FPIF Policy Report |
The United States, Israel, and the Possible Attack on Iran
Stephen Zunes | April 28, 2006
Editor: John Gershman, IRC
|
|
|
|
With even mainstream media outlets like the Washington Post and The New Yorker publishing credible stories that the United States is seriously planning a military attack on Iran, increasing numbers of Americans are expressing concerns about the consequences of the United States launching another war that would once again place the United States in direct contravention of international law.
The latest National Security Strategy document published earlier this year labeled Iran as the most serious challenge to the United States posed by any country. This should be an indication of just how safe the United States is in the post-Cold War world, where the “most serious challenge” is no longer a rival superpower with thousands of nuclear weapons and sophisticated delivery systems capable of destroying the United States, but a Third World country on the far side of the planet which, according to the latest National Intelligence Estimate out of Washington, is at least 10 years away from actually producing a usable nuclear weapon. Furthermore, Iran has no capacity to develop any delivery system in the foreseeable future capable of landing a weapon within 10,000 miles of our shores.
However, despite the fact that there is no evidence that Iran is even developing nuclear weapons in the first place, the Bush administration and Congressional leaders of both parties argue that simply having the technology which would make it theoretically possible for Iran to manufacture a nuclear weapon at some point in the future is sufficient casus belli. As part of his desperate search for enemies, President Bush claimed in January that a nuclear-armed Iran would be “a grave threat to the security of the world,” words that echoed language he used in reference to Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion of that oil-rich country. Meanwhile, Vice President Dick Cheney vowed “meaningful consequences” if Iran did not give up its nuclear program and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton claimed there would be “tangible and painful consequences” if Iran did not cooperate.
The Washington Post quoted White House sources as reporting that “Bush views Tehran as a serious menace that must be dealt with before his presidency ends,” apparently out of concern that neither a Democratic nor Republican successor might be as willing to consider a military option.
Not that he needs to worry about that. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, widely seen as the front-runner for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, accused the Bush administration in January of not taking the threat of a nuclear Iran seriously enough, criticized the Bush administration for allowing European nations to take the lead in pursuing a diplomatic solution, and insisted that the administration should make it clear that military options were being actively considered. Similarly, Democratic Senator Evan Bayh, another likely contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, accused the Bush administration of “ignoring and then largely deferring management of this crisis to the Europeans.” Taking the diplomatic route, according to Bayh, “has certainly been damaging to our national security.”
Despite the hostility of these two Democratic senators toward diplomatic means of resolving the crisis and the similarity of their rhetoric to the false claims they made prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein's government was a threat to global security and that diplomatic solutions were impossible, both Clinton and Bayh are widely respected by their fellow Democrats as leaders on security policy.
Indeed, in May of 2004, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution with only three dissenting votes calling on the Bush administration to “use all appropriate means”—presumably including military force—to “prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.”
As with the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, both Republican and Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill have tended to call witnesses before the relevant committees who would present the most alarmist perceptions as fact. Last month, for example, Patrick Clawson of the right-wing Washington Institute for Near East Policy testified before the Senate International Relations Committee that, “So long as Iran has an Islamic Republic, it will have a nuclear-weapons program, at least clandestinely.” None of the senators present, however, bothered to mention the inconvenient fact that under the secular regime of the Shah that preceded the Islamic Republic, Iran also had a nuclear program (which was actively supported and encouraged by the United States.) However, Clawson said that since a nuclear program was inevitable under the Islamic Republic, only by overthrowing the government—not through a negotiated settlement—would the United States be safe from the nuclear threat. He insisted, therefore, that “the key issue” was not whether an arms control agreement could be enforced, but “How long will the present Iranian regime last?”
The Risks from a U.S. Attack on Iran
With the ongoing debacle in Iraq, any kind of ground invasion of Iran by U.S. forces is out of the question. Iran is three times bigger than Iraq, both in terms of population and geography. It is a far more mountainous country that would increase the ability of the resistance to engage in guerrilla warfare and the intensity of the nationalist backlash against such a foreign invasion would likely be even stronger.
An attack by air and sea-launched missiles and bombing raids by fighter jets would be a more realistic scenario. However, even such a limited military operation would create serious problems for the United States.
The Washington Post, in a recent article about a possible U.S. strike against Iran, quoted Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA Middle East specialist, as noting how “The Pentagon is arguing forcefully against it because it is so constrained” by ongoing operations in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan. Similarly, the Post quoted a former Pentagon official in contact with his former colleagues as observing how “I don't think anybody's prepared to use the military option at this point.” Given that the growing opposition to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld 's handling of the war in Iraq within the leadership of the armed services, as expressed by a number of prominent recently-retired generals, would make a major military operation without strong support from America's military leadership particularly problematic.
Fears expressed by some opponents of possible U.S. military action against Iran that the Iranians would retaliate through terrorist attacks against American interests are probably not realistic. Indeed, Iran's control over foreign terrorist groups and its role in terrorist operations has frequently been exaggerated by American analysts.
However, there are a number of areas in which the United States would be particularly vulnerable to Iranian retaliation:
One would be in the Persian Gulf, where U.S. Navy ships could become easy targets for Iranian missiles and torpedoes.
Perhaps more serious would be in Iraq, where American troops are currently operating against the Sunni-led insurgency alongside Iranian-backed pro-government militias. If these Iranian-backed militias also decided to turn their guns on American forces, the United States would be caught in a vise between both sides in the country's simmering civil war with few places to hide. It would be difficult for the United States to label militias affiliated with the ruling parties of a democratically-elected government fighting foreign occupation forces in their own country as “terrorists” or to use such attacks as an excuse to launch further military operations against Iran. (Given that the Iraqi government is ruled by two pro-Iranian parties, recent charges by the Bush administration that Iran is aiding the anti-government Sunni insurgency are utterly ludicrous and have been rejected by the Iraqi government.)
