- "And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars:
see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but
the end is not yet." Matthew (24:6) was penned at a time when wars
were mostly hand-to-hand combat, and the immediate way to avoid harm in
battle was to stay off the battlefield. Although even then war was terrible,
neither Matthew nor his readers for most of the next two thousand years
would know of the terror filled spaces that lie below America's bombers
as they deliver "shock and awe" attacks on faceless victims
below. Witnessing such attacks, Matthew might well have been moved to
say, "Man has usurped powers that belong only to God, and man shall
surely pay for it." The end indeed is still to come.
-
- With a biblical tendency to utterances, last week President
George W. Bush remarked, "If you're interested in avoiding World
War III, you ought to be interested in preventing (Iran) from having the
knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." That remark, however
germane it might be, was several decades too late. The knowledge of how
to make a weapon is out there and has been for a long time. The actual
problem is getting the processing machinery, the raw materials, the technical
skills, and the freedom from interference to put it all together. Even
if Iran has no intent to make a nuclear weapon, which it resoundingly
avers is the truth, it has become the picture book case of the battle
between nuclear haves and nuclear have nots. The US strategy for dealing
with Iran sounds more and more like sterilization, virtually destroying
any capacity the Iranians may have to work with nuclear materials.
-
- Whatever Iran's intentions, it now occupies tier three
of a three- tiered nuclear non-proliferation policy: Tier One holds the
five powers that developed nuclear weapons after World War II, but before
there was any treaty regime to interfere, i.e., the United States, Britain,
France, Russia, and China, all of whom are mainstays of the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty. Tier Two contains the three nuclear powers, India, Pakistan, and
Israel, who mastered the technology more recently and refused to join
the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) that would require them to give
up their weapons. Tier Three includes countries such as Iran and North
Korea who may have achieved necessary knowledge through the Eisenhower
Atoms for Peace program. However, the original nuclear club members are
now trying to prevent countries from pursuing the Eisenhower program on
the grounds-which have some merit-that the ability to produce low enriched
electric power grade nuclear fuel is a linear step toward producing highly
enriched fuel for a weapon.
-
- The nuclear genii, goes this argument, is in only one
bottle; when it gets out, it is altogether out. Many anti-nuclear advocates
subscribe to this view. Their bottom line therefore is that all nuclear
programs should be terminated to avoid the risk that anyone would be tempted
to make weapons.
-
- Because of the recalcitrance of the original nuclear
five, there now seems little prospect that nuclear weapons will be eliminated.
Rather, the United States, now leading the retreat from nuclear disarmament,
has embarked on a program to produce a "Reliable Replacement Warhead".
That means new or materially updated (possibly more powerful) nuclear
weapons will enter the US arsenal over the next five to ten years. Ultimately,
this implies that the United States will turn its presently active 2,000
warheads into a permanent capacity to destroy the world without any help.
If the neo-con supporters of this program have their way, under their
Project for a New American Century, the US will manage those weapons
with space platforms for delivery or guidance that will make the entire
world hostage to American hegemony. That dream would explain why the United
States refused to have any review of nuclear weapons reduction on the
agenda for the 2005 review of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).
-
- While US plans for its own weapons are at the top of
Tier One, US- India plans for nuclear collaboration are at the top of Tier
Two. Under this arrangement, if it enters into force, the United States
and India would work on "peaceful" nuclear projects in one room,
while India (not a member of the NPT) uses the knowledge it acquires
to add to or upgrade its nuclear arsenal in the next room. Outspoken critics
are right in asserting that this agreement would be the end of nuclear
nonproliferation.
-
- Since Iranian leaders uniformly assert that Iran has
no interest in producing nuclear weapons, one can ask what this discussion
has to do with that country. Iran is Tier Three in a nuclear proliferation
environment because the ability to refine nuclear fuel for electric power
production is the first step toward being able to make a bomb. That is
driven by technology, not merely by user intentions. The logical conclusion
is that Eisenhower made a well- intentioned but critical mistake by starting
Atoms for Peace. He did that to meet what he judged were important political
needs of the time. However, over time it has become inescapably clear
that control over the nuclear fuel cycle is a potentially dangerous tool
in any hands. Simply put, those who master it usually go on to make weapons.
