|
 US
forces are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in the
Middle East in a few hours. US readiness for more war is
just one indicator that the present war is likely to
spread and intensify in the coming months.
Unnoticed amidst coverage of the war, Iran
has
rejected a UN resolution demanding it halt uranium
enrichment. Condoleezza Rice anticipates that on the
nuclear issue: "when the Iranians get past this August 31
deadline, I think they're going to see sanctions from the
international system that are going to start to make life
pretty miserable." Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime
minister,
stated back in April that the decisive point in Iran's
development of nuclear arms would come in months.
Both the Iranian and US governments regard
the fighting in Lebanon and Israel as related to their own
conflict. President Bush made the end of Iranian and
Syrian support of Hizbullah a
condition of any ceasefire, though he has since
softened his stance at the UN. Condoleezza Rice
remarked that "we do know that this is more than just
Hizbullah in Lebanon. This is an extension of Iranian
power through a proxy war."
US Intelligence Chief, John Negroponte,
told the US Senate
Intelligence Committee earlier this year that Iran
regarded Hizbullah as "a critical regime safeguard by
deterring US and Israeli attacks". With Hezbollah already
at war, this "safeguard" is in the process of being
removed.
Iran has threatened a world oil price
crisis in response to UN sanctions. We do not now know if
China, France and Russia will support sanctions or if US
will once more regard the UN's failure as a license to act
militarily. These "ifs" require a close look at the US,
Israeli and Iranian political intentions and military
capabilities.
American intentions towards Iran are fairly
clear. If diplomacy and sanctions fail to halt Iran's
nuclear ambitions then military force must be used. No one
should be shocked that William Kristol, the
neoconservative leader, has already
called for a military strike on Iran in response to
Hizbullah's attack on Israel.
Seymour
Hersh's
articles claim that President Bush ordered war against
Iran shortly after the President's re-election in 2004.
His claim that Bush is determined not to leave Iran to a
future president and that he has support from leading
Democrats is born out by numerous conversations I have had
with colleagues in Washington. As a senior staffer to
Senator Kerry put it: "why should people object if we
carry out disarmament militarily?"
There are plenty more reports that war with
Iran is either underway or in preparation. Special forces
"prepare for Iran attack"
wrote Robert Fox back in 2003. Pat Buchanan's
American Conservative argues along with Hersh that
vice-president Cheney has prepared a war plan for Iran
including the use of nuclear weapons by summer 2005. Scott
Ritter has claimed that President Bush ordered that the US
be ready to attack Iran at any point
after June 2005 and Newsweek
reported that the administration was considering
options for regime change. The
Atlantic Monthly concluded after conducting a wargame
that attacking Iran was too risky. The
powerpoint slides from that game provide a glimpse
into the world of war planning. Their analysis assumes a
large ground invasion, clearly not a favoured option of
either Don Rumsfeld or the American public. Most recently,
the eminent investigative writer, James Bamford, has
described a neoconservative push for regime change.
Speculation aside, we do know that Don Rumsfeld has placed
US forces on alert. "We're now at the point where we are
essentially on alert," lieutenant-colonel Bruce Carlson,
commander of the 8th Air Force, said. "We have the
capacity to plan and execute global strikes in half a day
or less."
Under the command of marine-general James
Cartwright, US Global Strike planning has the
potential to destroy over 10,000 targets in Iran in one
mission with "smart" conventional weapons. US government
documents obtained by Hans Kristensen and analysed by
William
Arkin has described the development of this Global
Strike capability.
Awaiting his orders, George Bush has more
than 200 strategic
bombers (B52-B1-B2-F117A) and US Navy Tomahawk cruise
missiles. One B2 bomber dropped 80,500lb bombs on separate
targets in 22 seconds in a
test flight. Using just half the available force,
10,000 targets could be attacked almost simultaneously.
This strike power alone is sufficient to destroy all major
Iranian political, military, economic and transport
capabilities.
Such a strike would take "shock and awe" to
a new level and leave Iran with few if any conventional
military capabilities to block the straights of Hormuz or
provide conventional military support to insurgents in
Iraq. If this was not enough, the
latest generation of
smart bombs now being delivered to the US air force
quadruples the number of weapons all US warplanes can
carry.
Placing forces on high alert, no more means
that the US will actually use them. However, in
combination with an increasing crisis, high alert levels
mean we should be extra careful how we move forward. We
should
heed Tony Blair. When Mike Gapes MP, chair of the
Foreign Affairs Committee, queried the prime minister's
equivocation over pre-emptive war on Iran, asking: "Does
that mean, then, we are just left with sanctions? Mr Blair
replied: "It means that you take this a step at a time."
|