A U.S. air strike would be a clear violation of the United Nations Charter and would be met by widespread condemnation in the international community. It would further isolate the United States as a rogue superpower at a time in which it needs to repair its damaged relations with its European and Middle Eastern allies. Even Great Britain has expressed its opposition to military action. Pro-Western Arab states, despite their unease at Iran's nuclear program, would react quite negatively to a U.S. strike, particularly since it would likely strengthen anti-American extremists by allowing them to take advantage of popular opposition to the United States utilizing force against a Muslim nation in order to defend the U.S.-Israeli nuclear monopoly in the region.
As a result, the negative consequences of a U.S. attack may be strong enough to convince even the Bush administration not to proceed with the military option.
Israel as Proxy
Though direct U.S. military action against Iran is still very possible, it is more likely that the United States will encourage Israel to take military action instead. In such a scenario, the U.S. officials believe that the United States would gain the perceived benefits of a military strike against Iran while limiting the damage to the United States by focusing the world's wrath on Israel. Fox News reported that Bush administration officials effectively told the Israelis that “we are doing the heavy lifting in Iraq and Afghanistan … and that Israel needs to handle this themselves.”
Israel has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to violate international legal norms and—with U.S. veto power blocking the UN Security Council from imposing sanctions, and the United States providing vast sums of unconditional military and economic assistance to their government—its ability to get away with doing so. The Israeli government is convinced that the U.S. occupation of Iraq has radicalized the Iranian clerical leadership and that Iran, unlike Iraq in the final years of Saddam Hussein, poses a risk to Israel's national security interests. However, for reasons mentioned above, Israeli leaders have been reported to believe that the United States will not move militarily against Iran and that they will end up using their own forces instead.
An Israeli strike is not inevitable, however. Public opinion polls show that a majority of Israelis oppose the idea of an Israeli strike against Iran. Policy analyst Steve Clemons was quoted in the Washington Monthly as saying, “I have witnessed far more worries about Iranian President Ahmadinejad's anti-Holocaust and anti-Israel rhetoric in the U.S. than I did in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem … Nearly everyone I spoke to in Israel who ranged in political sympathies from the Likud right to Maretz left thought that … Israel thought it wrong-headed and too impulsive to be engaged in saber-rattling with Iran at this stage.” He added, “Israeli national security bureaucrats—diplomats and generals—have far greater confidence that there are numerous potential solutions to the growing Iran crisis short of bombing them in an invasive, hot attack.”
There is no indication that Iran would ever contemplate a first strike against Israel or any other country. Iran, like other Islamic governments in the region, has used Israel's repression of the Palestinians for propaganda purposes, but has rarely done anything to actually help the Palestinians. It is inconceivable that the Iranians would ever consider launching a nuclear attack on Israel—which possesses at least 300 nuclear weapons and sophisticated missiles and other delivery system that could totally destroy Iran—for the sake of the Palestinians, many thousands of whom would die as well. However, an Israeli attack could give Iran grounds for retaliation.
Despite these dangers, Israel—with U.S. encouragement—has long considered the possibility of an attack against Iran.
In the mid-1990s, prior to the election of the U.S.-backed Likud government of Benyamin Netanyahu to office, the peace process with the Palestinians was progressing steadily, a peace treaty had been signed with Jordan, and diplomatic and commercial ties with other Arab states was growing. With the prospects of a permanent Israeli-Arab peace, American arms exporters and their allies in Congress and the Clinton administration, along with their hawkish counterparts in Israel, began emphasizing the alleged threat to Israel from Iran as justification for the more than $2 billion worth of annual U.S. taxpayer subsidies for U.S. arms exporters for them to send weapons to Israel. Among these was an agreement to provide Israel with sophisticated F-15 fighter bombers. As the peace process faltered due to increased repression and colonization by Israel and increased terrorism from radical Palestinian groups and as reformists appeared to be gaining momentum in Iran, Israel began focusing upon more immediate threats closer to home, though deliveries of the F-15s continued through 2001.
Last year, however, the United States unexpectedly provided Israel with an additional thirty long-range F-15s at a cost of $48 million each. The United States has also recently provided Israel with 5000 GBU-27 and GBU-28 weapons, better known as “bunker busters,” warheads guided by lasers or satellites which can penetrate up to ten meters of earth and concrete to destroy suspected underground facilities. Reuters reported a senior Israeli security source as noting, “This is not the sort of ordinance needed for the Palestinian front. Bunker busters could serve Israel against Iran …” Israel also has at least five submarines armed with sea-launched missiles which could easily get within range of Iranian targets.
One scenario reportedly has Israel sending three squadrons of F15s to fly over Jordanian and Iraqi airspace, currently controlled by the U.S. air force, to strike at major Iranian facilities. The United States would provide satellite information for the attack as well as refueling for the Israeli jets as they leave Iranian air space for their return to Israel. The Sunday Times has reported that the Israelis have been “coordinating with American forces” for such a scenario. That same article described Israeli commando training operations at a full-sized mockup of Iran's Natanz nuclear facility at a military facility in Israel's Negev Desert and the dispatch of clandestine Israeli Special Forces units into Iran. Meanwhile, the Israeli Ofek-6 spy satellite is now reported to have been moved to an orbit over Iranian facilities.
As far back as April 2004, President Bush exchanged letters with Sharon in which he stated, in reference to Iran, that, “Israel has the right to defend itself with its own forces.”
Despite the widely-held tail-wagging-the-dog assumptions, history has shown that the United States has frequently used Israel to advance its strategic interests in the region and beyond, such as aiding pro-Western governments and pro-Western insurgencies, keeping radical nationalist governments like Syria in check and engaging in covert interventions in Jordan, Lebanon, and now Kurdistan. During the 1980s, Israel was used to funnel arms to third parties the United States could not arm directly, such as the apartheid regime South Africa, the Guatemalan junta, the Nicaraguan Contras, and, ironically, the Iranian mullahs. Israel's bombing of Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981—despite formal criticism—was enthusiastically supported by the Reagan administration.