-
- In these terms, the Iran case poses a quandary. The NPT
incorporated the idea of Atoms for Peace by permitting member states
to master the fuel cycle to provide their own nuclear fuel for purposes
of electric power production. The US and its allies, particularly Israel,
have sought to deny this privilege to Iran in order to avoid the risk
that the next step would be an Iranian bomb. In this respect, Iranian
intentions are not as critical as the technological reality that, having
mastered the fuel cycle, they could make a bomb if they chose to and devoted
necessary resources to it.
-
- We are staring at the tail of the genii as it becomes
long gone. But in this case, we face the growing collision between Iranian
preferences in this matter and Israel's political ambitions. The United
States has bought into Israel's insistence that it retain a nuclear monopoly
in the region. That is because, unless forcibly restrained, Israel intends
to take the rest of Palestine from its people, and the cost of that ambition
is the perpetual resistance of the Palestinians, along with the objections
of the Arab countries. Israel's enemies are the direct product of its
treatment of the Palestinian people. It needs a nuclear monopoly only
because it proposes to continue the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, and
it needs a bigger club than anybody else to permit it to continue on
this course unchallenged.
-
- Viewed in this frame, planned US nuclear sterilization
of Iran is hypocritical in the extreme. The neo-con core of present US
leadership, the group around and including Dick Cheney, speaks of Iran
as if its first nuclear weapon would signal the end of the world. What
it actually would signal is the end of a monopoly that could blow a hole
in Israeli ambitions. The chance that Iran would threaten the United States
with even a dozen weapons is remote, even given US day-to-day provocations.
That it would use one on Israel is equally unlikely because of the obvious
consequences. That judgment leads many observers of the situation to conclude
that the US/Israeli-touted threat of a nuclear-armed Iran is grossly
overblown. Some of the same sober observers suggest, however, that continued
US/Israeli threats to Iran-that now include bombing the country virtually
back to the Stone Age-could incite the Iranians to react in their own
defense.
-
- There is a cumulative illogic about this situation. Today
Iran has cause to consider itself under a US military state of siege.
The US has an army next door in Iraq that periodically crosses the frontier
in pursuit of alleged Iranian enemies; it also can mount air attacks on
Iran from bases in Iraq. With US support, the British have now moved forces
into the border region with similar objectives. A large portion of the
US Navy is now on station in and around the Persian Gulf. If the Iranians
did not perceive this to be a potential hair-trigger assault situation,
they would not be rational. That they have behaved so coolly in the circumstances
is a forceful demonstration of their desire to avoid conflict.
-
- The illogic of the situation expands when we learn that
Iranian leadership has made a number of serious approaches to the United
States seeking unconditional talks. In the perverse US atmosphere of
never talking to declared enemies, there is ample evidence that US leadership
has ignored those overtures in favor of its present skewed confrontational
posture. Summed up in terms of all the vital US interests in the region,
the US posture simply makes no sense, because obvious US interests are
not served by it.
-
- Some commentators have asserted that "It is the
oil, stupid." However, that makes no sense. To be sure, the United
States needs access to world oil supplies. Now importing 60+ percent of
its requirements, the US faces prospects of growing dependence on outside
sources. That is a mid to long term need depending on how rapidly and
thoroughly US users can switch to something other than liquid fuels for
transportation. Such oil supplies as are known, however, will be available
in world markets because the exporters need the money to sustain their
economies. Price, as now, will drive the train, and that depends on what
is out there on offer, not on who owns it.
-
- It is worth noting, however, that the oil producer countries
of the Caspian Sea region-including Iran, Russia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan
and Turkmenistan have recently decided to work together not only on energy
matters but also on regional defense. The preemptive style of the United
States has helped to drive them in that direction. US treatment of Iran
is undoubtedly a big factor in their collective analysis. The US is making
similar waves in Latin America with its treatment of Venezuelan leadership.
