[Marxism] attack on Iran

[John Enyang <x03002f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Abbas Edalat, Professor of Mathematics, Kings College, UK, locates the
US-Iranian conflict in the perspective of the conflict since the 1979
Iranian revolution and US designs to remake the Middle East map from the
Iraq-Iran War to the present Iraq War. It makes a vigorous case for Iran's
right to develop civilian nuclear power as a signatory to the Non
Proliferation Treaty, and for that nation's right to survival. Edalat
sharply criticizes US policy and warns of the dangers of the road to war
being mapped out by leaders in the Pentagon and Israel. Indeed, it is
Israel, even more than Washington, that has since 9/11 beaten the drums
for war in Iran. Edalat argues, possibly optimistically, that strong
opposition to the US position by Russia and China will make it difficult
for the US to secure a Security Council sanction of Iran.

 Foaad Khosmood: Iran has been at odds with the United States since the
1979 revolution. It has also had tumultuous relations with Europe over the
years. What makes the present time different, in your opinion, to make UN
sanctions or military intervention more likely in the near future?

Abbas Edalat: The western media gives the impression that it is the
comments of the new Iranian president about Israel and Iran's nuclear
program which, in the context of US's "war on terror", are the root cause
of the present conflict. However, the truth is quite different. In fact,
the anti-Israel and anti-US slogans in Iran were far more radical in the
earlier days on the revolution in 1979, in the American hostage crisis
1979-80 and during the 8 year Iran-Iraq war in 1980-88 that Saddam with
the backing of the west waged on Iran.

Furthermore, according to all western intelligence Iran is many years away
from being able to develop a nuclear weapon capability even if it does
decide to follow this path, for which there is no evidence at all. Thus
none of the propaganda in the western media can possibly be the root cause
of the present conflict and justify threats of sanctions and the option of
military intervention.

We need to see the underlying reasons for the situation elsewhere. What is
fundamentally different today compared with the past is that the Bush
administration, dominated by the neoconservatives and their doctrine of
the "Project for the New American Century", has been resolved ever since
it came to power in 2001 to redesign the map of the Middle East and to
replace all defiant regimes in the region with client pro Western states.

Of course, this has virtually the same motivation that induced the United
States to back first the Shah of Iran, and then Saddam Hussain, and to
maintain close relations with Saudi Arabia. But what has really changed is
that the neoconservatives aim to use the military power of the US to
remove any regime which poses obstacles for them and are prepared to pay a
high price for it in terms of any massive loss in credibility of the US in
the world public and in the western world.

The neoconservatives consider this strategy as vital for controlling the
oil resources in the Middle East and Central Asia and for dominating these
strategic regions in the course of the present century in face of
increasing competition with the growing economic, political and military
power of China. After the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq,
Iran and Syria remain the only two countries which need to undergo regime
change in accord with the neoconservatives' project, and clearly Iran
presents a much greater challenge.

The US strategy for regime change in Iran was spelled out very clearly in
President George W. Bush's State of the Union speech in January 2002 when,
in a very dramatic move, he labeled Iran as part of the axis of evil only
a few weeks after Iran had assisted the US in overthrowing the Taliban
regime in Afghanistan. Indeed, Iran's reward for assisting the US in
Afghanistan in late 2001 was its designation as evil by the US president.

Bush's attack on Iran was in sharp contrast to the foreign policy of the
Iranian government, headed at the time by President Mohammad Khatami, who
since his first landslide election victory in 1997 had been promoting
Dialogue among Civilizations to resolve conflicts and reach peaceful
co-existence with the West. In this context, the axis of evil label shows
that the current US administration is quite serious about its desire to
enforce a regime change in Iran.

After the invasion of Iraq the US strategy against Iran continued
unabated. Despite facing a disaster in its occupation of Iraq, the US has
lost no time in preparing the diplomatic grounds for its broader agenda in
Iran. The US diplomatic offensive has been based on a host of charges
against Iran - that Iran is the principle state in the world for
sponsoring terrorism, that it has ties and co-operation with Al-Qaeda,
that it supports the insurgents to destabilize Iraq, and above all that it
has a covert nuclear weapons program that makes it a threat to Israel and
the Western world.

