Blitzkrieg Against Iran: Bush-Cheney’s Twisted Logic
Apr 4, 2007
by Alenjandro Nadal; La Jornada; April 06, 2007
The crisis of 15 British sailors captured by Iran has brought up close the matter of a possible attack by the United States on that country. Very few think it is a logical option for Washington. But wars almost never start with rational analysis. Miscalculations and malignancy are the most common ingredients in the motives for conflicts.
For the White House, the need to attack Iran becomes more urgent every day. The perception is that as the end of the Bush administration approaches, the window of opportunity for an offensive is closing. As such, although it is not very logical to think that a President of the United States could hand over to his successor a recently-started war, that is precisely what is bound to happen in the current situation in the prevailing delirium in the Oval Office. There is no doubt that all the rules have changed after September 11.
The Security Council will not be a brake for Washington. This organisation has been transformed in the most radical way since the end of the Cold War. Nine Eleven delivered a coup de grace to what at some point was the Security Council. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are almost accepted as normal though these do not have the support of that body.
The pretext in starting the offensive against Iran, its supposed nuclear project, is absurd for many reasons. To start with, there is no incontrovertible proof that Iran has a programme to arm itself with nuclear arms. The debate on this point is not closed. The installations of Natanz (enriching uranium) and Arak (heavy water) could be part of an effort to acquire an indigenous technological capacity in the civil nuclear industry, or could be the start of a military adventure. Even if a nuclear military project exists in Iran, it could not bear fruit in the coming month. Under ideal conditions, it will need at least four years to finish producing and installing 3,000 centrifuges necessary to enrich uranium to military level, start the plant and carry out tests.
It is clear that there are hawks in Teheran very interested in obtaining this type of weaponry. They do not lack incentives and a look at the map gives an understanding of their motivation. To the east, Afghanistan in full-blown conflict, and a little further, Pakistan with its nuclear arms (now de facto legalised by the agreement between Washington and Islamabad). To the west, Iraq in full civil war and, further, Israel with its nuclear arsenal. Towards the north, on the coast of the Caspian Sea, Russia, the other nuclear superpower. Further to the north-east, China. Above all, the incentives of recent realpolitik: if one has nuclear arms, there will be negotiations (North Korea); otherwise there will be war (Iraq).
Many people think that an offensive by Washington would be foolish because the Americans can hardly cope with Iraq. How are they going to attack a country that is twice as big and has double the number of inhabitants?
But here is where it is outside the focus of a good part of the international debate. Washington’s objective is not to invade and occupy Iran. The central purpose is to eliminate it as an obstacle to controlling the resources of Central Asia and the Persian Gulf. And, to achieve that, it is not necessary to invade the country. It is enough to destroy its military capacity, aerial and naval, something that the armed forces of the United States and its few allies can achieve in some week of selective bombardment. We should not forget that Pentagon has been preparing for decades to keep the Strait of Hormuz open to naval movement (and the Europeans, in an emergency, are going to be thankful).
In reply, Iran can unleash a nightmare for the Americans in Iraq. But the sacrifice of additional tens of soldiers in Baghdad is not something that is going to stop the dream of the Bush-Cheney duo. Within a month, the casualty figures of American soldiers in Iraq will exceed 3,300 deaths. The daily average of American casualties is about 2.3 so far in the war. The White House will not feel obliged to retire its troops from Iraq if the figure crosses four or five dead soldiers each day. The American people can react in other ways but by then they will be faced with a fait accompli.
In the twisted logic of Cheney and Bush, chaos and more casualties is what is going to oblige the United States to remain in Iraq. For these two characters, the Europeans, reluctant or otherwise, will have to accept that it is better to control the hydrocarbon riches of Central Asia and the Caspian than to abandon the region in the middle of chaos. The rules have changed, and Bush-Cheney are not prepared to let the opportunity go.