One Israeli analyst was quoted as saying in the Washington Post during the Iran-Contra scandal, “It's like Israel has become just another federal agency, one that's convenient to use when you want something done quietly.” Nathan Shahan wrote in Yediot Ahronot that his country serves as the “Godfather's messenger,” since Israel “undertakes the dirty work of the Godfather, who always tries to appear to be the owner of some large respectable business.” Israeli satirist B. Michael describes U.S. aid to Israel as a situation where “My master gives me food to eat and I bite those whom he tells me to bite. It's called strategic cooperation.”
Just as the ruling elites of medieval Europe used the Jews as money-lenders and tax collectors to avoid the wrath of an exploited population, the elites of the world's one remaining superpower would similarly be quite willing to use Israel to do their dirty work against Iran. That way Israel, not the United States, will get the blame. (In fact, there are those who blame Israel even when the United States takes military action itself, such as the various conspiracy theories now circulating that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was done on behalf of Israel.)
It Won't Work
A military strike against Iran, either directly by the United States or through Israel, will not likely succeed in curbing Iran's nuclear program. Indeed, it will likely motivate the Iranian government, with enhanced popular support in reaction to foreign aggression against their country, to redouble their efforts.
Iran has deliberately spread its nuclear facilities over a wide geographical range, with at least nine major locations. Even the bunker buster bombs may not fully penetrate a number of these facilities, assuming all the secret sites could be located.
The U.S.-backed Israeli raid of Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981, according to virtually all accounts by Iraqi nuclear scientists, was at most a temporary setback for Saddam Hussein's nuclear program and ultimately led to the regime accelerating its timetable for the development of nuclear weapons until it was dismantled under the watch of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency in the early 1990s. Despite this, the Congress passed a resolution in 1991 defending Israel's action and criticizing the United Nations for its opposition to Israel's illegal military attack.
The only real solution to the standoff over Iran's nuclear program is a diplomatic one. For example, Iran has called for the establishment of a nuclear weapons-free zone for the entire Middle East in which all nations in the region would be required to give up their nuclear weapons and open up their programs to strict international inspections. Iran has been joined in its proposal by Syria, by U.S. allies Jordan and Egypt, and by other Middle Eastern states. Such nuclear weapons-free zones have already been successfully established for Latin America, the South Pacific, Antarctica, Africa, and Southeast Asia.
The Bush administration and Congressional leaders of both parties have rejected such a proposal, however, insisting that the United States has the right to unilaterally decide which countries get to have nuclear weapons and which ones do not, effectively imposing a kind of nuclear apartheid. In 1958, the United States was the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the region, bringing tactical nuclear bombs on its ships and planes. Israel became a nuclear weapons state by the early 1970s with the quiet support of the U.S. government. To Iran's east, Pakistan and India have developed nuclear weapons as well, also with U.S. support: the Bush administration recently signed a nuclear cooperation agreement with India and has provided both countries with nuclear-capable jet fighter-bombers.
Located in such a dangerous region, then, it is not surprising that Iran might be seeking a nuclear deterrent. The United States and Israel do not want Iran to have such a deterrent, however, since it would challenge the U.S.-Israeli nuclear monopoly in that oil-rich region. In other words, what those in the Bush administration, the Israeli government, and the bipartisan leadership in Congress are concerned about is protecting the hegemonic interests of the United States and its junior partner Israel, not stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Such a policy does not protect the interests of the American or Israeli people, nor does it help the people of Iran and the Middle East as a whole. It remains to be seen, however, whether the American public will once again allow the Bush administration and the leadership of both parties Congress to successfully employ exaggerated stories of potential “weapons of mass destruction” controlled by an oil-rich country on the far side of the world to justify a disastrous war.
Stephen Zunes is Middle East editor for the Foreign Policy In Focus Project (www.fpif.org). He serves as a Professor of Politics at the University of San Francisco and is the author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (Common Courage Press, 2003).
|
Please donate your economic stimulus rebate to a progressive future.
|
|
|
Published by Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF), a project of the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS, online at www.ips-dc.org). Copyright © 2008, Institute for Policy Studies.
Recommended citation:
Stephen Zunes, "The United States, Israel, and the Possible Attack on Iran" (Silver City, NM and Washington, DC: Foreign Policy In Focus, April 28, 2006).
Web location:
http://fpif.org/fpiftxt/3251
Production Information:
Author(s): Stephen Zunes
Editor(s): John Gershman, IRC
Production: Chellee Chase-Saiz, IRC |
|
Latest Comments & Conversation Area
Editor's Note: FPIF.org editors read and approve each comment.
Comments are checked for content only; spelling and grammar errors are not
corrected and comments that include vulgar language or libelous content are
rejected. |
| |
| Name: |
llan hubere |
Date: Apr 28, 2006 |
| It seems that Iran is getting popular support. However, it also has come to my understanding that as long as the Arab nations, for instance, like Iran in its efforts to build nuclear mater that can be used by jihadist or any friends. I strongly urge that such Nation stop such foolishness and agressive tactics because as long as they continue to alarm Americans, they will wake up a Nation "A sleeping giant Bear" that will not tolerate one loss of life from any American citizen. I agree with the fact that Iran needs to use energy, needs to feed its people, needs to have independence, needs to have Islam but I warn Iran that the Americans are not to be played with because we should delegate peace or wake up the sleeping giant. |
|
| Name: |
Rastaman |
Date: Apr 29, 2006 |
| Another pile of slanted crap. "the most serious challenge" to the U.S. is now only a little third world nation 10 years away from building nuclear weapons... Where do you get those bizarre figures and ideas? Islamism is the most serious challenge not only to the United States but the entire world. "despite the fact that there is no evidence that Iran is even developing nuclear weapons in the first place" Even tho they say outright that they are doing everything possible to achieve that technology, make it clear they intend to blow Israel off the map, are building long range ballistic missiles and claim to be new members of the worlds Nuclear club??? No evidence? You utter LIAR!
|
|
| Name: |
Phil Badham |
Date: Apr 29, 2006 |
| I started to read your article but stopped very early. You are obviously way more interested in domestic politics than foriegn news. Your spin is pure self serving nonsense. I'm presently reading Tacitus "The Agricola and the Germania" and I recommend you do the same. The tragedy is that people like you destroyed an empire and it was replaced with barbarism and mayhem generally referred to as "The dark ages." This was followed by a thousand years of religeous fanatisism which is barely behind us. Civilisation is very fragile and people like you can destroy it easily. It is a double tragedy that people like you find that complementary. |
|
| Name: |
Freethinker57 |
Date: Apr 29, 2006 |
| You're long on opinion and seemingly short on facts to back up your "scholarly" work. How about starting with the history of Iran, the imperialism of Islam, and thoroughly discuss Iran as an admitted terrorist nation. After all of this ground work you may now have a basis for determining whether or not Iran is a threat to the U.S.A. Oh wait, I forgot, you’re a professor of politics at a liberal university. What was I thinking? |
|
| Name: |
Peter Armand Schenk |
Date: Apr 29, 2006 |
| The USA and Israel are Morons. You THINK that Russia, China, and India will give up the Oil and Gas in Iran to have the USA take over Iran and make India and China dependent (under the controll) of the USA? You underestimate Russia's, China's, and India's technology. Russia cannot match the US armed forces but it has developed and built weapons that will "kill" the US or Israel's technology. Russia may have already mini-satellites near US or Israeli satellites that can blind these spay satellites or even destroy them. They surely have all the data how the US and Israeli technology works and have developed jamming devices etc. etc. Switzerland, my native home, prepared itselve against a German invasion before W.W.II, and thus avoided a German invasion. The Germans figured the cost was too high. Even Hitler was able to look at the worst case scenario, not like the USA and Israel that are like an elephant in a china store. I am sure Iran was well prepared by Russia, China, and India against an attack by either countries to protect THEIR interest against US world domination. Russia, China, and India may even lure the US or Israel into such an attack to give the USA the final blow. What if Russia and China dump ALL their US Dollars reserves and switch to the Euro after an attack? Look at all the possible worst case scenarios. Israel has painted itself in a corner by building all these settlements on occupied land. They are illegal now and will be illegal tomorrow and 1000 years from now. The US may help Israel with their Veto, but a real friend helps his friend from destroying himself. The world will know that an attack agaist Iran was FOR ISRAEL and if the worst case scenarios unfold, it will be the Jewish people in the world that will get all the blame. Should oil jump to over $100 a barrel Russia will have a windfall and the US economy will suffer. Don't ever think Iran has forgotten what the Shah did to Iran and for whom. Iranians know history much better than the average American. Just think what techology the German Scientists gave to Stalin after W.W.II, now the Germans and Russians are friends and do a lot of business together, including working on defencive weapons! Only a fool would walk into the Iran trap! To talk with Iran one on one will be the way for the USA to gain what they have lost in Iraq. Attaking Iran may bring a Vietnam in Iraq (and Afghanistan) quicker than the USA may think.
Best regards
Peter Armand Schenk
|
|
| Name: |
John Odeh |
Date: Apr 29, 2006 |
| A brilliant and insightful article! Unfortunately however the Americans follow blindly wherever their elected leaders lead, and so there is little hope that they will rein in either the present Bush, or any future administration. Clearly the case against Iran is built on a tissue of lies and/or assumptions, however the American people generally harbor a hatred for and grudge against the Islamic Theocracy in Iran (probably due to the 1979 hostage crisis), and as such are not capable of making an unbiased judgement on this issue. They would gladly watch what the US government will spin as an attempt to square accounts with this decades old enemy, and since the American people are obsessed with a desire for revenge against real or perceive enemies, they are sadly indeed, most likely to play along with the Washington hawks. |
|
| Name: |
John Francis Lee |
Date: Apr 29, 2006 |
| After enumerating all the reasons why attacking Iran is not in the United States' interest you claim that it is in the United States interest to have Israel to do "it's work" for it? I'm sorry, but this eagerness to attack Iran lies wholly within the far-right neocon wing, some Jewish many not, who have made Greater Israel their priority. The mechanism for the upcoming attack on Iran that you posit is nothing less than the bald alliance of a US/Israeli Axis of War in the Middle East. It does, in retrospect, lend more credence than ever to the putative role ascribed to The Israel Lobby in the Iraq war. |
|
| Name: |
Peter Armand Schenk |
Date: Apr 29, 2006 |
| In addition to my coments of today, please read this article. It may apply to China, but one would assume Russia and China will protect Iran any way they can to avoid a wider war. Since Wars are easy to plan and start, they are never predictable and take on there own life. The only good wars in the history of mankind where the ones that where avoided.
http://atimes.com/atimes/China/HD20Ad03.html
Best regards
Peter Armand Schenk
|
|
| Name: |
trish schuh |
Date: Apr 29, 2006 |
| (just so you know someone is trying to confront/get heard.)
The United Nations Security Council, under heavy US-Israeli pressure- finds Iran noncompliant to the NPT. The next Security Council resolution will include a 'chapter 7' option which allows military attack on Iran. The fuse is lit.