These charges are strikingly reminiscent of the run-up to the Iraq
invasion and are similarly designed to pave the road for the ultimate aim
of regime change, this time in Iran.

According to two articles by Seymour Hersh in January 2005 in the New
Yorker, all high ranking officers of the Bush Administration, whom he had
interviewed on the US foreign policy, had stated that Iran is the next
target after Iraq, and that the administration has learned its lessons on
the run-up to the Iraq invasion and this time they would first follow the
diplomatic road to prepare fully the political case for an attack on Iran.
Interestingly, the US administration only challenged the details of
Hersh's revelations but not their essential substance.

It is in the light of this strategy that we should understand the current
massive diplomatic efforts by the US to refer Iran to the UN Security
Council. It aims for some sort of UN resolution against uranium enrichment
by Iran followed by UN sanctions in order to completely isolate Iran as a
prelude to a military attack.

FKh: How likely is an actual military offensive? What shape do you think
this action would take? Would Israel be involved?

AE: The probability of a military intervention against Iran has been
steadily rising since the invasion of Iraq. Whether a military attack will
eventually take place or not will of course depend on the outcome of the
diplomatic battles ahead at the UN Security Council and the strength of
the rising opposition to a new war in the public opinion both
internationally and in the Middle East and Iran.

Given the present fiasco in Iraq, it is unlikely that massive US ground
troops will be employed for a full invasion of Iran, a country four times
larger with a population three time bigger than Iraq. What is more likely
at least in the short and medium term is a military assault on Iranian
nuclear plants as well as military and strategic sites.

Israel is likely to be involved in such an operation. Let's go over these
points in more detail.

The US and Israel leaders have openly and repeatedly threatened military
action on Iran in the past few years and there has been a massive
escalation of these threats in the past few months which amongst other
things desensitize and prepare the world public opinion for any eventual
military attack.

Most significantly, the Sunday Times on December 11th last year revealed
that Prime Minster Sharon instructed Israel\u2019s air force to prepare
itself for a major military attack against Iran before the end of March
2006, when elections are due in Israel.

Benjamin Netanyahu, the present leader of the Likud party, warned last
year that if prime minister Sharon does not destroy Iran's nuclear plants,
he would make sure that this is carried out if he comes to power in the
March elections.

The crucial issue here is to understand that the intention of the US is
regime change in Iran and that a number of options have been planned and
to some extent are being carried out. Unmanned US drones have already been
flying into Iranian air space for mapping Iranian radar systems and spying
on military facilities; in October last year Iran complained about these
illegal acts to the UN, stating that two such drones had come down over a
hundred miles inside Iran.

There have also been various reports about CIA activities to foment
national, ethnic and religious conflicts inside Iran, which, given the
historically unresolved problem of oppression of national and religious
minorities in the county, seems to be one of the main strategies of the US
to destabilize the Islamic Republic.

Then there is the report by Philip Giraldi, an ex-CIA officer, in the
August 2005 issue of the American Conservative which reveals that Vice
President Dick Cheney has instructed the Pentagon to prepare itself for a
massive air assault against some 450 sites in Iran if a second 9/11 event
takes place in the US. Alarmingly, the plans for the air assault are
reported to include the use of tactical nuclear strikes against the
fortified Iranian nuclear plants which are deep underground. This scenario
would decisively break a 60 year taboo in the West on using nuclear bombs.

Giraldi's report, unchallenged by the Bush administration, should be taken
very seriously by the anti-war and peace movement all around the world in
particular in the light of the latest videotape by Bin Laden who has
pledged a new attack against the US.

In recent days, President Chirac of France has also caused a bombshell by
threatening to retaliate with nuclear strikes against any state found to
be responsible for a terrorist attack on France.

http://www.japanfocus.org/article.asp?id=506


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism