MER WEEKEND READING:
Iran-U.S.
War?
Commentary: Iran's
war threat is very real
"When Shamkhani
threatens the prospect of a
major war against the United States: Believe him...
Forget an October Surprise, a much worse one
could
come in September: Full-scale war between the United
States and Iran
may be far closer than the
American public might imagine."
-- United Press International
Mid-East
Realities - MER - www.MiddleEast.Org - 21 August 2004: There are
those who think we have been overly alarmist in recent days,
though in fact some have accused us of this for a long
time even though our track record of commentary, analysis and expert prediction going way back now is quite
exceptional.
When
it comes to today's situation in the Middle East alarm is in fact
precisely what the situation calls for and requires. Putting out a
fire when it is
small and limited is far easier than when it is raging and out of
control. And the fires in todays Middle East are already
considerable; now being blown and spread by escalating threatening
rhetoric, gusting political winds, and military preparations.
Even as
our double warning was being published Thursday -- reference the MER
Editorial
as well as the MER article that day -- the American government felt the need to rush
this quick statement hoping to be 'reassuring' to the nervous Iranians:
U.S.
forces no
threat to Iran
WASHINGTON,
Aug. 19 (UPI) -- The United States Thursday urged Iran not to be
worried about the presence of U.S. troops in neighboring Iraq.
Iranian
Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani said Wednesday Iran was
concerned about the presence of these troops and if Tehran felt that
its interests were threatened, it might take pre-emptive military
action.
"The
U.S. forces are there as part of a multinational force at the
invitation of ... the Interim Iraqi government ... to help support the
stability and security of Iraq," U.S. State Department's deputy
spokesman Adam Ereli told a briefing in Washington.
The
deployment, he said, was authorized by U.N. Security Council
resolutions.
"So
there is no cause for seeing them as threatening; rather, our view
is ... that far from seeing them as threatening, they should be seen as
stabilizing," Ereli said.
But
if those in Washington
think attempts at cheap soothing words of this kind are seriously going
to calm the tensions in
the region they really are getting carried away with their own
rhetoric. It's now actions, past and present, that people are looking
to these days to judge what to expect in the future. And by those
standards the tensions in the Middle East are extraordinarily high and
the credibility of the United States and it's partner Israel
extraordinarily low.
Yesterday Iran called for an emergency summit of the Organization of
the Islamic Conference. The Arab League has weighed in with the usual
pleas for this and that -- but of course their own past is such that
hardly anyone takes the client Arab regimes that control that
organizations seriously any more. Meanwhile in Najaf, in Sadr City,
and indeed throughout Iraq tensions and killing keep growing and
American battle tanks, helicopter gunships, and shock troops keep on
pounding away at a rebellion against their occupation that keeps on
spreading.
And in the once Holy Land even the Israeli Supreme Court and
establishment newspapers have begun warning out loud that international
sanctions now lie ahead for the Jewish State.
Depending on the electoral prospects of the Bush/Cheney regime in the
U.S., and the Sharon regime in Israel, further explosions and
'surprises' could in fact be much more imminent than most people dare
contemplate.
These four articles from the past few days, especially the first
commentary by UPI Senior Analyst Martin Sieff, help put things in
perspective and set the stage for what is now to come. Unpleasant and
frightening weekend reading, we know...but necessary.
Commentary: Iran's
war threat is very real
By MARTIN SIEFF, UPI
Senior News Analyst
WASHINGTON,
Aug. 19 (UPI) -- Forget an October Surprise, a much worse one
could
come in September: Full-scale war between the United States and Iran
may be far closer than the American public might imagine.
For
Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani Wednesday warned frankly and
openly that if his military commanders believed the United States was
serious about attacking his country to destroy its nuclear power
facility at Bushehr, or to topple its Islamic theocratic form of
government, they would not sit back passively and wait for the U.S.
armed forces to strike the first blow, as President Saddam Hussein in
neighboring Iraq did in March 2003. They would strike first.
"We
will not sit to wait for what others will do to us," Shamkhani told
an interviewer on the Qatar-based al-Jazeera satellite television news
network, which is widely watched throughout the Middle East.
"Some
military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventive
operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly."
The
Iranian defense minister was speaking in response to an increasing
barrage of tough, even ominous statements from senior U.S. officials
that Iranian leaders and many Middle East diplomats believe parallel
the drumbeat of rhetoric that prepared the American public for the war
in Iraq a year and a half ago.
On Aug.
8, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said the world
was "worried and suspicious" about Iran's nuclear program and she made
clear the Bush administration was determined not to let the Iranians
develop nuclear weapons from their new Russian-built reactor. So
seriously did Rice intend the message to be taken that she repeated it
twice in the same day in separate interviews to different network news
shows.
Just
this Tuesday, one of the hottest hawks in the Bush administration,
Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security
John Bolton told a sympathetic audience at the right-wing Hudson
Institute in Washington that the Iranian nuclear program had to be
taken up by the U.N. Security Council. "To fail to do so would risk
sending a signal to would-be proliferators that there are no serious
consequences for pursuing a secret nuclear weapons programs," he said.
"We cannot let Iran, a leading sponsor of international terrorism,
acquire nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to Europe, most
of central Asia and the Middle East, or beyond," Bolton said. "Without
serious, concerted, immediate intervention by the international
community, Iran will be well on the road to doing so."
Bolton's
tough talk came after reports that the International Atomic
Energy Agency in Vienna appears unlikely to announce next month that
Iran's nuclear program contains military elements. Nor, according to
these published reports, is the IAEA expected to recommend referring
the Iranian nuclear program to the U.N. Security Council as Bolton and
his administration colleagues clearly want.
The
comments from Bolton and Rice come within weeks of leading
neo-conservative pundits and activists in Washington proclaiming that
Iran's nuclear program had to be destroyed, even if waging war was the
only way to do it.
Influential
neo-conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote July
23 column in The Washington Post: "The long awaited revolution (in
Iran) is not happening. Which (makes) the question of pre-emptive
attack all the more urgent. If nothing is done, a fanatical terrorist
regime openly dedicated to the destruction of 'the Great Satan' will
have both nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them. All that stands
between us and that is either revolution or pre-emptive attack."
Krauthammer's
column was widely discussed in the Tehran press, further
fueling the fears there that the United States may act in cahoots with
Israel to launch a pre-emptive strike on the Iranian reactor. Iranians
also remember that President George W. Bush included Iran with Iraq as
fellow members of the "axis of evil" in his 2002 State of the Union
speech. Just over a year after that, he unleashed the U.S. armed forces
to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
Iranians
therefore fear that the goal of Bush and his Pentagon hawks is
now exactly what Krauthammer advocated in his July 23 column: to use
the new, "strong fortress" of pro-American Iraq as the launch point to
destabilize and topple the Islamic Republic of Iran. Both the desired
counter-revolution in Iran and a U.S.-delivered or U.S.-backed
pre-emptive strike "are far more likely to succeed with 146,000
American troops and highly sophisticated aircraft standing by just a
few miles away in Iraq," Krauthammer wrote.
In
reality, however, Iraq is anything but a "strong fortress." The
embattled U.S. troops there are hunkered down, on the defensive, an
undermanned, over-stretched, over-worked exhausted force isolated in a
nation that has almost universally rejected them and about which they
were deceived and given no adequate preparation whatsoever.
Indeed,
if a full-scale war broke out with Iran, the United States
might even have to send in hundreds of thousands of more troops to
relieve and rescue its current over-extended force in Iraq, or go
nuclear, or implement both extreme options in order to prevent current
U.S. forces there from being cut off and even possibly over-run.
Shamkhani
Wednesday made clear that this possibility had already
occurred to his own military planners in Tehran. "The U.S. military
presence will not become an element of strength at our expense," he
said. "The opposite is true because their forces would turn into a
hostage."
Shamkhani
also made very clear that his country would regard any
pre-emptive strike against the Bushehr reactor as a casus belli:
sufficient cause to unleash full-scale, unrestricted war against the
United States. "We will consider any strike against our nuclear
installations as an attack on Iran as a whole and we will retaliate
with all our strength," he said.
Some
political leaderships specialize in using tough talk that they
never seriously mean to back up with equally ruthless actions. But the
Iranians are not like that. They lost around a half-million dead to
repel Saddam in the eight-year Iran-Iraq war from 1980 to 1988. So when
Shamkhani threatens the prospect of a major war against the United
States: Believe him.
