Why the U.S. Won't Attack Iran
By Tom Engelhardt
10/07/08 "Tomgram" -- - It's been on the minds of antiwar activists and
war
critics since 2003. And little wonder. If you don't remember the
pre-invasion of Iraq neocon quip, "Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real
men
want to go to Tehran..." -- then take notice. Even before American troops
entered Iraq, knocking off Iran was already "Regime Change: The Sequel."
It
was always on the Bush agenda and, for a faction of the administration led
by Vice President Cheney, it evidently still is.
Add to that a series of provocative statements by President Bush, the Vice
President, and other top U.S. officials and former officials. Take
Cheney's
daughter Elizabeth, who recently sent this verbal message to the Iranians:
"[D]espite what you may be hearing from Congress, despite what you may be
hearing from others in the administration who might be saying force isn't
on
the table... we're serious." Asked about an Israeli strike on Iran, she
said: "I certainly don't think that we should do anything but sup****t
them."
Similarly, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton suggested that the Bush
administration might launch an Iranian air assault in its last,
post-election weeks in office.
Consider as well the evident relish with which the President and other top
administration officials regularly refuse to take "all options" off that
proverbial "table" (at which no one bothers to sit down to talk). Throw
into
the mix semi-official threats, warnings, and hair-raising leaks from
Israeli
officials and intelligence types about Iran's progress in producing a
nuclear weapon and what Israel might do about it. Then there were those
recent re****ts on a "major" Israeli "military exercise" in the
Mediterranean
that seemed to prefigure a future air assault on Iran. ("Several American
officials said the Israeli exercise appeared to be an effort to develop
the
military's capacity to carry out long-range strikes and to demonstrate the
seriousness with which Israel views Iran's nuclear program.")
From the other side of the American political aisle comes a language
hardly
less hair-raising, including Hillary Clinton's infamous comment about how
the U.S. could "totally obliterate" Iran (in response to a hypothetical
Iranian nuclear attack on Israel). Congressman Ron Paul recently re****ted
that fellow representatives "have openly voiced sup****t for a pre-emptive
nuclear strike" on Iran, while the resolution soon to come before the
House
(H.J. Res. 362), sup****ted by Democrats as well as Republicans, urges the
imposition of the kind of sanctions and a naval blockade on Iran that
would
be tantamount to a declaration of war.
Stir in a string of new military bases the U.S. has been building within
miles of the Iranian border, the repeated crescendos of U.S. military
charges about Iranian-supplied weapons killing American soldiers in Iraq,
and the revelation by Seymour Hersh, our premier investigative re****ter,
that, late last year, the Bush administration launched -- with the sup****t
of the Democratic leader****p in Congress -- a $400 million covert program
"designed to destabilize [Iran's] religious leader****p," including
cross-border activities by U.S. Special Operations Forces and a low-level
war of terror through surrogates in regions where Baluchi and Ahwazi Arab
minorities are strongest. (Precedents for this terror campaign include
previous CIA-run campaigns in Afghanistan in the 1980s, using car bombs
and
even camel bombs against the Russians, and in Iraq in the 1990s, using car
bombs and other explosives in an attempt to destabilize Saddam Hussein's
regime.)
Add to this combustible mix the unwillingness of the Iranians to suspend
their nuclear enrichment activities, even for a matter of weeks, while
negotiating with the Europeans over their nuclear program. Throw in as
well
various threats from Iranian officials in response to the possibility of a
U.S. or Israeli attack on their nuclear facilities, and any number of
other
alarums, semi-official predictions ("A senior defense official told ABC
News
there is an 'increasing likelihood' that Israel will carry out such an
attack."), re****ts, rumors, and warnings -- and it's hardly surprising
that
the political Internet has been filled with alarming (as well as alarmist)
pieces claiming that an assault on Iran may be imminent.