-
- In essence, mindless catering to Israeli ambitions has
forced the United States into an untenable position. The only sure-fire
way to maintain Israel's regional nuclear monopoly is to pursue a policy
of regional sterilization. That policy, unfortunately, poses the highest
cost, highest risk, lowest gain combination for US interests. In an alleged,
but untruthful, attempt to eliminate Saddam Hussein's nonexistent weapons
of mass destruction, the United States has now invested the lives of nearly
4,000 American soldiers, over 20,000 wounded US soldiers, an estimated
200-300,000 long term US casualties likely from depleted uranium poisoning,
the deaths of a million Iraqis and displacement of at least four million
Iraqis. With all this cost, that struggle has not yet been fought even
to a decent draw. Meanwhile, however, Iraqi society that, overall, was
in good shape before the US invasion reduced it to rubble, will take decades
to recover.
-
- The campaign to sterilize Iran will be far more costly
and deadly, but the reality is that it will be equally pointless. At enormous
costs, that campaign may severely wound Iranian society and its prospects
for the indefinite future. It will achieve that, however, at the additional
cost of arousing the already growing animosity of Middle Eastern peoples
toward the United States. To that must be added the shredding of any remaining
American reputation as a world leader.
-
- Recent meetings of the Caspian Sea littoral states pose
additional complications for any US attack on Iran. The language that
emerged from meetings of those country representatives earlier this month
was polite. Its main thrust, however, was resistance to overbearing US
efforts to dominate the region and control its resources. Meanwhile, Russia
has indicated, also politely, than an attack on Iran will have serious
regional consequences. Those perhaps were best left to the imagination.
-
- Several analysts have argued cogently that the Iraq war
will prove to be enormously costly to the alleged principal beneficiaries,
the United States and Israel. Where Israel's long-term interests are
concerned, the war has virtually wiped out gains in regional acceptance
of the state of Israel.
-
- Zionists and their backers among the neo-cons may argue
that the Arabs did not accept Israel before, but at least as early as
2002, a Beirut meeting of the Arab League handed Israel a recipe for
regional peace. Under the leadership of Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi
Arabia, the Arab states collectively put forward a two-state solution.
Then newly crowned King Abdullah chaired a meeting of Arab states and
the Palestinians in Jeddah in March 2007 during which the 2002 offer was
renewed. The Israelis have not responded to this offer and, unfortunately,
Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian party Fatah acted very coolly toward
it.
-
- Arab states argue that much of the region's problem grows
out of the unresolved status of the Palestinian people. Some further argue
that US undertaking of the war against Iraq was largely, if not totally,
in aid of Israel. That has added more regional hostility. If the United
States now attacks Iran, the losers will be the United States, Israel
and virtually anybody else with an interest in the region.
-
- The kind of shock and awe attack that appears in US planning
stages would do enormous damage to Iran. As the Iraq experience makes
amply clear, indiscriminate bombing of Iranian society that is likely
to go with allegedly targeted attacks on nuclear and military facilities
will do enormous human damage. Moreover, such attacks will leave millions
of Iranians prepared to do battle with US invaders. In addition, Iranian
support for terrorism that has been confined to support for the Palestinians
or Hezbollah in Lebanon is unlikely to be so confined after a direct attack.
Instead of the few million enemies the attacks in Iraq have generated,
the US will create tens of millions of new enemies in Iran. Such attacks
will also arouse widespread Islamic support for Iran, a support that normal
Shia-Sunni differences materially limits in ordinary times.
-
- The bottom line is that a US sterilization attack against
Iran is likely to render the entire region highly toxic. An effort to
preserve Israel's nuclear monopoly by preventing Iranian achievement
of nuclear power will simply blow up in America's face. With luck, the
US attacks will curtail Iranian movement toward nuclear status by several
years. However, those attacks are likely to increase Iranian determination
to master the nuclear fuel cycle as well as actively to seek nuclear weapons.
The sad truth is that more countries will seek to acquire nuclear weapons
so long as the present Tier One and Tier Two nuclear power regimes exist.
The United States cannot sterilize Iran except at the expense of greatly
destabilizing the region while increasing the small state search for nuclear
security.
-
- **********
-
- The writer is the author of the recently published work,
A World Less Safe, now available on Amazon, and he is a regular columnist
on rense.com. He is a retired Senior Foreign Service Officer of the US
Department of State whose immediate pre-retirement positions were as Chairman
of the Department of International Studies of the National War College
and as Deputy Director of the State Office of Counter Terrorism and Emergency
Planning. He will welcome comment at wecanstopit@charter.net
|