Analysis: Iran,
Israel exchange threats
By
MODHER AMIN
TEHRAN,
Aug. 19 (UPI) -- The dispute between Iran and Israel has
escalated in
recent weeks, with the officials in Tehran warning of striking back
strongly should Israel launch an attack against Iranian nuclear
facilities.
In the
latest threat, a commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards,
Gen. Mohammad-Baqer Zolqadr, warned Israel that it would "permanently
forget about (its) Dimona nuclear center, if Israel fires one missile
at Bushehr atomic power plant." He talked of the "terrifying
consequences" of such a move, which "Israel should be held responsible
for."
"Given
the internal crises in the Zionist regime and its military,
security and geographical vulnerability, Israel is not capable of
attacking Iran and its treats are only propaganda," Zolqadr said,
adding, the threats are aimed at depriving Iran of its "indisputable
right" to achieve nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.
The
Revolutionary Guards, or Sepah-e Pasdaran, act in parallel with the
regular armed forces, and are well equipped with their navy and air
forces as well as ground troops.
Dimona,
in the Negev desert, is allegedly where Israel produces
weapons-grade plutonium for its estimated 200 nuclear warheads.
Iran's
controversial nuclear plan, with the construction of a reactor
at the southern port city of Bushehr, has sparked serious debate within
international community, with Israel and the United States seeing it as
a cover for nuclear weapons development.
Iran
claims it does not have a secret nuclear program, and is only
seeking to fulfill its growing demand for power. It says it intends to
produce some 7,000 megawatts of nuclear-generated electricity by the
year 2020.
Israel,
however, has never confirmed nor denied possessing a nuclear
arsenal.
"Of
course, we have to develop our defensive capacities -- passive,
active, reactive," Israeli Labor member of parliament and a former
deputy defense minister, Ephraim Sneh, was quoted as having said
recently.
Commenting
on a possible attack by his country against Iranian nuclear
targets, Sneh denied there were any such plans "on the agenda." He
stressed, however, that "We have to strengthen our defense shields
against possible Iranian attack."
Analysts
say, for years, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was seen as the main
threat to the Jewish state, but that place may have now been taken by
Iraq's neighbor.
Warning
that Iran may become a nuclear power within the next three or
four years, Israel wants the world to act. It says, at the same time,
that if diplomacy failed, it would act alone.
"Israel
has many, many capabilities," Danny Yatom, a former head of
Mossad, Israel's international intelligence agency, was quoted as
having said.
"And in
the past, Israel has carried out long-range military
operations, like when we bombed the nuclear facility of Iraq (at Osirak
in 1981). And since then one can imagine that we've improved our
capabilities."
But,
Iranian-born Shaul Mofaz, who is now Israel's defense minister,
does not talk of any preemptive attack on Iran. When asked about a
possible Iranian attack, he answered: "We will know how to defend
ourselves."
On
Sunday, a few days after the Islamic republic announced it had
conducted "a successful test" of an upgraded version of its
conventional medium-range Shahab-3 missile, the Revolutionary Guards
chief, Yadollah Javani, warned that all Israeli military and nuclear
sites were within range.
"The
entire Zionist territory, including its nuclear establishments and
atomic munitions are now within the range of Iran's advanced missiles,"
he said, quoted by the Iranian press.
The
Shahab, meaning "meteor" in Persian, is thought to have a range of
810 miles, with the potential to strike anywhere in Israel.
The
Iranian Defense Minister, Ali Shamkhani, also confirmed the test
had been conducted, but denied that Iran was building a new, more
advanced Shahab-4 missile.
"The
Israelis are trying hard to improve the capacity of their
missiles, and we are also trying to improve the Shahab-3," he said.
On July
28, Israel tested its Arrow II missile, making it clear the
improved anti-missile system was aimed squarely at fending off any
attack by arch-foe Iran. But, Iran maintains its missile program should
work as a deterrent only.
Meanwhile,
in an interview with the Qatari-based al-Jazeera satellite
television channel, Shamkhani talked of the possibility of an American
or Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear installations, saying, any strike
will be considered "an attack on Iran as a whole, and we will retaliate
with all our strength."
Shamkhani
also said it was not possible "practically" to destroy Iran's
nuclear programs as they were the outcome of national skills "which
cannot be eliminated by military means."
He also
warned that the Islamic republic would consider itself no
longer bound by its commitments to the International Atomic Energy
Agency in the event of an attack.
