Israel's War with Iran: The Coming Mid East Conflagration
Or Israel Bombs Iran: The US Suffers the Consequences
by James Petras
Introduction:
Israel's political and military leadership have repeatedly and
openly declared their preparation to militarily attack Iran in the immediate
future. Their influential supporters in the US have made Israel's war
policy the number one priority in their efforts to secure Presidential and
Congressional backing. The arguments put forth by the Israeli government
and echoed by their followers in the US regarding Iran's nuclear threat are
without substance or fact and have aroused opposition and misgivings
throughout the world, among European governments, international agencies,
among most US military leaders and the public, the world oil industry and
even among sectors of the Bush Administration.
An Israeli air and commando attack on Iran will have
catastrophic military consequences for US forces and severe loss of human
life in Iraq, most likely ignite political and military violence against
pro-US Arab-Muslim regimes, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, perhaps leading
to their overthrow.
Without a doubt Israeli war preparations are the greatest immediate threat
to world peace and political stability.
Israel's War Preparations
Never has an imminent war been so loudly and publicly advertised
as Israel's forthcoming military attack against Iran. When the Israeli
Military Chief of Staff, Daniel Halutz, was asked how far Israel was ready
to go to stop Iran's nuclear energy program, he said "Two thousand
kilometers" - the distance of an air assault (Financial Times (FT) Dec 12,
2005). More specifically Israeli military sources reveal that Israel's
current and probably next Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ordered Israel's armed
forces to prepare for air strikes on uranium enrichment sites in Iran (Times
(London), Dec 11, 2005). According to the London Times the order to prepare
for attack went through the Israeli defense ministry to the Chief of Staff.
During the first week in December, ".sources inside the special forces
command confirmed that 'G' readiness - the highest state - for an operation
was announced" (Times, Dec. 11, 2005).
On December 9, Israeli Minister of Defense, Shaul Mofaz,
affirmed that in view of Teheran's nuclear plans, Tel Aviv should "not count
on diplomatic negotiations but prepare other solutions." (La Jornada, Dec.
10, 2005) In early December, Ahron Zoevi Farkash, the Israeli military
intelligence chief told the Israeli parliament (Knesset) that "if by the end
of March, the international community is unable to refer the Iranian issue
to the United Nations Security Council, then we can say that the
international effort has run its course" (Times, Dec. 11, 2005).
In plain Hebrew, if international diplomatic negotiations fail
to comply with Israel's timetable, Israel will unilaterally, militarily
attack Iran. Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the Likud Party and candidate
for Prime Minister stated that if Sharon did not act against Iran, "then
when I form the new Israeli government (after the March 2006 elections)
we'll do what we did in the past against Saddam's reactor." (Times Dec 11,
2005). In June 1981 Israel bombed the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq. Even
the pro-Labor newspaper, Haaretz, while disagreeing with the time and place
of Netanyahu's pronouncements, agreed with its substance. Haaretz
criticized "(those who) publicly recommend an Israeli military option."
because it "presents Israel as pushing (via powerful pro-Israel
organizations in the US) the United States into a major war." However,
Haaretz adds. "Israel must go about making its preparations quietly and
securely - not at election rallies." (Haaretz, Dec 6, 2005) Haaretz's
position, like that of the Labor Party, is that Israel not advocate war
against Iran before multi-lateral negotiations are over and the
International Atomic Energy Agency makes a decision.
In other words, the Israeli "debate" among the elite is not over
whether to go to war but over the place to discuss war plans and the timing
to launch war. Implicitly Haaretz recognizes the role played by pro-Israeli
organizations in "pushing the US into the Iraq war", perhaps a word of
caution, resulting from increased US opposition to the activities of the
Israel First campaigners in Congress (see below).
Israeli public opinion apparently does not share the political
elite's plans for a military strike against Iran's nuclear program. A
survey in the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, reported by Reuters (Dec.
16, 2005) shows that 58% of the Israelis polled believed the dispute over
Iran's nuclear program should be handled diplomatically while only 36% said
its reactors should be destroyed in a military strike.