Seymour Hersh, who certainly has his ear to the ground in Wa****ngton, has
publicly suggested that an Obama victory might be the signal for the Bush
administration to launch an air campaign against that country. As Jim Lobe
of Inter Press Service has pointed out, there have been a number of
"public
warnings by U.S. hawks close to Cheney's office that either the Israelis
or
the U.S. would attack Iran between the November elections and the
inaugural
of a new president in January 2009."
Given the Bush administration's "preventive war" doctrine which has opened
the way for the launching of wars without significant notice or obvious
provocation, and the penchant of its officials to ignore reality, all of
this should frighten anyone. In fact, it's not only war critics who are
increasingly edgy. In recent months, jumpy (and greedy) commodity traders,
betting on a future war, have boosted these fears. (Every bit of potential
bad news relating to Iran only seems to push the price of a barrel of oil
further into the stratosphere.) And mainstream pundits and journalists are
increasingly joining them.
No wonder. It's a remarkably frightening scenario, and, if there's one
lesson this administration has taught us these last years, it's that
nothing's "off the table," not for officials who, only a few years ago,
believed themselves capable of creating their own reality and imposing it
on
the planet. An "unnamed Administration official" -- generally assumed to
be
Karl Rove -- famously put it this way to journalist Ron Suskind back in
October 2004:
"[He] said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based
community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge
from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured
something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off.
'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're
an
empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're
studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again,
creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how
things
will sort out. We're history's actors.... and you, all of you, will be
left
to just study what we do.'"
A Future Global Oil Shock
Nonetheless, sometimes -- as in Iraq -- reality has a way of biting back,
no
matter how mad or how powerful the imperial dreamer. So, let's consider
reality for a moment. When it comes to Iran, reality means oil and natural
gas. These days, any twitch of trouble, or potential trouble, affecting
the
petroleum market, no matter how minor -- from Mexico to Nigeria -- forces
the price of oil another bump higher.
Possessing the world's second largest reserves of oil and natural gas,
Iran
is no speed bump on the energy map. The National Security Network, a group
of national security experts, estimates that the Bush administration's
policy of bluster, threat, and intermittent low-level actions against Iran
has already added a premium of $30-$40 to every $140 barrel of oil. Then
there was the one-day $11 spike after Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul
Mofaz suggested that an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities was
"unavoidable."
Given that, let's imagine, for a moment, what almost any version of an air
assault -- Israeli, American, or a combination of the two -- would be
likely
to do to the price of oil. When asked recently by Brian Williams on NBC
Nightly News about the effects of an Israeli attack on Iran, correspondent
Richard Engel responded: "I asked an oil analyst that very question. He
said, 'The price of a barrel of oil? Name your price: $300, $400 a
barrel.'"
Former CIA official Robert Baer suggested in Time Magazine that such an
attack would translate into $12 gas at the pump. ("One oil speculator told
me that oil would hit $200 a barrel within minutes.")
Those kinds of price leaps could take place in the panic that preceded any
Iranian response. But, of course, the Iranians, no matter how badly hit,
would be certain to respond -- by themselves and through proxies in the
region in a myriad of possible ways. Iranian officials have regularly been
threatening all sorts of hell should they be attacked, including
"blitzkrieg
tactics" in the region. Oil Minister Gholam Hossein Nozari typically swore
that his country would "react fiercely, and nobody can imagine what would
be
the reaction of Iran." The head of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, Mohammed
Jafari, said: "Iran's response to any military action will make the
invaders
regret their decision and action." ("Mr. Jafari had already warned that if
attacked, Iran would launch a barrage of missiles at Israel and close the
Strait of Hormuz, the outlet for oil tankers leaving the Persian Gulf.")
Ali
****razi, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's representative to
the Revolutionary Guards, offered the following: "The first bullet fired
by
America at Iran will be followed by Iran burning down its vital interests
around the globe."
Let's take a moment to imagine just what some of the responses to any air
assault might be. The list of possibilities is nearly endless and many of
them would be hard even for the planet's preeminent military power to
prevent. They might include, as a start, the mining of the Strait of
Hormuz,
through which a significant ****tion of the world's oil p*****, as well as
other disruptions of ****pping in the region. (Don't even think about what
would happen to insurance rates for oil tankers!)