"The
execution of such threats would mean that our cooperation with the
IAEA led to feeding information about our nuclear facilities to the
attacking side, which means that we would no longer be bound by any of
our obligations," he said.
The
U.N. watchdog, with Iran's dossier on its agenda, is due to meet in
mid-September. The last of a group of its inspectors left the country
last week.
Diplomats
in Vienna were quoted Tuesday as having said that the
agency's 35-member board of directors would not mention in their report
whether Iran's nuclear activities are of a military nature, nor will
they recommend bringing the case before the U.N. Security Council.
The
United States, however, insists that Iran's nuclear program must be
referred to the council for possible sanctions.
"We ...
believe that the Iranian nuclear weapons program must be taken
up by the U.N. Security Council," said John Bolton, the U.S.
undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, at
a forum on U.S. policy toward Iran at the Hudson Institute on Tuesday.
Calling
for the international community to isolate Iran over the
program, Bolton further said: "We cannot let Iran, a leading sponsor of
international terrorism, acquire nuclear weapons and the means to
deliver them to Europe, most of central Asia and the Middle East, or
beyond."
"Without
serious, concerted immediate intervention by the international
community, Iran will be on the road to doing so," Bolten added.
Iran,
however, seems to be determined to proceed with its nuclear
program. The country's Supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, told
Iranian ambassadors at a meeting in Tehran Sunday, "The Islamic
republic will continue on the reasonable path which will result in the
peaceful use of nuclear energy without concerning itself about all this
fuss and bother."
Khamenei
stressed the need for Iran to convince the IAEA of its
intentions as the U.N. body has been investigating Iran's nuclear
program for more than a year.
Iran's
President Mohammad Khatami last week said his country "will not
seek permission from anyone" to go on with what he called "a civilian
nuclear program."
"If the
international community wants to deprive us of our primordial
right, we will not give up our national right and our country should be
prepared to pay the price," he said in an apparent reference to threats
of possible U.N. sanctions.
Late
July, Iran announced it had resumed making parts for advanced
centrifuge designs, known as P2, which are used for enriching uranium.
The move was considered a blow to European efforts to limit the scope
of Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Iran,
under an agreement reached last year with Britain, France and
Germany, agreed to allow tougher inspections, file a comprehensive
declarations of its nuclear activities, and suspend uranium enrichment.
Iran said at the time the suspension was only "temporary" aimed at
"building confidence" with the IAEA.
"When
we agreed to suspend (uranium enrichment), that did not mean we
were renouncing it," Khatami said, adding, "We have not enriched, and
if we do, that will be purely experimental, to test our capabilities."
Tensions
Escalate Between Israel, Iran
By JOSEF FEDERMAN, Associated
Press Writer
Aug 20 -
JERUSALEM -
Iran threatened this week to attack Israel's nuclear facilities. Israel
ominously warned that it "knows how to defend itself." Tensions between
the two arch enemies have suddenly escalated, underlining the other
great enmity that has been bubbling on the sidelines of the
Arab-Israeli conflict for more than two decades.
Suspicions that the Iranian
regime is
moving forward with a nuclear arms program deeply worry Israel, which
considers Iran the greatest threat to the Jewish state. Israeli
officials say they want to avoid escalating the situation, however, and
there is no sign Israel is building up for an attack like the one that
destroyed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981.
Experts say the two countries
are
unlikely to go to war anytime soon, despite the heated-up rhetoric
coming out of Iran and the intensified efforts by Israel to isolate the
Iranian regime diplomatically.
Iran and Israel once had close
ties, but
they have been foes since the 1979 revolution that ousted Iran's shah
and installed an Islamic government. Iranian leaders routinely call for
Israel's destruction, while Israelis accuse Iran of supporting
anti-Israel terrorists.
The heightened tensions arose
from the
U.S.-led campaign to organize international pressure on Iran to rein in
its nuclear program.
While recently confirming they
are
working with technology that can be used to produce weapons-grade
uranium, the Iranians insist their program's sole purpose is the
peaceful generation of power and angrily complain about being under
siege.
Last month, the commander of
Iran's
Revolutionary Guards said Iranians would "crush" Israel if it attacked
the Persian state. Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani, upped the
ante this week, telling Al-Jazeera television that his government might
launch pre-emptive strikes to protect its nuclear facilities if they
were threatened.