Israel's War Deadline
All top Israeli officials have pronounced the end of March as
the deadline for launching a military assault on Iran. The thinking behind
this date is to heighten the pressure on the US to force the sanctions issue
in the Security Council. The tactic is to blackmail Washington with the
"war or else" threat, into pressuring Europe (namely Great Britain, France,
Germany and Russia) into approving sanctions. Israel knows that its acts of
war will endanger thousands of American soldiers in Iraq, and it knows that
Washington (and Europe) cannot afford a third war at this time. The end of
March date also coincides with the IAEA report to the UN on Iran's nuclear
energy program. Israeli policymakers believe that their threats may
influence the report, or at least force the kind of ambiguities, which can
be exploited by its overseas supporters to promote Security Council
sanctions or justify Israeli military action. Fixing a March date also
intensifies the political activities of the pro-Israel organizations in the
United States. The major pro-Israel lobbies have lined up a majority in the
US Congress and Senate to push for the UN Security Council to implement
economic sanctions against Iran or, failing that, endorse Israeli
"defensive" action. Thousands of pro-Israel national, local and community
groups and individuals have been mobilized to promote the Israeli agenda via
the mass media and visits to US Congressional representatives. The war
agenda also plays on exploiting the tactical disputes among the civilian
militarists within the White House, between Cheney, Bolton and Abrams on one
side and Rice and Rumsfeld on the other. The Cheney line has always
supported an Israeli military attack, while Rice promotes the tactic of
"forced failure" of the European diplomatic route before taking decisive
action. Rumsfeld, under tremendous pressure from practically all of the top
professional military officials, fears that an Israeli war will further
accelerate US military losses. The pro-Israel lobby would like to replace
the ultra-militarist Rumsfeld with the ultra-militarist Senator Joseph
Lieberman, an unconditional Israel First Zealot.
US-Israeli Disagreements on an Iran War
As Israel marches inexorably toward war with Iran, disputes with
Washington have surfaced. The conflicts and mutual attacks extend
throughout the state institutions, and into the public discourse.
Supporters and opponents of Israel's war policy represent powerful segments
of state institutions and civil society. On the side of the Israeli war
policy are practically all the major and most influential Jewish
organizations, the pro-Israeli lobbies, their political action committees, a
sector of the White House, a majority of subsidized Congressional
representatives and state, local and party leaders. On the other side are
sectors of the Pentagon, State Department, a minority of Congressional
members, a majority of public opinion, a minority of American Jews (Union of
Reform Judaism) and the majority of active and retired military commanders
who have served or are serving in Iraq.
Most of the discussion and debate in the US on Israel's war
agenda has been dominated by the pro-Israeli organizations that transmit the
Israeli state positions. The Jewish weekly newspaper, Forward , has
reported a number of Israeli attacks on the Bush Administration for not
acting more aggressively on behalf of Israel's policy. According to the
Forward , "Jerusalem is increasingly concerned that the Bush Administration
is not doing enough to block Teheran from acquiring nuclear weapons." (Dec.
9, 2005). Further stark differences occurred during the semi-annual
strategic dialog between Israeli and US security officials, in which the
Israelis opposed a US push for regime change in Syria, fearing a possible,
more radical Islamic regime. The Israeli officials also criticized the US
for forcing Israel to agree to open the Rafah border crossing and upsetting
their stranglehold on the economy in Gaza.
Predictably the biggest Jewish organization in the US, the
Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations (CPMAJO)
immediately echoed the Israeli state line as it has since its founding.
Malcolm Hoenlan, President of the CPMAJO lambasted Washington for a "failure
of leadership on Iran" and "contracting the issue to Europe" (Forward, Dec.
9, 2005). He went on to attack the Bush Administration for not following
Israel's demands by delaying referring Iran to the UN Security Council for
sanction. The leader of the CPMAJO then turned on French, German and
British negotiators accusing them of "appeasement and weakness", and of not
having a "game plan for decisive action" - presumably for not following
Israel's 'sanction or bomb them' game plan.
