ATTACK ON IRAN INEVITABLE OR INCONCEIVABLE?
The timetable for going to war in Iraq clearly did not allow for a continuation of the weapons inspections that Saddam had started to comply with, nor did it appear there had ever been any faith that they could be effective. Not least since it would seem the decision to go to war had already been taken.
So today with Iran - the hawks of the US administration claim the EU negotiations currently taking place are doomed to failure (see Scott Ritter Sleepwalking into Disaster in Iran 02/04/05).
US military plans to take action against Iran in June 2005 coincide with the deadline by which Israel claims intervention will be necessary to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear capability.
It also coincides with the date set for the Iranian elections where US exploitation of internal unrest would not seem unlikely, given their enthusiasm for regime change in Iran. This would be in accordance with the neo-cons Project for a New American Century.
And Tony Blair claims he cannot conceive of any circumstances in which Iran would be attacked, or did he select the word ‘invaded’ for the sake of future evasions?
It would appear Blair also believes he is on a mission of regime change never mind the means or deception used. His naivety is breathtaking, his understanding of US policy apparently non-existent.
US policy is devised by people described
as “neoconservatives, who have long used the velvet glove of pro-democracy
rhetoric to hide the steel fist of what has consistently been a U.S.- and
Israel-centered
Machtpolitik” (Jim Lobe ,Jan 05).
THIS IS WHAT THE NEO-CONS SAID IN THE RUN UP TO WAR IN IRAQ
Condoleeza Rice
From Buzzflash.com - The amazing stories
of Condoleeza Rice 2003
CONDI’S AMAZING PEACE STORY – PUBLICLY CLAIMED TO SEEK PEACE,
WHILE TELLING STATE DEPT. WAR PRE-DETERMINED
Throughout 2002 and early 2003, Rice repeatedly insisted that the Administration
sought a peaceful solution to the Iraq conflict and that war was only a last
resort. In October of 2002, she said, “We're going to seek a peaceful
solution to this. We think that one is possible” [CBS, 10/20/02]. Then
in November of 2002, she said, “We all want very much to see this resolved
in a peaceful way” [Briefing, 11/21/02]. In March of 2003, she claimed
“we are still in a diplomatic phase here” [ABC, 3/9/03]. However,
according to Richard Haas, Bush’s director of policy planning at the
State Department, the decision had already been made by July of 2002. When
asked exactly when he learned war in Iraq was definite, Haas said, “The
moment was the first week of July (2002), when I had a meeting with Condi.
I raised this issue about were we really sure that we wanted to put Iraq front
and center at this point, given the war on terrorism and other issues. And
she said, essentially, that that decision's been made, don't waste your breath.
And that was early July. So then when Powell had his famous dinner with the
President, in early August, 2002 [in which Powell persuaded Bush to take the
question to the U.N.] the agenda was not whether Iraq, but how” [New
Yorker, 3/31/03]
“and I want to be very clear that the United States has not said that the time has come for the use of force against Iraq. We're in a phase of consulting with our friends and allies” (Rice in an interview in Newshour March 2002)
“We need to be very clear on the purpose of weapons inspections. These are not inspections for inspections' sake. They are instrumental to make sure that Iran...that Iraq is not trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction. In fact they were supposed to be the ability to give testimony that there are no such programs.” (ibid.)
12 December 2002:
For Sake of Iraq Peace, Prepare Military Option, Feith Says (Undersecretary
of Defense Douglas Feith in Rome)
Feith: The U.S. view "is that the only chance that exists to avoid war
is if the Iraqi government understands that there is a solid coalition that
is ready to disarm Iraq by force, if the Iraqi government does not disarm
itself cooperatively with the UN."
"It is our hope that we can avoid war…. The building of a coalition
in advance, and preparing a military option, is the best way, we believe,
of minimizing the chances that any kind of military action would be required."
March 2002:
Rice: “Ultimately, the United States believes that regime change in
Iraq is going to be best for the Iraqi people and for the region. But clearly
weapons inspections that are tough, weapons inspections that cannot be challenged,
weapons inspections in which Saddam Hussein is not trying to soften the edges
of them would be a helpful step forward.”
WHAT RICE ET AL ARE SAYING NOW ABOUT IRAN
The Rice rhetoric during her visit
to Europe in February of this year similarly focussed on how
important it was going to be for everyone, especially the Iranian people,
that regime change there should take place.
Couched in terms of bringing democracy,liberation and human rights it seems the public are again being prepared to support regime change with potential military action. In a report on her meeting with Jack Straw Rice says:
“We have all been concerned about the abysmal human rights record of the Iranian regime. There are very recent examples of just how abysmal that human rights record is, and we know that this is an Iranian population with a flourishing history and culture and civil society, that frankly deserves better than to have an un-elected few frustrate their aspirations."
"And so I find that there is really very little difference between us about the challenges that we face in dealing with the Iranian regime. We have many diplomatic tools still at our disposal and we intend to pursue them fully.” (04/02/05)
"I don't know that anyone has said that as clearly as they should to the Iranians" …"We have believed all along that Iran ought to be referred to the Security Council and then a variety of steps are available to the international community. “They need to hear that the discussions that they are in with the Europeans are not going to be a kind of way station where they are allowed to continue their activities; that there's going to be an end to this and that they are going to end up in the Security Council." CBS news 9th February 2005
The proposed US ambassador to the UN is of course the man who saw no point in it, John Bolton. He is convinced Iran is building a nuclear bomb and said so on a recent visit to Russia, although he has no evidence, nor any right to be so certain.
On March 9th this year The New York Times reported serious concern on the reliability of intelligence, reminiscent of the run-up to war in Iraq: “ A presidential commission due to report to President George W. Bush this month will describe American intelligence on Iran as inadequate and not complete enough to allow firm judgments about that country's illicit weapons programs, according to people who have been briefed on the panel's work.
Republican and Democratic congressional officials have expressed concern that
there may be similarities between the case of Iran and Iraq, which turned
out to have destroyed all of its chemical and biological weapons nearly a
decade before the Bush administration invaded the country in 2003 to eliminate
what it asserted was an existing arsenal.” ('Intelligence about Iran
for Bush is called weak’ Douglas Jehl & Eric Schmitt).
GEORGE BUSH FEBRUARY 2005
"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is
simply ridiculous. Having said that, all options are on the table."
In conclusion it seems that prior to Iraq, as now with Iran, the rhetoric for regime change coincides with the spread of fear over the development of WMD, for which there is insubstantial evidence. Underlying this is the implication that the US has the right to intervene to improve the lot of people in another sovereign state. They will argue that waging war (without regard for international law) makes the world a safer place with fewer terrorists.
They speak of human rights when in fact it is clearly US interests that are motivating them, they undertake war where they then disregard human rights. The project for a new American century continues whether or not Blair can conceive what that is likely to entail.
Roslyn Cook - 2005
