How Iran is being backed into a corner
November 30, 2004
The Age, Australia
Iran could be forgiven for thinking it needs WMD for its own protection, writes Scott Burchill.
Ambitious Republican senator John McCain appeared on national television in the United States last week to discuss the challenges of bombing Iran for its alleged nuclear weapons program.
Untroubled by either the morality or the legality of such an unprovoked act of aggression, McCain's concern was that an attack might be a strategic failure because the Iranian Government has spread its nuclear facilities "all over Tehran and you couldn't do it in one strike".
Putting to one side the unconfirmed status of Iran's nuclear program, its legal entitlement to enrich uranium for civilian purposes, and the International Atomic Energy Agency's efforts to resolve its concerns, one can only imagine Washington's reaction if the roles were reversed - say if an aspiring Iranian parliamentarian went on al-Jazeera to speculate about attacking nuclear facilities on the US east coast.
Such is the arrogance of double standards in the post-September 11 world.
In light of the "practical" difficulties of attacking Iran directly, Newsweek reports that "(Bush) Administration hawks are pinning their hopes on regime change in Tehran - by covert means, preferably, but by force of arms if necessary". It won't only be students of modern history who will feel a sense of deja vu after reading these words.
According to US political scientist Chalmers Johnson, in the 1950s the CIA coined the term "blowback" to refer to "the unintended and unexpected negative consequences of covert special operations that have been kept secret from the American people and, in most cases, from their elected representatives".
For the US, a classic example of "blowback" occurred in Iran after the CIA overthrew the democratically elected PM Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953 and reinstalled the Shah.
The die was cast when President Bush undermined reformist elements within the Iranian polity.
The coup thwarted attempts to nationalise British-Iranian Oil and enabled US oil companies to grab 40 per cent of the industry. However, it also produced a number of unexpected and disastrous consequences, both for the people of Iran and for the US. The coup destroyed a secular, modernising government, ushered in 25 years of brutal repression and corruption, and paved the way for Islamic fundamentalism to become the dominant form of political opposition in the country.
"Blowback" climaxed in January 1979, when Ayatollah Khomeini and the mullahs came to power in a political and theocratic revolution that has proved a catastrophe for American interests in the region ever since.
In light of such a monumental failure, greater circumspection by Washington might have been expected before serious thought was given to planning a sequel. Not so, if McCain's remarks reflect Administration policy and recent reports are accurate.
According to Newsweek, "the CIA and DIA (Defence Intelligence Agency) have war-gamed the likely consequences of a US pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities". The problem, according to the magazine, is that "no one liked the outcome. As an air force source tells it, 'The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating'."
This follows similar war-gaming early last year when the scenarios were even worse for the Pentagon. During the 2003 simulation the Iranians sank most US warships patrolling the Gulf in the first few days of the virtual conflict, effectively delivering "victory" to Tehran.
These results are unlikely to deter the neo-conservatives in Washington and their fellow-travellers in Israel who have long been determined to reverse the Iranian revolution that their venality had earlier helped to prepare. The die was cast when President George Bush undermined reformist elements within the Iranian polity by inexplicably branding the country part of an "axis of evil" in January 2002.
States such as Israel, India and Pakistan were left free to develop nuclear weapons and were placed under little pressure to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Pakistan not only produced the world's first "Islamic bomb", it was also allowed to proliferate nuclear technology to North Korea, Libya and Iran.
Iraq, on the other hand, was invaded for its possession of fictitious weapons of mass destruction.
And now Iran is under threat because it did sign the NPT and presumably considers such weapons to be its only protection against a US assault.
Baghdad wasn't quick enough to develop a nuclear arsenal. Given McCain's recent remarks it is unsurprising that Tehran seems determined not to make the same mistake.
November 30, 2004
The Age, Australia
Iran could be forgiven for thinking it needs WMD for its own protection, writes Scott Burchill.
Ambitious Republican senator John McCain appeared on national television in the United States last week to discuss the challenges of bombing Iran for its alleged nuclear weapons program.
Untroubled by either the morality or the legality of such an unprovoked act of aggression, McCain's concern was that an attack might be a strategic failure because the Iranian Government has spread its nuclear facilities "all over Tehran and you couldn't do it in one strike".
Putting to one side the unconfirmed status of Iran's nuclear program, its legal entitlement to enrich uranium for civilian purposes, and the International Atomic Energy Agency's efforts to resolve its concerns, one can only imagine Washington's reaction if the roles were reversed - say if an aspiring Iranian parliamentarian went on al-Jazeera to speculate about attacking nuclear facilities on the US east coast.
Such is the arrogance of double standards in the post-September 11 world.
In light of the "practical" difficulties of attacking Iran directly, Newsweek reports that "(Bush) Administration hawks are pinning their hopes on regime change in Tehran - by covert means, preferably, but by force of arms if necessary". It won't only be students of modern history who will feel a sense of deja vu after reading these words.
According to US political scientist Chalmers Johnson, in the 1950s the CIA coined the term "blowback" to refer to "the unintended and unexpected negative consequences of covert special operations that have been kept secret from the American people and, in most cases, from their elected representatives".
For the US, a classic example of "blowback" occurred in Iran after the CIA overthrew the democratically elected PM Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953 and reinstalled the Shah.
The die was cast when President Bush undermined reformist elements within the Iranian polity.
The coup thwarted attempts to nationalise British-Iranian Oil and enabled US oil companies to grab 40 per cent of the industry. However, it also produced a number of unexpected and disastrous consequences, both for the people of Iran and for the US. The coup destroyed a secular, modernising government, ushered in 25 years of brutal repression and corruption, and paved the way for Islamic fundamentalism to become the dominant form of political opposition in the country.
"Blowback" climaxed in January 1979, when Ayatollah Khomeini and the mullahs came to power in a political and theocratic revolution that has proved a catastrophe for American interests in the region ever since.
In light of such a monumental failure, greater circumspection by Washington might have been expected before serious thought was given to planning a sequel. Not so, if McCain's remarks reflect Administration policy and recent reports are accurate.
According to Newsweek, "the CIA and DIA (Defence Intelligence Agency) have war-gamed the likely consequences of a US pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities". The problem, according to the magazine, is that "no one liked the outcome. As an air force source tells it, 'The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating'."
This follows similar war-gaming early last year when the scenarios were even worse for the Pentagon. During the 2003 simulation the Iranians sank most US warships patrolling the Gulf in the first few days of the virtual conflict, effectively delivering "victory" to Tehran.
These results are unlikely to deter the neo-conservatives in Washington and their fellow-travellers in Israel who have long been determined to reverse the Iranian revolution that their venality had earlier helped to prepare. The die was cast when President George Bush undermined reformist elements within the Iranian polity by inexplicably branding the country part of an "axis of evil" in January 2002.
States such as Israel, India and Pakistan were left free to develop nuclear weapons and were placed under little pressure to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Pakistan not only produced the world's first "Islamic bomb", it was also allowed to proliferate nuclear technology to North Korea, Libya and Iran.
Iraq, on the other hand, was invaded for its possession of fictitious weapons of mass destruction.
And now Iran is under threat because it did sign the NPT and presumably considers such weapons to be its only protection against a US assault.
Baghdad wasn't quick enough to develop a nuclear arsenal. Given McCain's recent remarks it is unsurprising that Tehran seems determined not to make the same mistake.
