IRAN: US’s next strategic target?
By Hamid Sodeifi and Hassan Varash
The terror masters in Washington seem to be getting ready to move on to their next target: Iran. According to Seymour Hersh in a recent article in The New Yorker, intelligence and military officials have confirmed that Iran is the US’s “next strategic target.” In the same article Hersh goes on to say that the “administration has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran at least since last summer.” In a speech in February, Scott Ritter, the ex-marine turned United Nations Special Commission weapons inspector, alleged that “President Bush has received and signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June”.
The Bush administration, for its part, has made it clear that so far as Iran is concerned, it will keep all options open, including military attack. In recent months, the US government has ratcheted up its smear campaign against Iran in an unimaginative repeat-down to charges of assisting international terrorists and pursuit of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)-of the lead up to the Iraq war. Could they really be serious? After all, as Bush himself put it recently, “Iran is not Iraq” and the Americans are already having serious difficulties in Iraq.
MIDDLE EAST AND PAX AMERICANA
As hard as it may seem at first sight, given the idiocy of their mascot George Bush, the Neo-cons in charge of the current US administration have always had a very coherent plan for the Middle East. The steps taken so far-invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq-were not taken arbitrarily, nor were they responses to external imperatives like support for terrorism by these countries or threats posed by them to the US. They were deliberate moves designed to ensure the hegemony of the American empire into the 21st century. There are many people in the West, including some on the left, who obstinately refuse to accept this proposition despite the written declarations to its effect by those in charge of the US government at the highest levels .
The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the situation in Lebanon, Syria and Iran today can only be properly understood in this broader context. Central to this strategy is securing control of the richest deposits of carbon fuel in the globe-the most important source of primary energy-both to satisfy the US’s own energy requirements and, more importantly, to control the flow of oil and natural gas to its allies and adversaries. Two-thirds of the known reserves of oil in the world are in the Middle East, with potentially another ten percent in the Caspian region. Middle Eastern countries also sit atop an enormous reserve of natural gas, increasingly an important source of primary energy.
As Robert Ebel of the Center for Strategic and International Studies put it to a State Department audience: “oil fuels military power, national treasuries, and international politics.” Petroleum, he continued, “is a determinant of well being, of national security, and international power for those who possess this vital resource, and the converse for those who do not”.
From the vantage point of the Neo-cons in charge of the White House and the Pentagon, there is an historic opportunity to cement the faith of the 21st century in favour of the US if it can take advantage of its absolute military superiority to wrest control of the vast energy resources of the Middle East and Central Asia (as well as other parts of the world, of course). This has been the guiding principle of White House foreign policy for the last four years and will remain so for the next four.
To seize this rich source of power and profit, the Neo-cons in Washington have undertaken to control the region directly, by establishing a large permanent military force in its heart. This, of course, is at once the continuation and escalation of over 25 years of US policy in the region-ever since the Carter Doctrine, shortly after the fall of the Shah of Iran, established that the US considers access to the Gulf oil of “vital interest” to its national security. As former US President Carter put it, the US will use “any means necessary, including military force”, to keep the Gulf oil flowing. The US Central Command (Centcom) was formed specifically to guarantee this flow of oil. Centcom Commanders have been very clear about their mandate over the years. Consider, for instance, the testimony of Centcom commander-in-chief General Binford Peay III to the US House subcommittee in 1997:
“With over 65 percent of the world’s oil reserves located in the Gulf states of the region-from which the United States imports nearly 20 percent of its needs; Western Europe, 43 percent; and Japan 68 percent-the international community must have free and unfettered access to the region’s resources.” [Any disruptions in the flow of oil] “would intensify the volatility of the world oil market [and] precipitate economic calamity for the developed and developing world alike.”
The Carter Doctrine, however, could not be fully implemented so long as the Soviet Union could keep the US plans in check. Shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union, Bush senior and Centcom commander-in-chief Norman Schwarzkopf executed the first Gulf War against Iraq. Despite the insistence of the Neo-cons at that time to the contrary, however, the US government decided against direct occupation of Iraq after the first Gulf War. The second Gulf War, so far as the Neo-cons are concerned, merely completed what should have been done a decade earlier. This is why they were so eager to invade Iraq from the beginning and were not going to be deterred either by facts that disputed their claims about supposed terrorist connections and the existence of WMDs, or by international law. The stakes were simply too high and the US too powerful to worry about any kind of opposition.
But the Neo-cons plans do not end with Iraq. They always saw the invasion of Iraq as part of a broader strategy to reshape the entire Middle East in line with long-term US (and Israeli) interests. Their success in Iraq has only whetted their appetite for the most important piece in the puzzle: Iran.
SUCCESS IN IRAQ?
Before turning to Iran, it may be necessary to clarify the matter of “success” in Iraq. Surely, with the increasing death toll, lack of access to basic services and generally miserable conditions for most Iraqis, lack of security and jobs, the continuing occupation and the sham elections, we cannot refer to Iraq as a “success”. But the Neo-cons were never interested in the well-being of Iraqis or a truly democratic outcome. To believe otherwise is to fall into the trap of White House propaganda. The Neo-cons were successful because despite the dire warnings before the invasion of Iraq about an Arab uprising throughout the region, potentially leading to the fall of pro-US regimes, no such thing happened. They were successful because the fears of irreparable damage to the US’s relations with its allies, especially the Europeans, proved to have been greatly exaggerated. They were successful because they had set out to establish a permanent military force in Iraq and take control of Iraqi oil; and they’ve done just that. And to top it all, they have won themselves another four years in office.