The role of AIPAC, the CPMAJO and other pro-Israeli
organizations as transmission belts for Israel's bellicose war plans was
evident in their November 28, 2005 condemnation of the Bush Administration
agreement to give Russia a chance to negotiate a plan under which Iran would
be allowed to enrich uranium under international supervision to ensure that
its enriched uranium would not be used for military purposes. AIPAC's
rejection of negotiations and demands for an immediate confrontation were
based on the specious argument that it would "facilitate Iran's quest for
nuclear weapons" - an argument which flies in the face of all known
intelligence data (including Israel's) which says Iran is at least 3 to 10
years away from even approaching nuclear weaponry. AIPAC's unconditional
and uncritical transmission of Israeli demands and criticism is usually
clothed in the rhetoric of US interests or security in order to manipulate
US policy. AIPAC chastised the Bush regime for endangering US security. By
relying on negotiations, AIPAC accused the Bush Administration of "giving
Iran yet another chance to manipulate (sic) the international community" and
"pose a severe danger to the United States" (Forward, Dec. 9, 2005).
Leading US spokesmen for Israel opposed President Bush's
instructing his Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khaklilzad, to open a dialog with
Iran's Ambassador to Iraq. In addition, Israel's official 'restrained'
reaction to Russia's sale to Teheran of more than a billion dollars worth of
defensive anti-aircraft missiles, which might protect Iran from an Israeli
air strike, was predictably echoed by the major Jewish organizations in the
US. No doubt an important reason for Israel's setting an early deadline for
its military assault on Iran is to act before Iran establishes a new
satellite surveillance system and installs its new missile defense system.
Pushing the US into a confrontation with Iran, via economic
sanctions and military attack has been a top priority for Israel and its
supporters in the US for more than a decade (Jewish Times/ Jewish Telegraph
Agency, Dec. 6, 2005). The AIPAC believes the Islamic Republic poses a
grave threat to Israel's supremacy in the Middle East. In line with its
policy of forcing a US confrontation with Iran, AIPAC, the Israeli PACs
(political action committees) and the CPMAJO have successfully lined up a
majority of Congress people to challenge what they describe as the
"appeasement" of Iran.
According to the Jewish Times (12/6/05), "If it comes down to a political battle, signs are that AIPAC could muster strong support in Congress to press the White House to demand sanctions on Iran." Representative Illeana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida), who has the dubious distinction of being a collaborator with Cuban exile terrorist groups and unconditional backer of Israel's war policy, is chairwoman of the highly influential US House of Representative Middle East subcommittee. From that platform she has echoed the CPMAJO line about "European appeasement and arming the terrorist regime in Teheran" (Jewish Times 12/6/05). The Cuban-American Zionist boasted that her Iran sanctions bill has the support of 75% of the members of Congress and that she is lining up additional so-sponsors.
The pro-Israel lobby's power, which includes AIPAC, the
Conference of Presidents, the PACs and hundreds of local formal and informal
organizations, is magnified by their influence and hegemony over Congress,
the mass media, financial institutions, pension funds and fundamentalist
Christian organizations. Within the executive branch their influence in
these institutions amplifies their power far beyond their number and direct
control and representation in strategic public and private institutions
(which itself is formidable). AIPAC's "Progress and Policy Report for 2005"
- published on its website - lists, among its accomplishments, getting
Congress to approve 100 pro-Israel legislative initiatives, $3 billion in
direct aid and more than $10 billion in guaranteed loans, transfer of the
most advanced military technology to Israel's multi-billion dollar arms
export corporations, and the lining up by a 410 to 1 vote in the House of
Representative committing the US to Israel's security - as it is defined by
Israel.
The conflict between the Israeli elite and the Bush
Administration has to be located in a broader context. Despite pro-Israeli
attacks on US policy for its 'weakness' on Iran, Washington has moved as
aggressively as circumstances permit. Facing European opposition to an
immediate confrontation (as AIPAC and Israeli politicians demand) Washington
supports European negotiations but imposes extremely limiting conditions,
namely a rejection of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which allows uranium
enrichment for peaceful purposes. The European "compromise" of forcing Iran
to turn over the enrichment process to a foreign country (Russia), is not
only a violation of its sovereignty, but is a policy that no other country
using nuclear energy practices. Given this transparently unacceptable
"mandate", it is clear that Washington's 'support for negotiations' is a
propaganda devise to provoke an Iranian rejection, and a means of securing
Europe's support for a Security Council referral for international
sanctions.