In addition, American troops on their mega-bases in Iraq, rather than
being
a powerful force in any attack -- Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has
already cautioned President Bush that Iraqi territory cannot be used to
attack Iran -- would instantly become so many hostages to Iranian actions,
including the possible targeting of those bases by missiles. Similarly,
U.S.
supply lines for those troops, running from Kuwait past the southern oil
****t of Basra might well become hostages of a different sort, given the
outrage that, in ****ite regions of Iraq, would surely follow an attack.
Those lines would assumedly not be impossible to disrupt.
Imagine, as well, what possible disruptions of the modest Iraqi oil supply
might mean in the chaos of the moment, with Iranian oil already off the
market. Then consider what the targeting of even small numbers of Iranian
missiles on the Saudi and Kuwaiti oil fields could do to global oil
markets.
(It might not even matter whether they actually hit anything.) And that,
of
course, just scratches the surface of the range of retaliatory
possibilities
available to Iranian leaders.
Looked at another way, Iran is a weak regional power (which hasn't invaded
another country in living memory) that nonetheless retains a remarkable
capacity to inflict grievous harm locally, regionally, and globally.
Such a scenario would result in a global oil shock of almost inconceivable
pro****tions. For any American who believes that he or she is experiencing
"pain at the pump" right now, just wait until you experience what a true
global oil shock would involve.
And that's without even taking into consideration what spreading chaos in
the oil heartlands of the planet might mean, or what might happen if
Hezbollah or Hamas took action of any sort against Israel, and Israel
responded. Mohamed ElBaradei, the sober-minded head of the International
Atomic Energy Agency, considering the situation, said the following: "A
military strike, in my opinion, would be worse than anything possible. It
would turn the region into a fireball..."
This, then, is the baseline for any discussion of an attack on Iran. This
is
reality, and it has to be daunting for an administration that already
finds
itself militarily stretched to the limit, unable even to find the
reinforcements it wants to send into Afghanistan.
Can Israel Attack Iran?
Let's leave to the experts the question of whether Israel could actually
launch an effective air strike against Iranian nuclear facilities on its
own -- about which there are grave doubts. And let's instead try to
imagine
what it would mean for Israel to launch such an assault (egged on by the
Vice President's faction in the U.S. government) in the last months, or
even
weeks, of the second term of an especially lame lame-duck President and an
historically unpopular administration.
From Iran's foreign minister, we already know that the Iranians would
treat
an Israeli attack as if it were an American one, whether or not American
planes were involved -- and little wonder. For one thing, Israeli planes
heading for Iran would undoubtedly have to cross Iraqi air space, at
present
controlled by the United States, not the nearly air-force-less Maliki
government. (In fact, in Status of Forces Agreement negotiations with the
Iraqis, the Bush administration has demanded that the U.S. retain control
of
that air space, up to 29,000 feet, after December 31, 2008, when the U.N.
mandate runs out.)
In other words, on the eve of the arrival of a new American
administration,
Israel, a small, vulnerable Middle Eastern state deeply reliant on its
American alliance, would find itself responsible for starting an American
war (associated with a Vice President of unparalleled unpopularity) and
for
a global oil shock of staggering pro****tions, if not a global great
depression. It would also be the proximate cause for a regional
"fireball."
(Oil-poor Israel would undoubtedly also be economically wounded by its own
strike.)
In addition, the latest American National Intelligence Estimate on Iran
concluded that the Iranians stopped weaponizing parts of their nuclear
program back in 2003, and American intelligence reputedly doubts recent
Israeli warnings that Iran is on the verge of a bomb. Of course, Israel
itself has an estimated -- though unannounced -- nuclear force of about
200
such weapons.
