Nexus - 1203 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

regarded the security of my country, I'd be concerned about Iran having a nuclear weapon as well. And in that Israel is our ally, and in that we've made a very strong commitment to support Israel, we will support Israel if her security is threatened." Meanwhile, rumours mount. On February 18, Scott Ritter, a former US Marine and UN weapons inspector in Iraq, in a talk delivered to a packed house in Olympia's Capitol Theater in Washington State, claimed on the basis of inside information that Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005. While European diplomatic efforts seek to head off a military confrontation, "In private," as Guy Dinsmore notes in a Financial Times article of February 14 ("Would Condi and Dubbya Really Start Another War?"), "European officials say the best they can do is to buy time, perhaps to the end of the year". The government is urging a limited attack on Iran because they believe it could lead to a toppling of the religious lead - ership. "Within the soul of Iran there is a struggle between secular nationalists and reformers, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the fundamentalist Islamic movement," the consultant told me. "The minute the aura of invincibility which the mullahs enjoy is shattered, and with it the ability to hoodwink the West, the Iranian regime will collapse"—like the former Communist regimes in Romania, East Germany, and the Soviet Union. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz share that belief, he said. Start Another War?"), "European offi ay the best they can do However, Hersh notes that Iran experts dispute the likelihood of is to buy time, perhaps to the end of the year". a quick collapse of the Tehran regime, and say that a more likely consequence would be a stiffening of Iranian opposition. POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES OF AN ATTACK ON IRAN Again, one cannot help recalling how similar expectations were What would be the likely results of an American attack on Iran? voiced by administration insiders prior to the Iraq invasion—and In the fall of 2004, The Atlantic conducted a war-games think- how those expectations were dashed. The US administration tank, as reported in the December 2004 issue in an article by appears to be cherry-picking expert advice, accepting only those James Fallows ("Will Iran be Next?"). views that coincide with what higher- The magazine hired retired military ups want to hear. This is evidently a strategists to come together and, in policy emanating from top levels: discussions, play out three possible George W. Bush himself is said to scenarios: Scott Ritter, a former have told advisers that he wants to a limited attack on Iran's nuclear . hear only good news. research facilities; US Marine and UN weapons However, the news following an * an air attack on the Republican inspector in Iraq, claims that invasion might be anything but good. Guard designed to destroy Iranian According to a Reuters report by Amir overall military capability; and Bush has "signed off" on plans Paivar, "Iran Promises ‘Burning Hell’ ¢ an all-out invasion aimed at regime to bomb lran in June 2005 for Any Aggressor", dated Thursday, change. . February 10, 2005: Each ended with unacceptable consequences. The attack on nuclear facilities, the participants agreed, would be unlikely to stop research and Iran, facing mounting US pres - sure over its nuclear program, promised Thursday a "burning hell" for any aggressor as tens of would probably only redouble Iranian resolve to develop nuclear thousands marched to mark the 26th anniversary of its weapons. An air attack on Iranian military units would provoke Islamic revolution. retaliation against US forces in Iraq. And a full-on invasion "The Iranian nation does not seek war, does not seek vio - would entail US casualties and an ongoing occupation and lence and dispute. But the world must know that this nation guerrilla warfare. will not tolerate any invasion," President Mohammad The war-games leader, retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner Khatami said in a fiery speech to the crowd in central (who ran war games at the National War College for more than Tehran. two decades), summarised the group's conclusions: "After all this "The whole Iranian nation is united against any threat or effort, I am left with two simple sentences for policymakers: You attack. If the invaders reach Iran, the country will turn into a have no military solution for the issues of Iran. And you have to burning hell for them," he added, as the crowd, braving make diplomacy work." heavy snow blizzards, chanted "Death to America!" Nevertheless, despite the counterproductiveness of the likely outcomes, the war-gamers could not rule out the likelihood that While such threats can mostly be chalked up to bluff and the US would pursue one or more of these strategies. "Companies bravado (most of the Iranian war machinery is outdated and deciding which kinds of toothpaste to market have much more worn), Tehran does possess some weapons that are accurate and rigorous, established decision-making procedures to refer to than destructive—far more so than any used by Saddam Hussein the most senior officials of the US government deciding whether against American forces. An example is the Russian-made or not to go to war," said Michael Mazarr, a professor of national- Sunburn cruise missile, specifically designed to defeat the US security strategy at the National War College. Thomas Hammes, _ Aegis radar defence system and said to be the most lethal anti-ship a Marine expert in counterinsurgency, added: "You can never weapon in the world. assume that just because a government knows something is unvi- Tf attacked, Iran would likely foment a Shi'ite rebellion in Iraq able, it won't go ahead and do it. The Iraqis knew it was unviable —_ against US occupation forces, an insurgency that might far to invade Iran, but they still did it. History shows that countries surpass in extent and deadlines the current Sunni-led resistance. make very serious mistakes." Moreover, Tehran might also unleash its 300 North The neoconservatives appear to have a view of the situation that Korean-engineered Shahab-3 ballistic missiles on US bases in is not reflected in these war-games. They evidently believe that, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan and Iraq. If Iran after the first strikes, the Iranian regime will simply collapse. were invaded, its tactic would be to wage a guerrilla war similar Hersh (in The New Yorker, January 24-31, 2005) writes: to that undertaken by the Sunni-led resistance in Iraq. Tehran has Scott Ritter, a former US Marine and UN weapons inspector in Iraq, claims that Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005. While such threats can mostly be chalked up to bluff and bravado (most of the Iranian war machinery is outdated and worn), Tehran does possess some weapons that are accurate and destructive—far more so than any used by Saddam Hussein against American forces. An example is the Russian-made Sunburn cruise missile, specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defence system and said to be the most lethal anti-ship weapon in the world. If attacked, Iran would likely foment a Shi'ite rebellion in Iraq against US occupation forces, an insurgency that might far surpass in extent and deadlines the current Sunni-led resistance. Moreover, Tehran might also unleash its 300 North Korean-engineered Shahab-3 ballistic missiles on US bases in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan and Iraq. If Iran were invaded, its tactic would be to wage a guerrilla war similar to that undertaken by the Sunni-led resistance in Iraq. Tehran has APRIL — MAY 2005 NEXUS = 15 www.nexusmagazine.com