Washington has absolutely no precedent to object to Russia's
sale of defensive ground to air missiles to Iran, since it is standard in
the arms export business. As for as the Ambassadorial meetings in Iraq, the
US has had great success in securing Iranian co-operation on stabilizing its
Iraqi Shiite client regime. Iran has recognized the regime, has signed
trade agreements, supported the dubious elections and provided the US with
intelligence against the Sunni resistance. Given their common interests in
the region, it was logical for Washington to seek to bend Iran into further
co-operation via diplomatic discussions. In other words, as the US seeks to
withdraw its troops from a losing war in Iraq (largely supported by AIPAC
and its organizational partners), pro-Israel organizations are pushing hard
to put the US into a new war with Iran. It is no surprise that the Zionist
Organization of America (ZOA) invited the most bellicose of US Middle East
warmongers, UN Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, to be its
keynote speaker at its annual awards dinner (ZOA Press Release, Dec. 11,
2005). The ZOA has loyally followed all the zigzags of Israeli policy since
the foundation of the State.
Despite the near unanimous support and widespread influence of the major
Jewish organizations, 20% of American Jews do not support Israel in its
conflict with the Palestinians. Even more significantly, 61% of Jews almost
never talk about Israel or defend Israel in conversation with Goyim
(non-Jews) (Jerusalem Post, Dec 1, 2005). Only 29% of Jews are active
promoters of Israel. In other words, it is important to note that the
Israel First crowd represents less than a third of the Jewish community and
hence their claim to speak for 'all' US Jews is false and a
misrepresentation. In fact, there is more opposition to Israel among Jews
than there is in the US Congress. Having said that, however, most Jewish
critics of Israel are not influential in the big Jewish organizations and
the Israel lobby, excluded from the mass media and mostly intimidated from
speaking out, especially on Israel's war preparations against Iran. The
minority Jewish critics cannot match the five to eight million dollars spent
in buying Congressional votes each year by the pro-Israel lobbies.
The Myth of the Iranian Nuclear Threat
The Israeli Defense Forces Chief of Staff, Daniel Halutz, has
categorically denied that Iran represents an immediate nuclear threat to
Israel, let along the United States. According to Haaretz (12/14/05),
Halutz stated that it would take Iran time to be able to produce a nuclear
bomb - which he estimated might happen between 2008 and 2015.
Israel's Labor Party officials do not believe that Iran
represents an immediate nuclear threat and that the Sharon government and
the Likud war propaganda is an electoral ploy. According to Haaretz, "Labor
Party officials.accused Preme Minister Ariel Sharon, Defense Minister Shaul
Mofaz and other defense officials of using the Iran issue in their election
campaigns in an effort to divert public debate from social issues" (Dec. 14,
2005). In a message directed at the Israeli Right but equally applicable to
AIPAC and the 'Presidents of the Major Jewish Organizations in the US, Labor
member of the Knesset, Benjamin Ben-Eliezer rejected electoral warmongering:
"I hope the upcoming elections won't motivate the prime minister and defense
minister to stray from government policy and place Israel on the frontlines
of confrontation with Iran. The nuclear issue is an international issue and
there is no reason for Israel to play a major role in it" (Haaretz, Dec. 14,
2005). Unfortunately the Israel lobby is making it a US issue and putting
Washington on the frontlines.
Iran's Nuclear Threat Fabrication
Israeli intelligence has determined that Iran has neither the
enriched uranium nor the capability to produce an atomic weapon now or in
the immediate future, in contrast to the hysterical claims publicized by the
US pro-Israel lobbies. Mohammed El Baradei, head of the United Nations
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has inspected Iran for
several years, has pointed out that the IAEA has found no proof that Iran is
trying to construct nuclear weapons. He criticized Israeli and US war plans
indirectly by warning that a "military solution would be completely
un-productive" (Financial Times, Dec. 10/11, 2005).
