By Muhammad Cohen for the Asia Times
NEW YORK – The George W Bush administration plans to launch an air strike against Iran within the next two months, an informed source tells Asia Times Online, echoing other reports that have surfaced in the media in the United States recently.
Two key US senators briefed on the attack planned to go public with their opposition to the move, according to the source, but their projected New York Times op-ed piece has yet to appear.
The source, a retired US career diplomat and former assistant secretary of state still active in the foreign affairs community, speaking anonymously, said last week that that the US plans an air strike against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). The air strike would target the headquarters of the IRGC’s elite Quds force. With an estimated strength of up to 90,000 fighters, the Quds’ stated mission is to spread Iran’s revolution of 1979 throughout the region.
Targets could include IRGC garrisons in southern and southwestern Iran, near the border with Iraq. US officials have repeatedly claimed Iran is aiding Iraqi insurgents. In January 2007, US forces raided the Iranian consulate general in Erbil, Iraq, arresting five staff members, including two Iranian diplomats it held until November. Last September, the US Senate approved a resolution by a vote of 76-22 urging President George W Bush to declare the IRGC a terrorist organization. Following this non-binding “sense of the senate” resolution, the White House declared sanctions against the Quds Force as a terrorist group in October. The Bush administration has also accused Iran of pursuing a nuclear weapons program, though most intelligence analysts say the program has been abandoned.
An attack on Iraq would fit the Bush administration’s declared policy on Iraq. Administration officials questioned directly about military action against Iran routinely assert that “all options remain on the table”.
Rockin’ and a-reelin’
Senators and the Bush administration denied the resolution and terrorist declaration were preludes to an attack on Iran. However, attacking Iran rarely seems far from some American leaders’ minds. Arizona senator and presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain recast the classic Beach Boys tune Barbara Ann as “Bomb Iran”. Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton promised “total obliteration” for Iran if it attacked Israel.
The US and Iran have a long and troubled history, even without the proposed air strike. US and British intelligence were behind attempts to unseat prime minister Mohammed Mossadeq, who nationalized Britain’s Anglo-Iranian Petroleum Company, and returned Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to power in 1953. President Jimmy Carter’s pressure on the Shah to improve his dismal human-rights record and loosen political control helped the 1979 Islamic revolution unseat the Shah.
But the new government under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini condemned the US as “the Great Satan” for its decades of support for the Shah and its reluctant admission into the US of the fallen monarch for cancer treatment. Students occupied the US Embassy in Teheran, holding 52 diplomats hostage for 444 days. Eight American commandos died in a failed rescue mission in 1980. The US broke diplomatic relations with Iran during the hostage holding and has yet to restore them. Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric often sounds lifted from the Khomeini era.
The source said the White House views the proposed air strike as a limited action to punish Iran for its involvement in Iraq. The source, an ambassador during the administration of president H W Bush, did not provide details on the types of weapons to be used in the attack, nor on the precise stage of planning at this time. It is not known whether the White House has already consulted with allies about the air strike, or if it plans to do so.
Sense in the senate
Details provided by the administration raised alarm bells on Capitol Hill, the source said. After receiving secret briefings on the planned air strike, Senator Diane Feinstein, Democrat of California, and Senator Richard Lugar, Republican of Indiana, said they would write a New York Times op-ed piece “within days”, the source said last week, to express their opposition. Feinstein is a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and Lugar is the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee.
Senate offices were closed for the US Memorial Day holiday, so Feinstein and Lugar were not available for comment.
Given their obligations to uphold the secrecy of classified information, it is unlikely the senators would reveal the Bush administration’s plan or their knowledge of it. However, going public on the issue, even without specifics, would likely create a public groundswell of criticism that could induce the Bush administration reconsider its plan.
The proposed air strike on Iran would have huge implications for geopolitics and for the ongoing US presidential campaign. The biggest question, of course, is how would Iran respond?
