[lit-ideas] I've been sayin'.....
- From: JimKandJulieB@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:41:17 EDT
_http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20050801klare;_ylt=Av.UcmvczHm1.Q4pwGl5QOUD
W7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl_
(http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20050801klare;_ylt=Av.UcmvczHm1.Q4pwGl5QOUDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMl
JVRPUCUl)
The Iran War Buildup Michael T. Klare
Thu Jul 21, 5:38 PM ET
<<The Nation -- There is no evidence that President Bush has already made
the decision to attack Iran if Tehran proceeds with uranium-enrichment
activities viewed in Washington as precursors to the manufacture of nuclear
munitions. Top Administration officials are known to have argued in favor of
military
action if Tehran goes ahead with these plans--a step considered more likely
with the recent election of arch-conservative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as Iran's
president--but Bush, so far as is known, has not yet made up his mind in the
matter. One thing does appear certain, however: Bush has given the Defense
Department approval to develop scenarios for such an attack and to undertake
various preliminary actions. As was the case in 2002 regarding Iraq, the
building
blocks for an attack in Iran are beginning to be put into place.
We may never know exactly when President Bush made up his mind to invade
Iraq--some analysts say the die was cast as early as November 2001; others
claim
it was not until October 2002--but whatever the case, it is beyond dispute
that planning for the invasion was well advanced in July 2002, when British
intelligence officials visited Washington and issued what has come to be known
as the Downing Street memo, informing Prime Minister Tony Blair that war was
nearly inevitable.
What these officials undoubtedly discovered--as was being reported in
certain newspapers at the time--was that senior officers of the US Central
Command
(CENTCOM) in Tampa, Florida, had already been developing detailed scenarios
for an invasion of Iraq and that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had been
deeply involved in these preparations. On July 5, 2002, for example, the New
York Times revealed that "an American military planning document calls for
air,
land, and sea-based forces to attack Iraq from three directions--the north,
south, and west." Further details of this document and other blueprints for
war appeared in the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. At the same
time, moreover, the Pentagon reportedly stepped up its aerial and electronic
surveillance of military forces in Iraq.
This record is worth revisiting because of the many parallels to the current
situation. Just as Bush gave ambiguous signals about his intentions
regarding Iraq in 2002--denying that a decision had been made to invade but
never
ruling it out--so, today, he is giving similar signals with respect to Iran.
"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply
ridiculous," Bush declared in Belgium on February 22. He then added: "Having
said that, all options are on the table." And, just as Bush's 2002 denials of
an intent to invade Iraq were accompanied by intense preparations for just
such an outcome, so, today, one can detect similar preparations for an attack
on
Iran.
Just what form such an attack might take has probably not yet been decided.
Just as he considered several plans for an invasion of Iraq before settling on
the plan described in the Times, Rumsfeld is no doubt considering a variety
of options for action against Iran. These could range from a burst of air and
missile attacks to a proxy war involving Iranian opposition militias or a
full-scale US invasion. All have obvious advantages and disadvantages. An air
and missile attack would undoubtedly destroy some key nuclear centers but
could leave some hidden facilities intact; it would also leave the hated
clerical
regime in place. The use of proxy forces could also fail in this regard. An
invasion might solve these problems but would place almost intolerable
demands on the deeply over-stretched US Army.
It is these considerations, no doubt, that are preoccupying US military
planners today. But while a final decision on these options may be put off for
a
time, the Defense Department cannot wait to make preparations for an assault
if it expects to move swiftly once the President gives the go-ahead. Hence, it
is taking steps now to prepare for the implementation of any conceivable
plan.
The first step in such a process is to verify the location of possible
targets in Iran and to assess the effectiveness of Iranian defenses. The
identification of likely targets apparently began late last year, when the
Central
Intelligence Agency and US Special Operations Forces (SOF) began flying
unmanned
"Predator" spy planes over Iran and sending small reconnaissance teams
directly into Iranian territory. These actions, first revealed by Seymour Hersh
in
The New Yorker in January, are supposedly intended to pinpoint the location
of hidden Iranian weapons facilities for possible attack by US air and ground
forces. "The goal," Hersh explained, "is to identify and isolate three dozen,
and perhaps more, such targets that could be destroyed by precision [air]
strikes and short-term commando raids."
It is also probable, says military analyst William Arkin, that CENTCOM is
probing Iran's air and shore defenses by sending electronic surveillance planes
and submarines into--or just to the edge of--Iranian coastal areas. "I would
be greatly surprised if they're not doing this," he said in an interview.
"The intent would be to 'light up' Iranian radars and command/control
facilities, so as to pinpoint their location and gauge their effectiveness."
It was
precisely this sort of aggressive probing that led to the collision between a
US
EP-3E electronic spy plane and a Chinese fighter over the South China Sea in
April 2001.
As this information becomes available, it is no doubt being fed into the
various "strategic concepts" and "strike packages" being developed by US
strategists for possible action against Iran. That such efforts are indeed
under way
is confirmed by reports in the international press that Pentagon officials
have met with their Israeli counterparts to discuss the possible participation
of Israeli aircraft in some of these scenarios. Although no public
acknowledgment of such talks has been made, Vice President Dick Cheney declared
in
January that "the Israelis might well decide to act first" if Iran proceeded
with the development of nuclear weapons--obviously hinting that Washington
would
look with favor upon such a move.
There are also indications that the CIA and SOF officials have met with
Iranian opposition forces--in particular, the Mujaheddin-e Khalq (MEK)--to
discuss their possible involvement in commando raids inside Iran or a
full-scale
proxy war. In one such report, Newsweek disclosed in February that the Bush
Administration "is seeking to cull useful MEK members as operatives for use
against Tehran." (Although the MEK is listed on the State Department's roster
of
terrorist groups, its forces are "gently treated" by the American troops
guarding their compound in eastern Iraq, Newsweek revealed.)
Given the immense stress now being placed on US ground forces in Iraq, it is
likely that the Pentagon's favored plan for military action in Iran involves
some combination of airstrikes and the use of proxy forces like the MEK. But
even a small-scale assault of this sort is likely to provoke retaliatory
action by Iran--possibly entailing missile strikes on oil tankers in the
Persian
Gulf or covert aid to the insurgency in Iraq. This being the case, CENTCOM
would also have to develop plans for a wide range of escalatory moves.
Repeating what was said at the outset, there is no evidence that President
Bush has already made the decision to attack Iran. But there are many
indications that planning for such a move is well under way--and if the record
of
Iraq (and other wars) teaches us anything, it is that such planning, once
commenced, is very hard to turn around. Hence, we should not wait until after
relations with Iran have reached the crisis point to advise against US military
action. We should begin acting now, before the march to war becomes
irreversible.>>
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] I've been sayin'.....