More recently, Iran, in a clear move to clarify the issue of the
future use of enriched uranium, "opened the door for US help in building a
nuclear power plant" (USA Today, Dec. 11, 2005). Iranian Foreign Ministry
spokesman, Hamid Reza Asefi, speaking at a press conference, stated "America
can take part in the international bidding for the construction of Iran's
nuclear power plant if they observe the basic standards and quality" (USA
Today, Dec. 11, 2005). Iran also plans to build several other nuclear power
plants with foreign help. The Iranian call for foreign assistance is hardly
the strategy of a country trying to conduct a covert atomic bomb program,
especially one directed at involving one of its principal accusers.
The Iranians are at an elementary stage in the processing of
uranium, not even reaching the point of uranium enrichment, which in turn
will take still a number of years, and overcoming many complex technical
problems before it can build a bomb. There is no factual basis for arguing
that Iran represents a nuclear threat to Israel or to the US forces in the
Middle East.
Israel's war preparations and AIPAC's efforts to push the US in
the same direction based on falsified data is reminiscent of the fabricated
evidence which was channeled to the White House through the Pentagon's
Office of Special Plans led by Abram Shumsky and directed by Douglas Feith
and Paul Wolfowitz, both long-time supporters of the Likud Party. Israel's
war preparations are not over any present or future Iranian nuclear threat.
The issue is over future enrichment of uranium, which is legal under the
Non-Proliferation Treaty as is its use in producing electrical power. Iran
currently is only in a uranium conversion phase, which is prior to
enrichment. Scores of countries with nuclear reactors by necessity use
enriched uranium. The Iranian decision to advance to processing enriched
uranium is its sovereign right as it is for all countries, which possess
nuclear reactors in Europe, Asia and North America.
Israel and AIPAC's resort to the vague formulation of Iran's
potential nuclear capacity is so open-ended that it could apply to scores of
countries with a minimum scientific infrastructure.
The European Quartet has raised a bogus issue by evading the
issue of whether or not Iran has atomic weapons or is manufacturing them and
focused on attacking Iran's capacity to produce nuclear energy - namely the
production of enriched uranium. The Quartet has conflated enriched uranium
with a nuclear threat and nuclear potential with the danger of an imminent
nuclear attack on Western countries, troops and Israel. The Europeans,
especially Great Britain, have two options in mind: To impose an Iranian
acceptance of limits on its sovereignty, more specifically on its energy
policy and capacity to control the deadly air pollution of its major cities
with cleaner sources of energy; or to force Iran to reject the arbitrary
addendum to the Non-Proliferation Agreement and then to propagandize the
rejection as an indication of Iran's evil intention to create atomic bombs
and target pro-Western countries. The Western media would echo the US and
European governments position that Iran was responsible for the breakdown of
negotiations. The Europeans would then convince their public that since
"reason" failed, the only recourse it to follow the US to take the issue to
the Security Council and approve international sanctions against Iran.
The US then would attempt to pressure Russia and China to vote
in favor of sanctions or to abstain. There is reason to doubt that either
or both countries would agree giving the importance of the multi-billion
dollar oil, arms, nuclear and trade deals between Iran and these two
countries. Having tried and failed in the Security Council, the US and
Israel are likely to move toward a military attack. An air attack on
suspected Iranian nuclear facilities will entail the bombing of heavily
populated as well as remote regions leading to large-scale loss of life.
The principal result will be a massive escalation of war throughout the
Middle East. Iran, a country of 70 million, with several times the military
forces that Iraq possessed and with highly motivated and committed military
and paramilitary forces can be expected to cross into Iraq. Iraqi Shiites
sympathetic to or allied with Iran would most likely break their ties with
Washington and go into combat. US military bases, troops and clients would
be under tremendous attack. US military casualties would multiply. All
troop withdrawal plans would be disrupted. The 'Iraqization' strategy would
disintegrate, as the US 'loyal' Shia armed forces would turn against their
American officers.
Beyond Iraq, there would likely be major military-civilian uprisings in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine and Pakistan. The conflagration would spread beyond the Middle East, as the Israel-US attack on an Islamic country would ignite mass protests throughout Asia. Most likely new terrorist incidents would occur in Western Europe, North America, and Australia and against US multinationals. A bitter prolonged war would ensue; pitting 70 million unified Iranian nationals, millions of Muslims in Asia and Africa against an isolated US accompanied by its European allies facing mass popular protests at home.