Iran’s options
Iran could flex its muscles in any number of ways. It could step up support for insurgents in Iraq and for its allies throughout the Middle East. Iran aids both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Israel’s Occupied Territories. It is also widely suspected of assisting Taliban rebels in Afghanistan. (that is utter nonsense – The Saker)
Iran could also choose direct confrontation with the US in Iraq and/or Afghanistan, with which Iran shares a long, porous border. Iran has a fighting force of more than 500,000. Iran is also believed to have missiles capable of reaching US allies in the Gulf region.
Iran could also declare a complete or selective oil embargo on US allies. Iran is the second-largest oil exporter in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and fourth-largest overall. About 70% of its oil exports go to Asia. The US has barred oil imports from Iran since 1995 and restricts US companies from investing there.
China is Iran’s biggest customer for oil, and Iran buys weapons from China. Trade between the two countries hit US$20 billion last year and continues to expand. China’s reaction to an attack on Iran is also a troubling unknown for the US.
Three for the money
The Islamic world could also react strongly against a US attack against a third predominantly Muslim nation. Pakistan, which also shares a border with Iran, could face additional pressure from Islamic parties to end its cooperation with the US to fight al-Qaeda and hunt for Osama bin Laden. Turkey, another key ally, could be pushed further off its secular base. American companies, diplomatic installations and other US interests could face retaliation from governments or mobs in Muslim-majority states from Indonesia to Morocco.
A US air strike on Iran would have seismic impact on the presidential race at home, but it’s difficult to determine where the pieces would fall.
At first glance, a military attack against Iran would seem to favor McCain. The Arizona senator says the US is locked in battle across the globe with radical Islamic extremists, and he believes Iran is one of biggest instigators and supporters of the extremist tide. A strike on Iran could rally American voters to back the war effort and vote for McCain.
On the other hand, an air strike on Iran could heighten public disenchantment with Bush administration policy in the Middle East, leading to support for the Democratic candidate, whoever it is.
But an air strike will provoke reactions far beyond US voting booths. That would explain why two veteran senators, one Republican and one Democrat, were reportedly so horrified at the prospect.
Former broadcast news producer Muhammad Cohen told America’s story to the world as a US diplomat and is author of Hong Kong On Air (www.hongkongonair.com), a novel set during the 1997 handover about television news, love, betrayal, high finance and cheap lingerie.
August?? That’s hurricaine season in the gulf of Mexico. Imagine if another Katrina hits during that time? In additon, of course, to loss of oil from the Persian gulf.
If this is true, then Iran has been blessed with stupid enemies. Powerful, yes. But stupid.
Lysander,
They are not stupid. They just don’t care what happens to Americans, the domestic economy, or how many American lives are lost. Unfortunately, the Jews always seem to find some loyal gentile boy (McCain/GWB) or girl (Hillary) who is willing to take the fall if things go to pot. The Jews prefer to work in the shadows, out of the public eye. They are the real powers behind the throne and they remain largely unknown to us. And they are completely indifferent to the fate of ordinary Americans.
In fact, I suspect that they have nothing but contempt for the degeneracy of our society, its culture and Americans in general. They must be getting a good laugh at the stupidity of the American people who sit nightly in front of their televisions mesmerized by the latest showing of “American Idol” while they plot yet another war which we the American people will pay for through the teeth!
God help us!
@anonymous: the Jews
I think that the category “the Jews” is fundamentally flawed for two reasons:
a) it assumes that somehow all, or at least most, Jews share a common point of view, a common agenda, or a common pattern of behavior. I believe that this is factually wrong.
b) it assumes that the common feature of “the Jews” is Zionism or its Americanized version, the Neocon ideology. The fact that most Zionists and most Neocons are Jews does not at all entail that most Jews are Zionists or Neocons. This is a logical mistake.
Both of these assumptions are, I believe, factually incorrect, logically flawed and morally wrong.
