February
23, 2007
Specter of War Haunting Iran
President Bush’s remarks during
the White House press conference on February 14
that Iraq’s insurgents were receiving deadly
armor-piercing explosives, roadside bombs, rocket-propelled
grenades and other weapons from Iran was probably
intended to shore up the administration’s
war propaganda against Iran. He was evidently pointing
out the rationale for military action against that
country. Such action would be a “defensive”
response to Iranian-backed attacks on US troops
in Iraq.
The President, as Commander-in-Chief of US forces,
can authorize such a response without first seeking
the approval of the Congress.
The sophisticated weapons supplied to Shiite militants
in Iraq by an elite branch (Quds Force) of Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran have been, according
to the administration, responsible for killing recently
at least 170 American soldiers and wounding more
than 700.
The categorical statement of the President on Iranian
involvement is a marked shift in his administration’s
stance till a day earlier. Tony Snow, the White
House Press Secretary had declared emphatically,
“We are not going to war with Iran”.
The President too had been reiterating his commitment
to diplomatic measures. The official stance now
does not exclude the resort to arms to stop the
flow of Iranian weapons to the Iraqi militants.
The President is encouraged in taking such a firm
stand by the equivocal attitude of the Democrats
in the Congress. Their resolution against the dispatch
of 21,500 additional troops to Iraq as authorized
by the President, is not binding on the administration.
It has thus no teeth. And, the Democrats do not
seem averse to authorizing enhanced funds in the
defense budget for the military operations in Iraq,
Afghanistan and elsewhere. They do make a lot of
noise against the war but when it comes to brass
tacks, they go along with the administration.
We have therefore to consider the likely course
of US action on Iran in a broader perspective rather
than from the partisan point of view.
The US-Iran relations have undergone several phases,
from the warm and close contacts of the early cold
war period which included the reinstallation of
the monarch, Reza Shah, with overt and covert US
support in 1953 after he had been dethroned and
sent into exile by an elected revolutionary, Mussadeq.
Firmer relations followed with both entering into
the CENTO, a multinational defense pact.
Relations soured after the Shah of Iran was toppled
by Ayatollah Khomenie and his clerics in a bloody
coup. American diplomats were made hostage. An eight-year
war between Iraq and Iran followed in which Iraq
had the backing of the US. The Iranian leader labeled
the US “the Great Satan” and the source
of all evils in the world. Relations have continued
to become more bitter and clouded by mutual suspicions.
The two states were temporarily nudged together
by 9/11. Iran was apprehensive of the designs of
Al Qaeda and viewed it as an emerging enemy of its
Shiite beliefs and culture. Enemy’s enemy
being your friend, the US antagonism to Al Qaeda
drew friendly gestures from Iran.
Chill, however, re-entered the relations on President
Bush declaring Iran as a component of the “axis
of evil” in his State of the Union address
of 2002.
The current Iranian President, Ahmadinejad, on the
other hand, has dismissed the Holocaust as a hoax
and has advocated the wiping off of Israel from
the world map. This is an unforgivable sin from
the point of view of US policy makers irrespective
of their party or personal affiliations. Israel
is regarded as an extension of the US territory
in the Middle East. And, the high-achieving Jewish
community in the US dominates almost all livers
of financial, political and policy-making powers.
The American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC)
is the most influential and wealthy advocacy group
in the US.
For an objective assessment of the shape of things
to come, one has to keep the following points in
sight.
* Bush administration is reported to have sent two
battle carrier groups, replete with nukes, to the
Persian Gulf, and a third is reportedly preparing
to follow. Batteries of Patriot anti-missile systems
are currently being installed in the Gulf States
to defend US military assets and reassure allies
against potential Iranian reprisal.
* Senior US officials have crisscrossed the Middle
East in the past few weeks to consolidate an anti-Iranian
alliance.
* Bush administration has dismissed out of hand
the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group to hold
negotiations with Iran and Syria.
* The President while announcing on January 10 his
‘surge’ in Iraq, accused Iran and Syria
of arming and training anti-US insurgents in Iraq
and declared that the American military would “seek
out and destroy” such support networks.
* Moqtada al-Sadr, the anti-American cleric, head
of the Mehdi Army, the powerful Shiite militia that
is engaged in guerrilla war with US forces, is said
to have moved to Iran, according to US sources.
* Israeli politicians and generals have warned of
a “second Holocaust” if Iran is not
prevented from acquiring nukes. At the same time
Israel has threatened Iran with “severe steps”
if it does not shut down its nuclear program.
* Congress has tied itself in
knots over a non-binding resolution on Iraq. It
cannot thus be expected to come out with a bold
and binding stand against a war on Iran.
* An economic war against Iran has already been
launched. The Treasury Department and various US
agencies are pressuring foreign governments, major
banks, oil corporations etc to cut off investment,
loans and financial arrangements with Tehran. The
UN Security Council last December placed some sanctions
against Iran for pursuing its nuclear program. A
US legislation, the Iran Sanction Act, provides
for penalties against US or foreign companies investing
in Iranian energy reserves. A $7 billion Iran-Pakistan-India
gas pipeline project is being threatened by this
Act.
* Iran’s economy depends almost entirely on
oil sales. But, Iran’s production cost at
$15-18 is far higher than Saudi Arabia’s $2-3
a barrel. If the Saudis increase production and
cut the existing cost of oil by half, their revenue
would still be sufficient to meet their budgetary
requirements. Iran, on the other hand, would be
financially ruined. The Saudis want to restrain
the expansion of Iranian influence among the Shiites
of Iraq and other Gulf states, while the US is seeking
a regime change in Iran that would admit the US
entry into the enormous energy sources of Iran.
A confluence of the two interests looks quite likely.
arifhussaini@hotmail.com