Sanctions on Iran will not work, because oil is a scarce and
essential commodity. China, India and other fast-growing Asian countries
will balk at a boycott. Turkey and other Muslim countries will not
cooperate. Numerous Western oil companies will work through intermediaries.
The sanction policy is predestined to failure; its only result will be to
raise the price of oil even higher. An Israeli or US military attack will
cause severe political instability and increase the risk to oil producers,
shippers and buyers, raising the price of oil to astronomical heights,
likely over $100 a barrel, destabilizing the world economy and provoking a
major world recession or worse.
Conclusion
The only possible beneficiary of a US or Israeli military attack
on Iran or economic sanctions will be Israel: it will seem to eliminate a
military adversary in the Middle East, and consolidate its military
supremacy in the Middle East. Even this outcome is problematic because it
fails to take account of the fact that Iran's challenge to Israel is
political, not its non-existent nuclear potential. The first target of the
millions of Muslims protesting Israeli aggression will be the Arab regimes
closest to Israel. An Israeli attack would be a pyrrhic victory, if a
predictable political conflagration unseats the rulers of Jordan, Egypt,
Syria and Saudi Arabia. The consequences would be even worse if the US
attacks: major oil wells burning, US troops in Iraq surrounded, long-term
relations with Arab regimes undermined, increased oil prices and troop
casualties inflaming domestic public opinion. An attack on Iran will not be
a cleanly executed 'surgical' strike - it will be a deep jagged wound
leading to gangrene.
No doubt AIPAC will celebrate "another success" for Israel in
their yearly self-congratulatory report of missions accomplished. The
Presidents of the Major Jewish Organizations in America will thank their
obedient and loyal congressional followers for approving the destruction of
an 'anti-Semitic and anti-American nuclear threat to all of humanity' or
some similar rubbish.
The big losers of a US-Israeli military attack are the US
soldiers in Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries who will be killed and
maimed, the US public which will pay in blood and bloated deficits, the oil
companies which will see their oil supplies disrupted, their new
multi-billion dollar joint oil exploitation contracts undermined, the
Palestinians who will suffer the consequences of greater repression and
massive displacement, the Lebanese people who will be forcible entangled in
a new border war, and the Europeans who will face terrorist retaliations.
Except for the Israeli lobby in the US and its grass root Jewish
American supporters and allies among the Presidents of the Major Jewish
organizations there are no other organized lobbies pressuring for or against
this war. The ritualistic denunciations of "Big Oil" whenever there is a
Middle East conflict involving the US is in this instance a totally bogus
issue, lacking any substance. All the evidence is to the contrary - big oil
is opposed to any conflicts, which will upset their first major entry into
Middle Eastern oil fields since they were nationalized in the 1970's.
The only identifiable organized political force, which has
successfully made deep inroads in the US Congress and in sectors of the
Executive Branch, are the pro-Israel lobbies and PAC's. The major
proponents of a confrontationist policy in the Executive Branch are led by
pro-Israel neo-conservative National Security Council member (and
Presidentially pardoned felon) Elliott Abrams, in charge of Middle East
policy, and Vice President Cheney. The principle opposition is found in the
major military services, among commanders, who clearly see the disastrous
strategic consequences for the US military forces and sectors of the State
Department and CIA, who are certainly aware of the disastrous consequences
for the US of supporting Israel's quest for uncontested regional supremacy.
The problem is there is no political leadership to oppose the
pro-Israel war lobby within congress or even in civil society. There are
few if any influential organized lobbies challenging the pro-war Israel
lobby either from the perspective of working for coexistence in the Middle
East or even in defending US national interests when they diverge from
Israel. Although numerous former diplomats, generals, intelligence
officials, Reformed Jews, retired National Security advisers and State
Department professionals have publicly denounced the Iran war agenda and
even criticized the Israel First lobbies, their newspaper ads and media
interviews have not been backed by any national political organization that
can compete for influence in the White House and Congress. As we draw
closer to a major confrontation with Iran and Israeli officials set short
term deadlines for igniting a Middle East conflagration, it seems that we
are doomed to learn from future catastrophic losses that Americans must
organize to defeat political lobbies based on overseas allegiances.
December 15, 2005