A lot of what you write does make sense and is correct, but when you weave it around a central argument which is so deeply flawed you weaken you point. In fact, I would argue that the hidden powers behind the throne WANT you to use such categories because it allows them to hide in their shade.
Please think about this, ok?
The Saker
VS,
You are right it is not fair to paint all people or fault an entire ethnic group for the faults/agenda of a small faction. Like all of us, they have no choice as to who their parents were. I apologize for seeming to slur a whole people.
Nevertheless, while most American Jews may not be neocons, I do think that most do share their agenda (if not their means) and if it is between Israel’s survival versus America’s–Israel wins hands down. I realize I am oversimplifying here…it is never really a case of one surviving and the other dying…but imagine if that situation were to arise…do you doubt whose interests most Jews would defend?
Is it morally wrong to paint so many people with such a broad brush? Perhaps, but what if that group were thralls of a powerful ideology focused on the interests of a single ethnic group? Wrapped up in a mythology of blamelessness and persecution? Advocates of secularism here in America and hypocritically, a fascistic “Jewish” state in Israel? Is it wrong to point it out?
And do you doubt that they have anything but contempt for most Americans? I’m not talking just about the zionist/neocon elites here. The disdain for gentile middle America is pretty deep among Jews, especially of the “professional” class. VS, I talk from some personal observations here.
Nevertheless, I will strive to keep the discussion on a higher plane. Insulting whole groups of people in a couple sentences really does not do much to further an intellectual discussion.
By attacking in August, they make matters far worse than they need to be. Why not attack in October? Also why didn’t they attack when oil was under 70$/barrel instead of 130. Even if “they” don’t care about the American public, even a rider has to take care of his horse.
Also, the powers that be are essentially the banking, armament and pharmaceutical industries. They contain both Jews and Non-Jews and none of them care much beyond their own wealth and power. Little to do with religion, but certainly they are connected with the neocon movement.
anonymous: I apologize for seeming to slur a whole people.
I disagreement is not based on something being a “slur” or not, at least insomuch as concerns with slurs center on offending or not offending some people. I don’t care about offending or not offending anyone with facts, but these facts have to be correct. In our case, the term “the Jews” or even “most Jews” has no factual basis, at least as far as I can tell.
What I do observe in the modern world, and throughout the past 2000 years is a consistent pattern of behavior of SOME Jews which is already an absolutely fascinating thing. Yes, there is a consistent pattern of behavior, a common mindset of SOME Jews whether they be Maimonides, Karo, Trotsky or Lieberman: a bizarre but virulent hatred of everything Gentile and, in particular, anything Christian. But we are talking about what I believe is a rather small, though ideologically active and vociferous, sub-group of Jews, mostly Ashkenazim (whose Semitic ethnic roots are rather dubious to begin with).
You are correct that when faced with an anti-Jewish backlash (or blowback) most Jews will side with their fellow Jews, and it is also true that American Jews are often very disdainful of their fellow American gentiles (I have seen that too). So I have a great deal of sympathy for your outrage over that, but I would suggest that the Jews who despise their fellow American Gentiles ALSO despise their fellow Jews, in particular those who refuse to buy into their sick, racist ideology.
The deep racist streak which imbues the so much of rabbinical Judaism, the equally evil racist core of Zionism and its American Neocon expression are all based on one thing: the denial our of common humanity. The danger is that those of us who oppose these criminal ideologies will fall into the same trap and begin denying our common humanity ourselves. The way to beat Judaism (in its modern expression), Zionism and “Neocon-ism” to be always mindful of our common humanity and never allow a category like “the Jews” to skew or clarity of thought.
Also, remember that for every innocent Jew which is singled out there is a least one Gentile SOB who is getting away with murder, often literally.
I am sorry for the diatribe here, and I don’t mean to be anal about all this. Its just that I strongly feel that those of us who oppose the hateful ideologies I mentioned should be *very* careful in our choice of words.