There were, of course, mistakes made along the way, both political and military, and lessons to be learned. There remain, as well, significant challenges for them in Iraq, such as securing the Iraqi pipelines. The Neo-cons do not deny this. Indeed, they will use the lessons of the Iraqi occupation when it comes to Iran.
With its massive energy resources and critical geo-strategic position, an obedient Iran is vital to the success of the Neo-cons’ plans. Conversely, they see a strong, potentially nuclear, Iran, with the ability to control the Strait of Hormoz and the Persian Gulf and act as a regional power as a most undesirable outcome for both the US and Israel. The fact is that the Neo-cons, under the direction of Douglas Feith, have been exploring potential military options against Iran for some time. The recent hype about Iran’s nuclear energy is merely the smokescreen to justify a potential attack. Let’s remember, when there is concern about nuclear arms in the hands of “uncivilized” nations, with its typically racist overtones, that only one country has demonstrated the barbarity to use nuclear weapons against a civilian population; not once but twice. That country is the United States. More recently, the Neo-cons have been toying with the idea of developing “tactical nuclear weapons” to be used in their “theaters of war”. The Neo-cons’ anxiety is not so much about proliferation of nuclear weapons as it is with the maintenance of overwhelming military balance of power which certain weapons technologies (such as nukes) affords them.
They are thus deadly serious about keeping Iran out of the nuclear weapons game and will do whatever they see fit to make sure that it does not obtain them. One possible scenario under consideration by the Neo-cons is to attack a selected number of targets in Iran, including military and nuclear energy sites. Aside from the obvious military benefits, the Neo-cons hope that such an attack will initiate a popular uprising against the much-disliked theocratic government of Iran. The problem, however, as the Neo-cons see it, is the potential for asymmetrical response by Iran through its network of supporters in the region (including in Iraq) against US and Israeli interests. Lebanon is of particular concern given the influence of Iran there through groups like Hezballah. Hence, the recent developments in Lebanon may be closely linked to possible plans for attacks against Iran (and Syria). By creating an international incident (murder of Hariri), purportedly committed by the Syrian regime, the Israeli and US governments hope to force the removal of Syria from Lebanon, making it easier for Israeli backed forces to take control and subdue militant Islamists and pro-Palestinian forces. This will not only achieve a long-standing policy objective of the Israeli state vis-à-vis Lebanon but also reduce the possibility of pro-Iranian forces using Lebanon as a staging ground for attacks against Israeli positions.
An attack on Iran may thus have to be postponed until Lebanon and Syria are dealt with. Indeed, Syria may have moved higher up in the Neo-cons’ plan of attack as a result. But the success of US/Israeli plans in Lebanon and Syria itself depends to a large extent on subduing Iran and, no less importantly, on getting the approval of Russia. Russia, for its part, has made it clear that it will not agree to a US or Israeli attack against Syria, symbolized by its refusal to halt the delivery of mobile anti-aircraft missiles to Syria, as demanded by Israel.
More troubling, so far as the Neo-cons are concerned, is that none of their war games against Iran have produced satisfactory results despite their ability to attack it from the east, west and south now that they have control of Afghanistan, Iraq and the Persian Gulf. Moreover, the idea that an attack against Iranian targets, including nuclear energy facilities, would result in an uprising against the Iranian government is the subject of ridicule by more serious analysts in the US and globally.
In the US, a powerful and influential wing of the American ruling class, with a multi-lateralist outlook, has been arguing in favour of “a new approach” toward Iran by recognizing that the US “unilateralist sanctions has not succeeded in its stated objective.” Instead, they argue, by denying Washington greater leverage vis-à-vis the Iranian government, this policy has harmed US “interests in a critical region of the world”. They also categorically reject the underlying assumptions of the Neo-cons and believe that an attack against Iran would have serious negative repercussions for the US. Instead, they propose to engage “selectively with Iran to promote regional stability, dissuade Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons, preserve reliable energy supplies, [and] reduce the threat of terror.” This section of the American ruling class is in constant struggle against the Neo-cons over a whole host of issues in its quest for hegemony in the US.
The European states, while not necessarily opposed, at least at the moment, to let the US play the role of global cop on behalf of international capital, are nonetheless suspicious of the Bush administration’s unilateralism and military adventures in the region. They depend on the Middle East for much of their oil requirements and have, as well, a great deal of other trade and economic interests in the region. Their insistence on pursuing diplomatic options is motivated primarily by these considerations.
To make the situation even more complex, the Chinese and the Indian governments have recently signed major oil and natural gas deals with Iran, frustrating Washington’s plan for control of energy supplies and submission of Iran through sanctions. The Neo-cons are thus stuck in a difficult place. Their vision of global domination necessitates control of energy flows from the Persian Gulf and the Caspian regions. This, in turn, requires that Iran be brought into their orbit of direct influence. Yet, the options for achieving this are, at the moment, limited. They lack any real organization in Iran and their simulated war games have produced disastrous results. To top it all, they face strong opposition in the US itself and internationally. This is why they seem to have backed off from their belligerent stance by accepting the European’s proposed course of action to contain Iran’s nuclear technology through a series of so-called incentives, such as admission to the World Trade Organization.
In the short run, therefore, a US attack against Iran seems unlikely. That said, we should remain vigilant, as the Neo-cons are a vicious bunch of ideologues whose actions are not necessarily guided by rational analysis. They may yet take a gamble on Iran which, regardless of the outcome, will cost tens of thousands of lives.
Hamid Sodeifi is an editorial associate of New Socialist. Hassan Varash is author of Nationalism and Islam in Contemporary Iraq.