Simply put, it is next to inconceivable that the present riven Israeli
government would be politically capable of launching such an attack on
Iran
on its own, or even in combination with only a faction, no matter how
im****tant, in the U.S. government. And such a point is more or less taken
for granted by many Israelis (and Iranians). Without a full-scale "green
light" from the Bush administration, launching such an attack could be
tantamount to long-term political suicide.
Only in conjunction with an American attack would an Israeli attack (rash
to
the point of madness even then) be likely. So let's turn to the Bush
administration and consider what might be called the Hersh scenario.
Will the Bush administration Attack Iran If Obama Is Elected?
The first problem is a simple one. Oil, which was at $146 a barrel last
week, dropped to $136 (in part because of a statement by Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismissing "the possibility that war with the United
States and Israel was imminent"), and, on Wednesday rose a dollar to $137
in
reaction to Iranian missile tests. But, whatever its immediate zigs and
zags, the overall pattern of the price of oil seems clear enough. Some
suggest that, by the time of any Obama victory, a barrel of crude oil will
be at $170. The chairman of the giant Russian oil monopoly Gazprom
recently
predicted that it would hit $250 within 18 months -- and that's without an
attack on Iran.
For those eager to launch a reasonably no-pain campaign against Iran, the
moment is already long gone. Every leap in the price of oil only
emphasizes
the pain to come. In turn, that means, with every passing day, it's
madder -- and harder -- to launch such an attack. There is already
significant opposition within the administration; the American people,
feeling pain, are unprepared for and, as polls indicate, massively
unwilling
to sanction such an attack. There can be no question that the Bush legacy,
such as it is, would be secured in infamy forever and a day.
Now, consider recent administration actions on North Korea. Facing a
"reality" that first-term Bush officials would have abjured, the President
and his advisors not only negotiated with that nuclearized Axis of Evil
nation, but are now removing it from the Trading with the Enemy Act list
and
the State Sponsor of Terrorism list. No matter what steps Kim Jong Il's
regime has taken, including blowing up the cooling tower at the Yongbyon
reactor, this is nothing short of a stunning reversal for this
administration. An angry John Bolton, standing in for the Cheney faction,
compared what happened to a "police truce with the Mafia." And Vice
President Cheney's anger over the decision -- and the policy -- was
visible
and widely re****ted.
It's possible, of course, that Cheney and associates are simply holding
their fire for what they care most about, but here's another question that
needs to be considered: Does George W. Bush actually sup****t his imperial
Vice President in the manner he once did? There's no way to know, but Bush
has always been a more im****tant figure in the administration than many
critics like to imagine. The North Korean decision indicates that Cheney
may
not have a free hand from the President on Iran policy either.
The Adults in the Room
And what about the opposition? I'm not talking about those of us out here
who would oppose such a strike. I mean within the world of Bush's
Wa****ngton. Forget the Democrats. They hardly count and, as Hersh has
pointed out, their leader****p already signed off on that $400 million
covert
destabilization campaign.
I mean the adults in the room, who have been in short supply indeed these
last years in the Bush administration, specifically Secretary of Defense
Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen.
(Condoleezza Rice evidently falls into this camp as well, although she's
proven herself something of a President-enabling nonentity over the
years.)
With former Carter National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, Gates
tellingly co-chaired a task force sponsored by the Council on Foreign
Relations back in 2004 which called for negotiations with Iran. He arrived
at the Pentagon early in 2007 as an envoy from the world of George H.W.
Bush
and as a man on a mission. He was there to staunch the madness and begin
the
clean up in the imperial Augean stables.
In his Congressional confirmation hearings, he was absolutely clear: any
attack on Iran would be a "very last resort." Sometimes, in the
bureaucratic
world of Wa****ngton, a single "very" can tell you what you need to know.
Until then, administration officials had been referring to an attack on
Iran
simply as a "last resort." He also offered a bloodcurdling scenario for
what
the aftermath of such an American attack might be like:
"It's always awkward to talk about hypotheticals in this case. But I
think
that while Iran cannot attack us directly militarily, I think that their
capacity to potentially close off the Persian Gulf to all ex****ts of oil,
their potential to unleash a significant wave of terror both in the --
well,
in the Middle East and in Europe and even here in this country is very
real.