UNITED NATIONS-April 28, 2006 We're getting mugged again with the same smoking gun. No matter that the gun has repeatedly backfired. The Bush adminstration and its neocon puppeteers are using the same methods and ammunition on Iran as they did on Iraq- along with the same sell-out media to publicize their cause. Bolton warns that "UN credibility is on the line". But it is the US that has no credibility. Do we honor the Rule of Law, or the law of the jungle enforced by the biggest bully?
Outside the UN Security Council Chamber, I spoke to John Bolton on the issue:
QUESTION: You talk quite often of the credibility of the UN and it seems-
BOLTON: -and so has Secretary Rice recently.
QUESTION: Yes, and Rice has as well. But that seems to work in your favor when they (UN) do what you want them to do. But you violated the UN Charter when you went to war against Iraq and you consistently lied to us about the reasons that we went to war. This war policy was drawn up in Herzliya, Israel in 1996 via the Project for a New American Century. What credibility do you have other than that based on having the biggest guns?
BOLTON: Can I ask what media outlet you're from? We did not violate the UN Charter in the war to overthrow Saddam Hussein and that plan was not drawn up in Herzliya for the Project for a New American Century.
I then tried to ask a followup question about US violations of UN Charter & ICJ when the US issued numerous threats to nuke Iran. This bully refused to address the issue and tried to turn the other reporters against me by claiming I wouldn't let them ask questions- when I wouldn't back down. But most domestic media present were full accessories to the pending crime, not challenging his lies or omissions. (Or maybe they are too busy with their latest "perv-of the-week" scoop as Ted Turner calls it). One shellacked-hair reporter even scolded me for not being diplomatic. Hard to be polite over a few million more to be nuked or DU'd... |
|
| Name: |
Karen |
Date: Apr 30, 2006 |
| Mr. Zunes,
It is a very interesting article, except, I can't figure out how you came to the conclusion that it is the US that is urging Israel to attack, and not the other way around? While it is true that Israel has done the dirty work of US at times, are you suggesting that the US has never done the dirty work of Israel? If it is not true that the US has never done the dirty work of Israel, then, can someone using your rationale come to the conclusion that, since the US has done the work for Israel previously, it is highly likely that the US's contemplation of attacking Iran is really US doing it on behalf of Israel?
In short, the INTEGRITY of your argument would be at stake if you do not address the above opposite scenario. Otherwise, your conclusion of the dog wagging the tail would appear as an attempt to cover up the opposite argument, and, unfortunately, left me with the impression that you assumed your readers could be easily manipulated by faulty arguments into overlooking the so-called tail-wagging-dog scenario.
Certainly, you are a man of integrity and wouldn't attempt anything of such sort. To back it up, I would, among many readers, welcome a follow-on article, explaining to us just why you think the dog wagging the tail scenario is more likely than the tail wagging the dog scenario. Along the way, I would like very much for you to specifically point out the historical facts that, indeed, the US has done dirty work for Israel as well. After that, I would like you to point out that why you think the fact that US has done the dirty work for Israel will not lead to the conclusion that the US is doing the dirty work for ISrael this time, while, AT THE SAME TIME, you think the fact that Israel has done the dirty work for the US previously will mean that Israel is again doing the dirty work for the US this time.
Now, that's called an article of integrity. I would like an answer from Mr. Zunes on this very point, even if you do not post my comment. I think highly of Mr. Zunes and I hope he is what I think he is, a man of integrity.
Karen
|
|
| Name: |
Gene Jones |
Date: Apr 30, 2006 |
| The article, The United States, Israel, and the Possible Attack on Iran, by Stephen Zunes is excellent except for one criticism.
Why does Professor Zunes make the comment: "In fact, there are those who blame Israel even when the United States takes military action itself, such as the various conspiracy theories now circulating that the United States invasion of Iraq was one on behalf of Israel."
Professor Zunes must know that the attack on Iraq has been favored by the Israeli lobby (AIPAC) for years, The Project for a New American Century and other pro-Israel think tanks. Philip Zellikow, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission mentioned the Iraq invasion was to protect Israel.
Isn't it somewhat irresponsible by Professor Zunes to dismiss Israeli encouragement for the Iraq invasion as a conspiracy theory when we know Larry Franklin has pled quilty for spying for Israel at the pentagon (Office of Special Plans, infamous for manipulating intelligence to justify the Iraq invasion) and that prior to the Iraq invasion Israeli generals were coming to pentagon without following proper sign-in procedure.
|
|
| Name: |
Ian Parker |
Date: Apr 30, 2006 |
| What about attacks by special forces on political targets? The Iranians have had death squads operating against their opponents - why not use the technique against them? Also there needs to be a "flexible response" to terrorist attacks by Hizbullah and Islamic Jihad. There should be Cold War style deterrence. Iran is being pilloried for the wrong crimes. It should not be nuclear weapons, it should be the proxies of shadowland. |
|
| Name: |
Marc Starr |
Date: May 01, 2006 |
| Who needs a delivery system. What are you thinking about. Didn't we learn anything from 911? Millions of containers come into this country via ship every year. I wonder what people thought about Germany building the Bismark. Did they think is was a fishing boat? |
|
| Name: |
MARION |
Date: May 01, 2006 |
Stephen Zunes, "The United States, Israel, and the Possible Attack on Iran WAS THE MOST ACCURATE ANALYSIS OF THE CONFRONTATION THAT I HAVE PERSONALLY READ.... STEPHEN ZUNES GETS AN
A+ FROM ME... |
|
| Name: |
George R. Dillahunty |
Date: May 01, 2006 |
| Whatever it takes, we cannot allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons - why? Because Iran has no compunction in using them against Israel - a nation which Iran has vowed to destroy! This will take some careful monitoring to prevent Iran's threat to Israel from coming true! Beware Russia's military alliance with Iran - that could pose some problems! |
|
| Name: |
D Vernon |
Date: May 01, 2006 |
| A fair article by Prof. Zunes, who nonetheless would do better to not underestimate damage doable in the name of Iran, whether in response to American dangerous folly, or somewhere down our road of great uncertainties. |
|
| Name: |
Rick Ellison |
Date: May 01, 2006 |
| Professor Zunes is absolutely correct about at least one issue which has never been mentioned in any of the corporate-mainstream-medias; and that is the U.S., Israel and the West in general are not concerned at all about Iran ever attacking them with nuclear weapons. They know full well that Iran simply does not want to continually be bullied and terrorized by the West, as she has been for centuries. Iran is simply seeking a nuclear deterrent. But the Western colonialists do not want Iran to have any capabilities to deter the Western terrorists.