This being said, I do not, in ANY WAY, mean to censor you or tell you what to think or say. I just offer my comments as part of a discussion, but if you feel otherwise, please ALWAYS feel free to express your opinion here without having to worry about somebody getting offended and pissy at some politically incorrect views or ” anti-Semitic overtones” and any such crap.
Freedom of speech, any speech, and freedom of thought, any thought, are at the very core of this blog, at least in my mind.
Kind regards,
The Saker
VS,
Much to think about.
The danger is that those of us who oppose these criminal ideologies will fall into the same trap and begin denying our common humanity ourselves.
I agree.
With regard to “most Jews,” I would have to disagree with you. The truth is that I can not say with certainty. I am speaking of the circle of friends and acquaintances who I know were or would have been antiwar activists in the sixties (had they been old enough) but are all gung-ho about these ridiculous wars in the ME. VS, I did not need the alternative press to point out that there was a connection between these wars and Israel’s interests. To me it was obvious that Jewish Americans were cheering for Saddam’s ouster and it was no great leap to arrive at the obvious–they are doing so out of some perceived benefit to Israel. I was very disappointed that so very few Christians rose to Hussein’s defense. After all, Hussein defended Christians in an Arab land. He was a secular leader and his foreign minister was a Christian. Shows what a bunch of sycophants these televangelists are…betraying the faithful for a few pieces of silver and a ride on Netanyahu’s Lear Jet.
What a bunch of hypocrites….they are defenders of the Church?
Which reminds me…digression here…did you read this article
Sarkozy “text paging” while in the presence of the Pope? WTF???? How classless. To think that the Frankish predecessors of the French whom he represents answered a call to arms by the Pope a 1000 years ago and now, we have some sniveling little dimwit who is too busy playing with his cellphone to listen to the Pope for a few minutes. What does this say about our elites and what they think of the West’s history and its principal faith–at least until recently.
Oh boy – here we are *really* not going to agree with each other at all. Suffice it to say that from my point of view the Franks are the true ancestors of everything which is the worst in the West rather appallingly bloody history. Though I am a Christian myself, I also know that my spiritual forefathers celebrated the liberation of Jerusalem from the Crusaders side by side with Saladin. That’s a long story which I really don’t feel like going into now.
Nor do I agree that Saddam defended the Christians. Sure, once the Baathists were ousted the various extremists had a great opportunity kill and main Christians, but that hardly makes Saddam a defender of Christianity.
I would conclude by nothing that historically Christians have been generally safe under Islamic rule, with the notable and appalling exception of the Ottoman Empire.
Christians were mostly 2nd class citizens, for sure, but my Orthodox spiritual ancestors did MUCH better under the Islamic rule then under the Papacy, Frankish or otherwise, which always offered us only two options: conversion or death.
As for the Pope, I have even less respect for him, or for what he represents, then for Sarkozy.
Sorry, but here we will not agree on anything, I am afraid.
I apologize if any of the above offends you, or anyone else.
The Saker
One more thing: Tarek Aziz.
While he was nominally a Christian, an Orthodox Christian like myself, as far as I know, he was in reality no more Christian than Milosevic or Putin. All these guys are first and foremost PARTY members and SECULARISTS who, while maybe born and baptized into a faith, do not choose to live their lives serving their God, but their earthly masters.
I have a great deal of sympathy for Aziz’s plight and for the fact that, no doubt, the Empire will kill him without ever letting him say what he knows. But does that make him a Christian in any sense of the world except a totally superficial one?
I don’t think so.
My 2cts
One more comment:
How many Churches are there in Saudia Arabia? Kuwait? UAE? Yemen?
I am pretty sure the answer is none. So, you can say that Hussein was a secularist and that Aziz is no more a Christian than Olmert is an observant Jew, but the fact is that there were Churches and Christians were welcome to live in Iraq. This is no longer possible, and was never possible in the other Arab states. He always seemed like a natural ally against Islamic extremism…if that was ever a threat to begin with.
