Is the U.S. going to invade Iran?
by Bill McGaughey
Is the U.S. planning to attack Iran? I put that question to an aide of Republican Senator Norm Coleman. Somewhat stunned, he said that the U.S. government is exploring various options in its campaign to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and that force would only be used as a last resort. Still, Senator Coleman was not taking the military option off the table, he said.
Lets be clear about this: U.S. military action against Iran is a real possibility. Even after the Iraq misadventure, President Bush and the neo-cons have their eye on more such actions in the Middle East to bring freedom and democracy to this region or, more candidly, to protect Israels security interests. The fix is in. Regardless of all the diplomatic maneuverings, the U.S. and Iran are on a collision course leading to war.
Since December, Russia has been trying to arrange a deal with Iran that would allow it to acquire nuclear power for peaceful purposes. Iran insists that its nuclear program was directed toward that end. The United States is equally insistent that Iran might build nuclear warheads to threaten Israel if it obtained access to the technology and knowledge needed to enrich uranium. Iran was defiant. The United States may have the power to cause harm and pain, but it is also susceptible to harm and pain, said the Iranian delegate to the International Atomic Energy Agency. So if the United States wishes to choose that path, let the ball roll. (Star Tribune, March 9, 2006)
The U.S. began to rattle its sabers. Heightening the tensions over Irans refusal to back down (from its nuclear program), Vice President Dick Cheney, in some of the strongest language yet used by the administration, said the Teheran government must recognize that unless it changes course, the international community is prepared to impose meaningful consequences. Cheney used formulaic language that implies the threat of military action. For our part, the United States is keeping all options (including military ones) on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime. And we join other nations in sending a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon, he said at a Washington policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a strongly pro-Israel group. (Star Tribune, March 8, 2006, p. A3)
Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld suggested a way that war with Iran might begin. Issuing a new charge, Rumsfeld linked Iran to the insurrection in Iraq, saying members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Al Quds Division had infiltrated Iraq to perform missions harmful to the future of Iraq ... In a country the size of California with a population of 28 million people and porous borders, with Iranian pilgrims going back and forth all the time, its not an easy thing to make those kinds of judgments. But the Defense secretary was sure that the Iranian troops were ... acting on Teherans orders. The Revolutionary Guard doesnt go milling around willy-nilly one would think. (Star Tribune, March 8, 2006, p. A3) I would think it might be an easy matter for U.S. troops to come in conflict with some of those Revolutionary Guard units and cross the border into Iran in hot pursuit.
Like the Iraq invasion, this situation gives the appearance of having been decided in advance. A shadowy group of U.S. policy advisors, the neo-cons, have been itching for some time to flex our nations muscles as the worlds only military superpower. CIA counterterrorism expert, Richard Clarke, told the Washington Post: My friends in the Pentagon had been telling me that the word was we would be invading Iraq sometime in 2002. (March 22, 2004)
Larry Beinharts book, Fog Facts, states: There is little doubt that the administration wanted to invade Iraq before Bush was even sworn in. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage, Undersecretaries of State John Bolton and Paula Dobriansky, Presidential Adviser for the Middle East Elliott Abrams, and Bushs special Iraq envoy, Zalmay Khalilzad, had all signed a letter in 1998 to Bill Clinton urging him to go to war in Iraq, without bothering with UN approval, to remove Saddam Hussein. The 2000 Republican party platform called for the removal of Saddam Hussein. Bushs treasury secretary, Paul ONeill, said, From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime. (Fog Facts, pp. 48-49)
Why might President Bush have wanted to a ports-management firm in Dubai to manage port operations for a number of large U.S. cities? One explanation, sent via the Internet, notes Dubais strategic location at a choke point on the Persian gulf near the strait of Hormuz: Across the narrow straights sits Iran, the next victim on the list of axis of evil nations. Any attack on Iran will require that military forces quickly deploy to Dubai to forestall the closing of the straits and the subsequent devastation that would cost to world oil supplies and financial markets ... This is the reason that President Bush continues to force the Dubai port-plan even though 70% of the American people and Congress resoundingly oppose it.
A Polish friend sent me another Internet article that is circulating widely in Europe. It states: The Laboratoire europeen dAnticipation Politique Europe 2020, now estimates to over 80% probability that the week of March 20-26, 2006, will be the beginning of the most significant political crisis the world has known since the Fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989, together with an economic and financial crisis of a scope comparable with that of 1929. This last week of March 2006 will be the turning-point of a number of critical developments, resulting in an acceleration of all the factors leading to a major crisis, disregard any American or Israeli military intervention against Iran. In case such an intervention is conducted, the probability of a major crisis to start rises up to 100%, according to LEAP/E2020.
What are the events foreseen for the last week of March? First, the Iranian government plans to open an Oil Bourse priced in Euros at the end of March 2006 (which) will be the end of the monopoly of the Dollar on the global oil market. The immediate result is likely to upset the international currency market as producing countries will be able to charge their production in Euros also ... European countries in particular will be able to buy oil directly in their own currency without going through the dollar. Dollar will cease to be the medium of exchange for international markets. Less needed, the price of the dollar will fall relative to other currencies.