Translated from Spanish by Supriyo Chatterjee
This article was published in La Jornada, Mexico, on April 4, 2007
The crisis of 15 British sailors captured by Iran has brought up close the matter of a possible attack by the United States on that country. Very few think it is a logical option for Washington. But wars almost never start with rational analysis. Miscalculations and malignancy are the most common ingredients in the motives for conflicts.
For the White House, the need to attack Iran becomes more urgent every day. The perception is that as the end of the Bush administration approaches, the window of opportunity for an offensive is closing. As such, although it is not very logical to think that a President of the United States could hand over to his successor a recently-started war, that is precisely what is bound to happen in the current situation in the prevailing delirium in the Oval Office. There is no doubt that all the rules have changed after September 11.
The Security Council will not be a brake for Washington. This organisation has been transformed in the most radical way since the end of the Cold War. Nine Eleven delivered a coup de grace to what at some point was the Security Council. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are almost accepted as normal though these do not have the support of that body.
The pretext in starting the offensive against Iran, its supposed nuclear project, is absurd for many reasons. To start with, there is no incontrovertible proof that Iran has a programme to arm itself with nuclear arms. The debate on this point is not closed. The installations of Natanz (enriching uranium) and Arak (heavy water) could be part of an effort to acquire an indigenous technological capacity in the civil nuclear industry, or could be the start of a military adventure. Even if a nuclear military project exists in Iran, it could not bear fruit in the coming month. Under ideal conditions, it will need at least four years to finish producing and installing 3,000 centrifuges necessary to enrich uranium to military level, start the plant and carry out tests.
It is clear that there are hawks in Teheran very interested in obtaining this type of weaponry. They do not lack incentives and a look at the map gives an understanding of their motivation. To the east, Afghanistan in full-blown conflict, and a little further, Pakistan with its nuclear arms (now de facto legalised by the agreement between Washington and Islamabad). To the west, Iraq in full civil war and, further, Israel with its nuclear arsenal. Towards the north, on the coast of the Caspian Sea, Russia, the other nuclear superpower. Further to the north-east, China. Above all, the incentives of recent realpolitik: if one has nuclear arms, there will be negotiations (North Korea); otherwise there will be war (Iraq).
Many people think that an offensive by Washington would be foolish because the Americans can hardly cope with Iraq. How are they going to attack a country that is twice as big and has double the number of inhabitants?
But here is where it is outside the focus of a good part of the international debate. Washington’s objective is not to invade and occupy Iran. The central purpose is to eliminate it as an obstacle to controlling the resources of Central Asia and the Persian Gulf. And, to achieve that, it is not necessary to invade the country. It is enough to destroy its military capacity, aerial and naval, something that the armed forces of the United States and its few allies can achieve in some week of selective bombardment. We should not forget that Pentagon has been preparing for decades to keep the Strait of Hormuz open to naval movement (and the Europeans, in an emergency, are going to be thankful).
In reply, Iran can unleash a nightmare for the Americans in Iraq. But the sacrifice of additional tens of soldiers in Baghdad is not something that is going to stop the dream of the Bush-Cheney duo. Within a month, the casualty figures of American soldiers in Iraq will exceed 3,300 deaths. The daily average of American casualties is about 2.3 so far in the war. The White House will not feel obliged to retire its troops from Iraq if the figure crosses four or five dead soldiers each day. The American people can react in other ways but by then they will be faced with a fait accompli.
In the twisted logic of Cheney and Bush, chaos and more casualties is what is going to oblige the United States to remain in Iraq. For these two characters, the Europeans, reluctant or otherwise, will have to accept that it is better to control the hydrocarbon riches of Central Asia and the Caspian than to abandon the region in the middle of chaos. The rules have changed, and Bush-Cheney are not prepared to let the opportunity go.
Translated from Spanish by Supriyo Chatterjee
This article was published in La Jornada, Mexico, on April 4, 2007
posted by notoempire at 7:05 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home