Professor Zunes: "Located in such a dangerous region, it is not surprising that Iran might be seeking a nuclear deterrent. The United States and Israel do not want Iran to have such a deterrent, however, since it would challenge the US-Israeli nuclear monopoly in that oil-rich region. In other words, what those in the U.S. and Israel are concerned about is protecting the hegemonic interests of the United States and its junior partner Israel, not stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons". |
|
| Name: |
Jersey Ron |
Date: May 02, 2006 |
| Stephen, I enjoyed your article entitled "The United States, Israel, and the Possible Attack on Iran". However, I think your assessment that Israel is America's junior partner is wrong. I know you may think what I'm about to say is ridiculous but it is Israel that controls America. I'm sure you've heard this before but TRUTH is TRUTH! They(ZIONISTS) control the media (EVERYTHING WE SEE & HEAR), they control our ENTIRE financial system through the PRIVATELY owned Federal Reserve System and they control our government. Pearle, Wolfowitz, Chertoff, etc, etc the Senate, the House. Bush's staff has 6 bona-fide Rabbi's. C'mon, get real!! Ariel Sharon even said during an Israeli meeting and I quote "We control America and the Americans know it".
Jersey Ron
|
|
| Name: |
Adam |
Date: May 03, 2006 |
| Stephen Zunes is one of the few in the media who actually understand and report the real situation. I would like to see him on TV more. |
|
| Name: |
Aaron M. |
Date: May 06, 2006 |
| Given the latest developments regarding the resignation of CIA boss Porter Goss and other veteran intelligence officers from that agency, it looks like John Negroponte now has exclusive access to the White House and Congress in order to provide "intelligence reports" to the president and his staff. In my opinion, all efforts will be put on the so-called "Iranian Threat", which actually reminds me of Negroponte watching over Colin Powell at the last UN Security Council meeting before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the rest is history. Except for this time, it will be repeating itself all over again, and the American People do not seem to be aware of an eventual military operation or its consequences according to Stephen Zunes' report. And at this moment, nothing seems to convince George W. Bush to avoid another war due to the fact that he's a religious fundamentalist zealot who thinks that he is right to strike Iran - in the same way that he called upon a "higher authority" as a justification among many others for the United States to invade Iraq. |
|
| Name: |
GEORGE TOSKIN |
Date: May 09, 2006 |
| Iam a Ugandan youth and intrested in world affairs. I belive Isreal and United States of America should do everything possible to stop Irans nulear ambitions for all honesty it is not for peaceful purposes. Military force should be applied immediately, to stall the programme and to send a clear message to region and the world on the need to preserve world peace and protect Isreal specifically. |
|
| Name: |
Aaron M |
Date: May 20, 2006 |
| "Another pile of slanted crap. "the most serious challenge" to the U.S. is now only a little third world nation 10 years away from building nuclear weapons... Where do you get those bizarre figures and ideas? Islamism is the most serious challenge not only to the United States but the entire world. "despite the fact that there is no evidence that Iran is even developing nuclear weapons in the first place" Even tho they say outright that they are doing everything possible to achieve that technology, make it clear they intend to blow Israel off the map, are building long range ballistic missiles and claim to be new members of the worlds Nuclear club??? No evidence? You utter LIAR! "
- Reality check: there is a huge difference between rhetoric and capabilities when it comes to Iran as a future nulcear power, and the ruling Mullahs are not crazy or stupid enough to start a war against the state of Israel which is THE only superpower in the region, and which can easily obliterate Iran today if it wanted to.
Also with its current Nuclear Bunker-Buster arsenal, Washington's intentions of striking Iran are actually more plausible due to the Bush administration's track record regarding its total rejection of international law. A hard reality despite the fact that there is absolutely no real evidence of Iran's nuclear program to be used for military purposes.
And guess what ?? the very fact that the UN Security Council is currently divided over Iran, and can't seem to agree on a Resolution - goes to show that this so-called "Iranian Threat" is unfounded. Iran is not the Taliban or Al Qaeda, but what the hell do you know because you guys put everything in the same bag, just like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell who speak on your behalf. |
|
| Name: |
Levent Mert |
Date: May 30, 2006 |
| Looks like only USA itself thinks that bullying is winning. Smart way? |
|
| Name: |
Albert Talker |
Date: Jun 08, 2006 |
| Iran is the Greatest Threat to the West and the Arab Countries (not particularly to Israel)
Iran is not Israel’s real problem. Iran’s is a greater threat to the West and then the Arab nations around her.
Preview and History
The history of the Persian Jews has been uninterrupted for over 2,500 years. It is a Mizrahi Jewish community in the territory of today's Iran, the historical core of the former Persian Empire, which began as early as the 8th century BCE, at the time of captivity of the ancient Israelites in Khorassan (eastern Iran).
As of 2005, Iran has the largest Jewish population in the Middle East outside of Israel. A larger population of Iranian Jews reside in Israel with the President of Israel Moshe Katsav, the Defense Minister, former Chief of Staff Shaul Mofaz, Ex Air-Force commander Dan Halutz and Israeli hip-hop star Kobi Shimoni (Subliminal) being the most famous of this group.