The second foreseen event, according to this article, is the end of the publication by the American Federal Reserve of the M3 monetary aggregate .. (which) will have as a consequence to lose transparency on the evolution of the amount of Dollars in circulation worldwide. For some months already, M3 has significantly increased (indicating that money printing has already speeded up in Washington), knowing that the new president of the U.S. Federal Reserve, Ben Bernake, is a self-acknowledged fan of money printing .. LEAP/E2020 estimates that the American decision to stop publishing M3 aims at hiding as long as possible two US decisions ... the monetarisation of the US debt (and) the launch of a monetary policy to support U.S. economic activity ... two policies to be implemented until at least the October 2006 midterm elections, in order to prevent the Republican party from being sent reeling.
The U.S. has an additional card to play - its military capacity to invade Iran. If Iran is invaded, the Iranian oil bourse is derailed. Military activities abroad divert attention from the economic woes brought upon the United States by the Bush Administrations irresponsible fiscal and trade policies. Bush can then do what he is best at doing: rallying the nation in a time of crisis.
The book, Fog Facts, provides some revealing insights into the mentality of President Bush and his administration.
Mickey Herskowitz is a professional ghostwriter whom George W. Bush hired to write his campaign autobiography. Herskowitz told a correspondent for Guerrilla News Network that he had met with George W. more than twenty times to gather material for the book. (George Bush) said to me: One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief. and he said, My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. He said, If I have a chance to invade ... if I had that much capital, Im not going to waste it. Im going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and Im going to have a successful presidency. (Fog facts, p. 50) A successful presidency to George W. Bush means being a war president.
The other revealing quotation comes from an article by Ron Suskind that was published in the New York Times Magazine. Suskind met with a senior adviser to Bush who expressed the White Houses displeasure at something Suskind had written. The aide said that guys like me were in what we call the reality-based community, which he defined as people who believe solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality. I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. Thats not the way the world really works anymore, he continued. Were an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while youre studying that reality - judiciously, as you will - well act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and thats how things will sort out. Were historys actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.
The second Bush Presidency may well be the worst in American history. This is an administration, drunk with its own power, which is obviously out of control. As McGaughey told the Coleman aide, "America is not about invading other countries. I was brought up to believe that people like Hitler did this, not the U.S. government." Assuming that Americans can hope to intervene in Bushs new reality, he would run for U.S. Senate on the Independence Party ticket. Our nation does not need another Republican (or Democratic) Senator to support what the President is doing. A war with Iran would be reckless to an extreme.
Like it or not, the United Nations must be the political instrument to deal with threats to world security. It has legitimacy in the eyes of the world's people; the United States does not. The United States is seen in Moslem countries as an alien power, especially since it has become so closely allied with Israel.
Should, then, the people of Iraq have been expected to put up with Saddam Hussein's brutal rule for an indefinite time? In fact, the world community has been groping for a solution to that type of problem. It's called the International Criminal Court. If a political ruler commits the crime of genocide or aggression against another country as Saddam Hussein did, then the international community has the right to intervene in a nation's internal affairs, remove the leader from power, and put him on trial.
President Clinton signed that treaty on behalf of the United States. President Bush unsigned it. Not only that, he put pressure on other countries that had signed the treaty to sign bilateral "impunity agreements" with the United States that would exempt U.S. personnel from prosecution under that treaty. While the Bush administration spoke of protecting lowly military personnel, it's clear that the President himself would be the chief target of possible prosecution since he made the decision to invade someone else's country. This seems to be a case of the administration's "creating its own reality" - putting itself above the law because the U.S. Presidency is so powerful.
The Nuremberg Principles, adopted after the Nazi war crimes trial, created an ethical framework by which the world community has judged political conduct with respect to war and peace. Principle 1 is: "Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment. Principle 3 states: "The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as head of State or responsible Government official does not relive him from responsibility under international law. The first type of "Crime against Peace"under the Nuremberg protocol is "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances." That is what President Bush did in Iraq and may be planning to do in Iran.
The point here is not to demand that George W. Bush be declared a war criminal, put on trial, and thrown into prison for past crimes against humanity. But for Heaven's sake, the U.S. should not now invade Iran as it has previously invaded Iraq. We are not on a noble mission to spread freedom and democracy around the world by force of arms. Relishing the role of Commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces, President Bush has instead put himself in the role of high priest of what historian Arnold Toynbee called "the worship of Moloch"- the religion of patriotism or worship of the state.
"Moloch-worship is an apt symbol for the parochial-community-worship that exacts from its worshipers an ever increasing toll of blood," Toynbee wrote. As a religion, it is a direct descendant of the religion of human sacrifice practiced in the earlier nature religions. It is not Christian, but the religion of "God worshipped as king ... Moloch, horrid king, besmeared with blood of human sacrifice and parents' tears, though, for the noise of drums and timbrels loud, their children's cries unheard, that passed through fire to his grim idol."
| contact us |