That’s just how it seems to me. Hussein’s secularism should have been a positive thing. Had he not been in Israel’s neighborhood he probably would have been on our payroll.
Hello VS!
Sorry for the delay in responding. I don’t think your site is safe for work.
No offense taken! I like that you see things differently.
I have been thinking about your responses. I am struck by how emotions color our perceptions. I wonder if you would feel the same if your ancestors had answered Pope Urban’s call to arms, and if the stories of their sacrifices survived, whether you might not even now be cursing the treachery of the Greeks at Constantinople! :-)
I have been thinking about your responses. I am struck by how emotions color our perceptions. I wonder if you would feel the same if your ancestors had answered Pope Urban’s call to arms, and if the stories of their sacrifices survived, whether you might not even now be cursing the treachery of the Greeks at Constantinople!
Very good point. Does existence determine conscience or conscience existence?
I actually come from a family with an ancient military tradition and I was raised with a cult-like reverence for my nation and my family. However, as an adult I began reading and informing myself not so much about the family lore, but the historical facts and my views changed, rather dramatically.
Had my ancestors been Crusaders I would have want to know whether they had participated in the sacking of Constantinople and sat a prostitute on the throne of the Orthodox Patriarch. I also would have looked into whether having committed such actions my ancestors did not have a wested interest in justifying them by a presumed Greek “treachery”. I would have wanted to know whether it is true or not that when the Crusaders entered Jerusalem there was such butchery that the blood of slain Arabs was knee-high in the streets of the Holy City. I might also have looked at whether the Crusaders on the way to the Holy Land and committed innumerable pogroms against Jews, as a training I suppose, and whether it was true or not that the main reason the Pope decided to send them the the Middle-East is to protect Europe from these rampaging mobs of armed men. Then I could have investigated whether it was true or not that the Knights Templars had learned all sorts of wholly non-Christian magical rites (including the worshiping of a devil-like creature called the Baphomet) while in the Holy Land or whether Phillipe Le Bel and the Papacy had a case or not for then killing most of them in pursuit of their presumed treasures (which are still presumed by some to be buried at Gisors in France). All these things I would have looked into and tried to make up my mind not only regardless of my ancestors, but BECAUSE of them.
Since none of us can take any credit for his/her ancestors, and since we should not be blamed for their evil deeds we might as well submit to the truth and our own consciences.
How many Churches are there in Saudia Arabia? Kuwait? UAE? Yemen?
Good point. It proves that the Salafi/Wahabi nutcases which rule these countries are every bit as evil and intolerant as Joe Lieberman says (even a broken clock is on time once every 12 hours). But Wahabism is an aberration in Islam, and it is, in fact an 18th century INNOVATION. But there are Churches in Iran (ditto for Synagogues, by the way) which is also an Islamic Republic.
The Ottoman Empire and the Wahabis are ugly exceptions to an older Islamic tradition of relative tolerance of Christians and Jews. Compare that to the record of the Papacy which from the Crusades to the Teutonic Order’s attempted invasion of Russia, to the Polish invasions of the Ukraine, to the Crimean War, to the rule of Ante Pavelic in “Independent Croatia” have always, ALWAYS, only offered us death or conversion.
So ok, the Wahabis are as bad as the Papist have been. I will grant you that – they are truly on par with each other. The Ottomans were almost as bad, though – unlike the Papists – not always and not everywhere.
As for the Baathists, yes, they are probably not quite as bad as the Papists and the Wahabis, and probably something about as intrinsically evil as the Ottomans have been. But that is still a rather ugly scorecard to keep.
I hope that all these ideologies perish forever although others will, alas, always be here to take their place I suppose as all these ideologies are, in their essence, theomachs – enemies of God.
I know, this sounds like crazy talk in the 21 century, but I happen to be absolutely serious and candid here. This is what I really believe.
I guess that makes me one crazy weirdo :-)
Cheers,
The Saker