Their ability to get Hezbollah to further destabilize Lebanon I think is
very real. So I think that while their ability to retaliate against us in
a
conventional military way is quite limited, they have the capacity to do
all
of the things, and perhaps more, that I just described."
And perhaps more. That puts it in a nutshell.
Hersh, in his most recent piece on the administration's covert program in
Iran, re****ts the following:
"A Democratic senator told me that, late last year, in an off-the-record
lunch meeting, Secretary of Defense Gates met with the Democratic caucus
in
the Senate. (Such meetings are held regularly.) Gates warned of the
consequences if the Bush Administration staged a preemptive strike on
Iran,
saying, as the senator recalled, 'We'll create generations of jihadists,
and
our grandchildren will be battling our enemies here in America.' Gates's
comments stunned the Democrats at the lunch."
In other words, back in 2007, early and late, our new secretary of defense
managed to sound remarkably like one of those Iranian officials issuing
warnings. Gates, who has a long history as a skilled Wa****ngton
in-fighter,
has once again proven that skill. So far, he seems to have outmaneuvered
the
Cheney faction.
The March "resignation" of CENTCOM commander Admiral William J. Fallon,
outspokenly against an administration strike on Iran, sent both a ****ver
of
fear through war critics and a new set of attack scenarios coursing
through
the political Internet, as well as into the world of the mainstream media.
As re****ter Jim Lobe points out at his invaluable Lobelog blog, however,
Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and Gates's man in
the
Pentagon, has proven nothing short of adamant when it comes to the
inadvisabilty of attacking Iran.
His recent public statements have actually been stronger than Fallon's
(and
the position he fills is obviously more crucial than CENTCOM commander).
Lobe comments that, at a July 2nd press conference at the Pentagon, Mullen
"repeatedly made clear that he opposes an attack on Iran -- whether by
Israel or his own forces -- and, moreover, favors dialogue with Tehran,
without the normal White House nuclear preconditions."
Mullen, being an adult, has noticed the obvious. As columnist Jay Bookman
of
the Atlanta Constitution put the matter recently: "A U.S. attack on Iran's
nuclear installations would create trouble that we aren't equipped to
handle
easily, not with ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Adm. Mike Mullen,
the
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, drove that point home in a press
conference last week at the Pentagon."
The Weight of Reality
Here's the point: Yes, there is a powerful faction in this administration,
headed by the Vice President, which has, it seems, saved its last rounds
of
ammunition for a strike against Iran. The question, of course, is: Are
they
still capable of creating "their own reality" and imposing it, however
briefly, on the planet? Every tick upwards in the price of oil says no.
Every day that p***** makes an attack on Iran harder to pull off.
On this subject, panic may be everywhere in the world of the political
Internet, and even in the mainstream, but it's im****tant not to make the
mistake of overestimating these political actors or underestimating the
forces arrayed against them. It's a reasonable proposition today -- as it
wasn't perhaps a year ago -- that, whatever their desires, they will not,
in
the end, be able to launch an attack on Iran; that, even where there's a
will, there may not be a way.
They would have to act, after all, against the unfettered opposition of
the
American people; against leading military commanders who, even if obliged
to
follow a direct order from the President, have other ways to make their
wills known; against key figures in the administration; and, above all,
against reality which bears down on them with a weight that is already
staggering -- and still growing.
And yet, of course, for the maddest gamblers and dystopian dreamers in our
history, never say never.
Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project, runs the Nation
Institute's TomDispatch.com. The World According to TomDispatch: America
in
the New Age of Empire (Verso, 2008), a collection of some of the best
pieces
from his site, has just been published. Focusing on what the mainstream
media hasn't covered, it is an alternative history of the mad Bush years.
A
brief video in which Engelhardt discusses American mega-bases in Iraq can
be
viewed by clicking here.
Copyright 2008 Tom Engelhardt
|