"We will not sit to wait for
what others
will do to us," he said, adding that some Iranian generals believe the
doctrine of pre-emption is "not limited to Americans."
The warning was seen as aimed at
Israel, alluding to the Israeli strike on Saddam Hussein's reactor two
decades ago.
A senior Israeli official
responded that Israel's government was ready for all eventualities.
"We're not seeking war with
Iran. But if
a real threat materializes, Israel will know how to defend itself,"
said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, reflecting
long-standing Israeli policy of not talking publicly about matters
involving nuclear arms.
Israel is widely believed to
have nuclear
weapons, but never formally confirms or denies it has them. It believes
this policy of ambiguity is the best way to deter attack, by scaring
regional foes about the possibility of nuclear annihilation while
denying those nations a rationale for also seeking such weapons.
Despite the tensions, experts
don't foresee things boiling over.
"I think it is a serious
confrontation.
The issue is who can do what about it," said Cliff Kupchan, vice
president of the Nixon Center in Washington and a former Clinton
administration official who is an expert on Iran.
"On the Israeli side, it is not
clear
that they have the military capabilities or intelligence knowledge to
significantly set back the Iranian program. The Iranians learned from
Osirak to disperse and copy everything they have (in their nuclear
program). I don't think that Israel can do much."
Sammy Salama, a research
associate at the
Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of
International Studies in California, noted that the military situation
is different, too.
"Iraq didn't have any way of
striking
back," Salama said, alluding to Iran's long-range Shahab-3 missiles,
which are capable of reaching Israel. "I think Iran, in essence, is
saying, 'We are not Iraq.'"
Iran Urges Meeting on Iraq 'Catastrophe'
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer
Fri Aug 20 - TEHRAN, Iran -
Iranian President Mohammad Khatami called on Muslim countries Friday to
hold an urgent meeting to discuss the "catastrophe" in Iraq,
particularly the 2-week standoff in the holy city of Najaf.
Khatami urged the 57-member Organization
of the Islamic Conference to hold an emergency summit and said
immediate action should be taken to end the escalating violence in the
southern Iraqi city of Najaf, where militiamen loyal to militant Shiite
cleric Muqtada al-Sadr have been fighting U.S. and Iraqi forces.
"What is happening in Iraq is a spiritual
and human catastrophe and immediate action must be taken to stop the
spread of the catastrophe, particularly in Najaf," Khatami said in a
telephone conversation with the head of the OIC Abdullah Ahmad Badawi,
according to the official Islamic Republic News Agency.
On Friday, the Najaf uprising, centered
on the revered Imam Ali Shrine, appeared to be drawing to an end as
militants from al-Sadr's Mahdi Army removed weapons from the holy site.
The militants had been using the shrine,
one of Shiite Islam's holiest, as a hideout while attacking U.S. and
Iraqi forces. Earlier Friday they offered to give control of the shrine
to Shiite religious authorities, who accepted the offer in principle.
It was unclear how Friday's apparent easing of the crisis in Najaf would affect Khatami's summit call.
Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi urged countries neighboring Iraq to hold an urgent meeting on the Najaf crisis.
Kharrazi first raised his meeting idea in
a telephone call to Jordanian counterpart Marwan Muasher on Wednesday,
but Jordan's response was not immediately made public.
The Syrian government supported
Kharrazi's call, Syria's official news agency quoted an unnamed Foreign
Ministry official as saying. Syria has been a loud opponent of the
U.S.-led war in Iraq.
In Tehran, Iranians staged street
protests Friday over the violence in Najaf, the third holiest city to
Shiite Muslims after Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia, and condemned
"the slaughter of the Iraqi people and the desecration of holy sites
and cities of the country by the U.S. military in Iraq."
The demonstrators also described Iraq's
interim government as "illegitimate" and a "puppet" of the United
States, IRNA reported, and urged Muslim countries to dispatch a
military force to defend Najaf's holy sites.
In his conversation with OIC chief
Badawi, who is also Malaysia's prime minister, Khatami said the Iraqi
interim government was facing a difficult situation in Najaf and that
Iran was interested in seeing a stable Iraq.
"Allowing these conditions to continue
and keeping silent in the face of these events will create grater
problems for us," Khatami warned.
It was unclear if a meeting would be
held, but Iran's call reflects the growing concern in the Middle East
over violence in Iraq and, in particular, Najaf.
|