Relations between Iran and Israel have alternated from close political alliances between the two states during the era of the shah to hostility following the rise to power of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Upon its establishment in 1948 and until the Iranian Revolution in 1979, Israel and Iran (ruled by the Pahlavi dynasty) enjoyed cordial relations. Iran was one of the first nations to internationally recognize Israel, and was considered Israel's closest Muslim friend. After the second phase of the 1979 Iranian Revolution which witnessed the establishment of the Islamic Republic, Iran withdrew its recognition of the state of Israel and cut off all official relations. However, Iran is said to have purchased weapons valued at $2.5 billion from Israel through third party intermediaries during the Iran-Iraq war during the 1980s and the 1990s. This has been alleged to have been part of the Iran-Contra scandal. In 1998, Israeli businessman Nahum Manbar was sentenced to 16 years in prison in Israel for doing business with Tehran, and in the course of the investigation, "hundreds of companies" were found to have illegal business dealings with Iran.
Israel also had dealing with Hizzboulah for exchanging their kidnapped officer and other missing soldiers. Dealing with Hizzboulah may also initiated indirect channels of communication with Iran.
Iran’s History - Successive Empires:
The Persian Empire was a series of historical empires that ruled over the Iranian plateau. The political entity which was ruled by these kingdoms is the country now known as Iran (literally "Land of Aryans").
Qajar dynasty, ruling from 1779 to 1925: Persia found relative stability in the Qajar dynasty, but lost hope to compete with the new industrial powers of Europe; Persia found itself sandwiched between the growing Russian Empire in Central Asia and the expanding British Empire in India. Each carved out pieces from the Persian Empire that became Bahrain, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and parts of Afghanistan.
Iran was left unprepared for the worldwide expansion of European colonial empires in the late 18th century and throughout the 19th century.
Period after World War I: By World War I, Iran was not the world power it had once been. It had become a tool in the political battles of other empires. In 1919, northern Persia was occupied by the British General William Edmund Ironside to enforce the Turkish Armistice conditions and assist General Dunsterville and Colonel Bicherakhov contain Bolshevik influence in the north. Britain also took tighter control over the increasingly lucrative oil fields. In 1925, Reza Shah Pahlavi seized power from the Qajars and established the new Pahlavi dynasty. However, Britain and the Soviet Union remained the influential powers in Iran into the early years of the Cold War. United States helped the Shah to stay in power until his dynasty demise in 1979 after the Iranian revolution and the creation of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Islamic republic theoretically is a state under a particular theocratic form of government advocated by some Muslim religious leaders. In an Islamic republic, the laws of the state are required to be compatible with the laws of Sharia, Islamic law, while the state remains a republic.
In summary we can say that the successive states in Iran prior to 1935 can be collectively called the Persian Empire. From 1979 it became the Islamic Republic of Iran, practically speaking, a Historical Empire stripped out of its original glory and it historical past.
The new Islamic regime objectives:
1. Rebirth of the Persian Empire which will control the whole Moslem world and perhaps the west in the future.
2. Abolition of the monarchies of the Middle East regimes.
3. The regime's desire to hide its Shiite identity so that it can claim the leadership of radical Islam.
4. The regime's desire to hide its non-Arab identity so that it can claim leadership of the Middle East.
5. Re-direction of pan-Arab nationalism movement and pan-Arab Sunni Islamism
In the Islamic Republic of Iran (established in 1979), the president and members of the legislature are elected by direct vote of the citizens (although many westernized and pro-monarchy Iranians object to these elections as a means of legitimately choosing leaders). Iran's Islamic republic is in contrast to the constitutionally democratic and partially secular state of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (proclaimed as an Islamic Republic in 1956) where Islamic laws are technically considered to override laws of the state, though in reality they rarely do.
Today, the creation of an Islamic Republic is the rallying achievement for Islamists all over the world. However the term itself has different meanings among various people. Many of proponents of Islamic Republics advocate the abolition of the monarchies of the Middle East, regimes which they believe to be overly secular or otherwise destructive to Islam.
If Israel was not in the middle-east, the energy of pan-Arab nationalism movement, which dominated Arab politics in the post-war era, would have been directed against two other neighbors: Turkey and Iran. Even today, the Arab League claims that the Turkish province of Iskanderun is "usurped Arab territory." Both pan-Arab nationalism and pan-Arab Sunni Islamism are as much mortal foes for Iran as they are for Israel. If Israel will not exist the Arabs' objective will be to get rid of Iran (non Arabs Shiites who are not “real Moslems”).
Why Iran now has it face-off war of words with Israel?
Recent Declarations of Iranians Leadership:
· Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenai explained in Jan. 2001 that 'the foundation of the Islamic regime is opposition to Israel, and the perpetual subject of Iran is the elimination of Israel from the region.'
· Khamenai said in a recent sermon that 'the cancerous tumor called Israel must be uprooted from the region.'
· In Dec. 2001, former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani called the establishment of the Jewish state 'the worst event in history,' and declared his intention to decimate Israel, clarifying that 'one [nuclear] bomb is enough to destroy all Israel,' and that 'in due time, the Islamic world will have a military nuclear device.'
· Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has challenged the reality of the Holocaust and said that Israel must be “wiped off the map.”
Israel is the easiest target to direct the energy of pan-Arab nationalism and anti-west sentiments. Israel is also a subject that unifies the Arabs. Arabs see Israel as a western entity planted in the Middle East with western support. The Arabs see Israel as a western plot, an idea of which interpreted differently, is in essence anti-west sentiment redirected toward Israel.
As a main motive to unite the Moslem world and as a theocracy with a fundamental lack of accountability, Iran's nuclear program brings the free world's several great nightmares: WMDs falling into the hands of Islamic terrorists and a loose extremist state with nukes hoping to achieve its past glory as an Empire.
Israel’s Past Actions
The West’s interest was always to keep the flame in the Middle East so the Moslem’s anger will be focused on Israel. In fact, part of Israel's problems now and in the past, stem from the failure of its successive leaders to steer the country clear of other middle-eastern quarrels, and the lack of understanding of western objectives in the middle-east.
In successive wars during the Cold War, Israel destroyed the Soviet-built arsenals of several Arab countries. That helped protect Washington's Arab allies against aggression by pro-Soviet Arab powers — and thus kept the Soviets from gaining indirect control of the region's vital oil resources. Israel also taught Washington ways to build new weaponry to fight soviet hardware. In addition, Israel taught the pentagon generals strategic modern fighting schemes against soviet made hardware and fighting schemes against middle-east powers.
In 1981, Israel knocked out the French-made Iraqi nuclear-weapons center, even though Saddam Hussein was making that bomb to drop on Tehran. The Israeli action helped the major powers avoid catastrophe in a region vital to their interests. Israel's reward? Being described by Jacques Chirac, then mayor of Paris, as "a criminal state." Washington, Israel’s ally joined the nations condemning Israel.
Possible Actions by Israel
Patrick Clawson, an Iran expert who is the deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and who has been a supporter of President Bush: “So long as Iran has an Islamic republic, it will have a nuclear-weapons program, at least clandestinely,” Clawson told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 2nd. “The key issue, therefore, is: How long will the present Iranian regime last?”
Some claim they've found the perfect solution to Iran's nuclear ambitions. It's simple: Israel attacks the Islamic Republic to destroy much of its nuclear infrastructure, setting the bomb project back by a decade, time for a more responsible regime to emerge in Tehran. This would please the Europeans, because it would remove the spotlight from their appeasement policy, which is partly responsible for the crisis. They could shake their heads in a "told you so" gesture at the mullahs, and feel glum about their ability to stand above dirty games played by "immature powers" such as the Islamic Republic and Israel. The Americans will also be happy (who clearly lack a policy on Iran). The Arab states also will be happy because Israel took care of the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran.
Russia will also be happy. Hostility to its neighbor is deep-felt in Iran, which lost territory to Russia in bitter wars with the czars. By the middle of this century, Iran's population will outnumber Russia's. A nuclear-armed Islamic Iran would emerge as an even stronger player.
Former members of the Russian military have been secretly helping Iran to acquire technology needed to produce missiles capable of striking European capitals. The Russians are acting as go-betweens with North Korea as part of a multi-million pound deal they negotiated between Tehran and Pyongyang in 2003. It has enabled Tehran to receive regular clandestine shipments of top secret missile technology, believed to be channeled through Russia.
Implication’s of Israel’s Attack
The implication of this analysis is an emerging picture of Israeli raids on Iranian nuclear facilities resulting in three advantageous outcomes: damage to Iranian nuclear ambitions, the possibility of taking politically popular military action in southern Lebanon, and the involvement of US forces in weakening Iranian military capabilities.
Furthermore, Israeli planners would recognize that any major raids on Iran would be seen from Tehran as being done in conjunction with the United States, and there would most likely be Iranian retaliation against US forces in Iraq, or against oil-supply routes from the region. Either eventuality would necessitate a strong US military reaction that might weaken Iran.
Should America attack or Israel? Even a basic description of what will be entailed in a United States military operation against Iran is enough to sound a note of caution in Washington, and this might be what is prompting the back-channel talks that seem to be underway. Moreover, this brief litany omits other possible Iranian responses such as withdrawal from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; redevelopment of the damaged nuclear facilities to include a clear-cut weapons program, perhaps located in deep underground shelters; and encouragement of paramilitary actions against Saudi, Kuwait or United Arab Emirates oil facilities, potentially producing chaotic activities on world oil markets. Iran could also make life in Iraq even more difficult for United States forces.
If America does not strike, Mofaz is saying, Israel will. Yet, as that could produce the same results as an American attack, without the same assurance of success, Bush may have to restrain Israel, if he does not want a wider war.
Michel Samaha, a veteran Lebanese Christian politician and former cabinet minister in Beirut, said that the Iranian retaliation might be focused on exposed oil and gas fields in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. “They would be at risk,” he said, “and this could begin the real jihad of Iran versus the West. You will have a messy world.”
To be sure, Israel should make it clear that it would retaliate with double force against any attack. But it should also remind those urging it to act that the Islamic Republic's policies, including its quest for nuclear weapons, represent a threat not only to Israel but to many other nations in the Middle East and beyond.
"When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it – always."
- MAHATMA GANDHI
|
|
| Name: |
John Ken |
Date: Jul 14, 2006 |
| I feel that U.S. & Israel Should not be over brave because they should know that Iran will not allow them to live in peace if they attack Iran. U.S. is trying to establish New World Order in whole World & is making world a Hell. Starting Cold War of India with China are its dirty desires. Muslim teaching are not against us. I have read it. U.S is simply making a Plot where WW3 would take place. If some one have any doubt about Islams teaching I challenge him to bring the doubt.I'll Clarify it. from England, John Ken (swajahatp@hotmail.com). |
|
| Name: |
paul |
Date: Nov 01, 2006 |
| bush sure did screw up this country and is still lieing to all of us |
|
| Name: |
Hassan Dawood |
Date: Apr 20, 2007 |
| If U.S.A think positive and use the huge wealth that it has in bringing humans together, solving the problems in countries that need help in education, maintaining justice all over the world, giving the freedom to all human kind, convincing everybody that U.S.A is the strongest in justice and arm this world will soon change for the benefit of all human kind. |
|
| Discussion for this article has been closed. |
| |
Contact FPIF's webmaster with inquiries regarding the functionality of this website.
Copyright © 2008, Institute for Policy Studies.
|
|
|
|
