Zimbabwe... We cannot rest until every person living in a "fear society" has finally won their freedom.“<br>
America has not ruled out the use of force to change the regime of Iran. On 18/01/05, in a television interview with NBC News, US President George W Bush said, "I hope we can solve it diplomatically, but I won't ever take any option off the table.” In addition to this, Bush’s new cabinet is extremely loyal to his vision of ending tyranny around the world. The neo-conservatives remain strong as ever in and around government. Commenting on Bush’s inauguration speech, Robert Kagan a leading neoconservative said, "This is real neoconservatism… It would be hard to express it more clearly. If people were expecting Bush to rein in his ambitions and enthusiasms after the first term, they are discovering that they were wrong."

Pentagon is virtually dominated by neoconservative elements such as Douglas Fieth, Paul Wolfowitz and John Bolton -all of whom retain their positions. The appointment of Miss Rice as US Secretary of State signals a shift in the alignment of the State Department towards neoconservative policies. Under Colin Powell there was an open rift over Iran between the State department and Pentagon. Powell along with the CIA favoured engagement and the use of American soft power to bring about regime change in Iran. But with the arrival of Rice at the helm of the State Department and the purging of senior analysts in the CIA the use of force is likely to be the preferred option as opposed to diplomacy. Furthermore, the recent announcement by Rumsfeld that special units under the auspices of the Department of Defence will collate intelligence shows Bush’s determination to make intelligence gathering and analysis support his vision.

All of this indicates that US policy towards Iran remains one of regime change and she has never been interested in disarming Iran or curtailing its nuclear ambitions. Instead Iran’s nuclear programme has been used as a cover to justify America’s desire to change the regime in Iran. America and her surrogate Israel have been leading the call. Undeterred by the intelligence debacle over Iraq’s WMD, America has continued to cite uncorroborated intelligence reports that Iran was exploiting its nuclear programme to produce weapons. On 18/11/05 Colin Powel the then US Secretary of State said that intelligence showed Iran had been actively working on adapting its missiles to carry nuclear warheads. His statement was based on a statement issued by The National Council for Resistance in Iran - an exiled opposition group. The group claimed that Iran had built a secret uranium enrichment site just north of Tehran. The timing of Powell’s statement was intended to derail the agreement between the EU and Iran over its nuclear programme. But the US failed to stop Iran concluding an agreement with France, Germany and Britain. The three countries have consistently argued, based upon their own interests, that the diplomatic route had not yet been exhausted and ultimately would prove more effective than the threat or even imposition of international sanctions. America poured scorn over the agreement and refused to support it. Richard Boucher, US State Department spokesman said,” We haven't sprung new faith in Iran's willingness to do this", adding, "the US remains as sceptical as ever that Iran lives up to the terms of this agreement." Thus America and Israel have continued to make spurious accusations against Iran without providing any proof to substantiate the claims. On 24/01/05, Mossad chief Meir Dagan warned that by the end of this year, Iran will have reached the point of no return in its technology for manufacturing nuclear bombs. “Three to four years later”, he told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, “the Iranians will be able to build a nuclear bomb”.

[maruf]

The EU has acknowledged US and Israeli concerns but has dismissed the use of force in preference to engagement with Iran. In this respect the EU has opened up trade talks with Iran much to the annoyance of the Americans. The trade talks which began earlier this month are part of an agreement reached with Iran over its promise not to pursue nuclear weapons. Meanwhile the Americans have continued their tirade against Iran accusing it of violating human rights, interfering in Iraq, running a clandestine nuclear program, supporting militant groups etc. This has prompted several member states of the EU to seek reassurances from American officials regarding Washington intention towards Tehran. The visit of Jack Straw to the US on 24/01/05 was to press Washington to clarify its intentions over Iran. After meeting his counterpart Ms. Rice, Straw said, “The issue of a military option simply wasn’t raised today.” In other words he did not receive a firm answer from Washington over the use of force against Iran. It has also been reported in the media that Straw has prepared a dossier on Iran which lists several reasons why use of force against Iran will not bring about regime change. The dossier also highlights the merits of constructive engagement with Iran. Britain’s position towards Iran is in marked contrast to her efforts to wage war against Iraq. Against Iraq, Britain issued two dossiers in support of the invasion and was America’s partner in waging the unjust war.

The shift in position over Iran is due to several reasons. First, Britain cannot afford to stand by America and watch her openly destroy the international system of multilateralism, which she sees as the key way of achieving her own colonial interests. Second, Tony Blair is facing an election and cannot risk losing support amongst the electorate most of whom are opposed to the war against Iraq and are sceptical of US intentions. Third, Britain will be assuming the presidency of the EU in June and it is imperative for Britain to be aligned with her European partners then the US.

Nevertheless there still appears to be some discussion amongst cabinet officials how best to approach Iran. In an interview with the Financial Times, Blair sent conflicting signals by not ruling out an eventual US attack on Iran's facilities when replying 'Yes' to whether it may be theoretically the only way to stop Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon. The British premier was also seen distancing himself from his Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, who last year insisted that US military action, was "inconceivable." This may have been brought about by Lord Browne [1] who said,”Right now it is impractical for BP (to invest in Iran) because 40% of BP is in the US and we are the largest producer of oil and gas in the US," he explained. "Politically Iran is not a flyer. One day I hope it is," he went on.

In addition to EU, Russia and China have also added their support to the EU’s approach in dealing with Iran. Hence America stands isolated on this matter at present. The longer the delay to act the more difficult it will become for America to take military action against Iran.

Yet, there are indications that America has begun military preparation to attack Iran. In the New Yorker magazine, Hersh says that American Special Forces have conducted reconnaissance missions inside Iran for six months. He also quotes US intelligence officials revealing that Iran is the Bush administration's "next strategic target". America has also started arming the Mujahideen Ul Khalaq the Iranian opposition group based in Iraq. The group is officially designated a terrorist organisation but despite this America is keen to use the group against Iran. Recently, America has imposed sanctions on Chinese firms selling technology and military hardware to Iran. American has also taken exception to the EU’s decision to lift an arms embargo fearing that such weapons may be used in Taiwan or even by Iran.

Whatever rationale America brings to justify its invasion of Iran the world will not believe it. America’s argument about Iran posing a nuclear danger to its interests is miniscule compared to the nuclear threat posed by North Korea. Similarly, human rights abuses in countries like Uzbekistan, Burma, North Korea and Zimbabwe are far worse then Iran. Also from the standpoint of tyranny, Belarus, North Korea and Cuba are the obvious candidates. The main reason for attacking Iran is to secure the huge oil and gas deposits and then use them to control the world energy supplies. Furthermore, it is to secure the security of Israel.


NOTES

[1] Lord Brown Chief executive of BP is extremely close to the Labour party. "One Whitehall insider says there is a 'meeting of minds' between Tony Blair and Browne, who is a regular visitor to Downing Street. Both men admire the other's leadership." He supported the war in Iraq and then later criticised it when he realised that America was taking full control of the oil. See www.colombiasolidarity.org.uk/Solidarity%208/bpandempire.html