Calculating the Risk of War in Iran by F. William Engdahl

January 29, 2006

GlobalResearch.ca

In the past weeks media reports have speculated that Washington is ‘thinking the unthinkable,’ namely, an aggressive, pre-emptive nuclear bombardment of Iran, by either the United States or Israel, to destroy or render useless the deep underground Iranian nuclear facilities. The possibility of war against Iran presents a geo-strategic and geopolitical problem of far more complexity than the bombing and occupation of Iraq. And Iraq has proven complicated enough for the United States. Below we try to identify some of the main motives of the main actors in the new drama and the outlook for possible war. The dramatis personae include the Bush Administration, most especially the Cheney-led neo-conservative hawks in control now of not only the Pentagon, but also the CIA, the UN Ambassadorship and a growing part of the State Department planning bureaucracy under Condi Rice. It includes Iran, under the new and outspoken President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It includes Putin’s Russia, a nuclear-armed veto member of the UN Security Council. It includes a nuclear-armed Israel, whose acting Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, recently declared that Israel could ‘under no circumstances’ allow Iranian development of nuclear weapons ‘that can threaten our existence.’ It includes the EU, especially Security Council Permanent Member, France and the weakening President Chirac. It includes China, whose dependence on Iranian oil and potentially natural gas is large. Each of these actors has differing agendas and different goals, making the issue of Iran one of the most complex in recent international politics. What’s going on here? Is a nuclear war, with all that implies for the global financial and political stability, imminent? What are the possible and even probable outcomes? The basic facts First the basic facts as can be verified. The latest act by Iran’s President, Ahmadinejad, announcing the resumption of suspended work on completing a nuclear fuel enrichment facility along with two other facilities at Natanz, sounded louder alarm bells outside Iran than his inflammatory anti-Israel rhetoric earlier, understandably so. Mohamed El Baradei, Nobel Peace prize winning head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN body, has said he is not sure if that act implies a nuclear weapons program, or whether Iran is merely determined not to be dependent on outside powers for its own civilian nuclear fuel cycle. But, he added, the evidence for it is stronger than that against Saddam Hussein, a rather strong statement by the usually cautious El Baradei. The result of the resumption of research at Natanz appears to have jelled for the first time, a coalition between USA and the EU, including Germany and France, with China and even Russia, now joining in urging Iran to desist. Last August President George Bush announced, in regard to Iran’s announced plans to resume enrichment regardless of international opinion, that ‘all options are on the table.’ That implied in context a nuclear strike on Iranian nuclear sites. That statement led to a sharp acceleration of EU diplomatic efforts, led by Britain, Germany and France, the so-called EU-3, to avoid a war. ... more

Do Not Bomb Iraq - Statement by Middle East experts

The following statement is a comprehensive summary of the Middle East Situation compiled by Middle East experts and professors throughout the world:

COMMITTEE ON THE MIDDLE EAST ADVISORY COMMITTEE: Arab Abdel-Hadi - Cairo; Professor Nahla Abdo - Carleton University (Ottowa); Professor Elmoiz Abunura - University of North Carolina (Ashville); Professor Jane Adas - Rutgers University (NJ); Oroub Alabed - World Food Program (Amman); Professor Faris Albermani - University of Queensland (Australia); Professor Jabbar Alwan, DePaul University (Chicago); Professor Alex Alland, Columbia University (New York); Professor Abbas Alnasrawi - University of Vermont (Burlington); Professor Michael Astour - University of Southern Illinois; Virginia Baron - Guilford, CT.; Professor Mohammed Benayoune - Sultan Qaboos University (Oman); Professor Charles Black - Emeritus Yale University Law School; Professor Francis O. Boyle, University of Illinois Law School (Champlain); Mark Bruzonsky - COME Chairperson (Washington); Linda Brayer - Ex. Dir., Society of St. Ives (Jerusalem); Professor Noam Chomsky - Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Cambridge); Ramsey Clark - Former U.S. Attorney General (New York); John Cooley - Author, Cyprus; Professor Mustafah Dhada - School of International Affairs, Clark Atlanta University; Zuhair Dibaja - Research Fellow, University of Helsinki; Professor Mohamed El-Hodiri - University of Kansas; Professor Richard Falk - Princeton University; Professor Ali Ahmed Farghaly - University of Michigan (Ann Arbor); Professor Ali Fatemi - American University (Paris); Michai Freeman - Berkeley; Professor S.M. Ghazanfar - University of Idaho (Chair, Economics Dept); Professor Kathrn Green - California State University (San Bernadino); Nader Hashemi - Ottawa, Canada; Professor Clement Henry - University of Texas (Austin); Professor Herbert Hill - University of Wisconsin (Madison); Professor Asaf Hussein - U.K.; Yudit Ilany - Jerusalem; Professor George Irani - Lebanese American University (Beirut); Tahir Jaffer - Nairobi, Kenya; David Jones - Editor, New Dawn Magazine, Australia; Professor Elie Katz - Sonoma State University, CA; Professor George Kent - University of Hawaii; Professor Ted Keller - San Francisco State University, Emeritus; John F. Kennedy - Attorney at Law, Washington; Samaneh Khader - Gruadate Student in Theology, University of Helsinki; Professor Ebrahim Khoda - University of Western Australia; Guida Leicester, San Francisco; Jeremy Levin - Former CNN Beirut Bureau Chief (Portland); Professor Seymour Melman - Columbia University (New York); Dr. Avi Melzer - Frankfurt; Professor Alan Meyers - Boston University; Professor Michael Mills - Vista College (Berkeley, CA); Kamram Mofrad - Idaho; Shahab Mushtaq - Knox College; Professor Minerva Nasser-Eddine - University of Adelaide (Australia); Professor Peter Pellett - University of Massachussetts (Amherst); Professor Max Pepper, M.D. - University of Massachusetts (Amherst); Professor Ruud Peters - Universiteit van Amsterdam; Professor Glenn Perry - Indiana State University; Professor Tanya Reinhart - Tel Aviv University; Professor Shalom Raz - Technion (Haifa); Professor Knut Rognes - Stavanger College (Norway); Professor Masud Salimian - Morgan State University (Baltimore); Professor Mohamed Salmassi - University of Massachusetts; Qais Saleh - Graduate Student, International University (Japan); Ali Saidi - J.D. candidate in international law (Berkeley, CA); Dr. Eyad Sarraj - Gaza, Occupied Palestine; Professor Herbert Schiller - University of California (San Diego); Peter Shaw-Smith - Journalist, London; David Shomar - New York; Dr. Manjra Shuaib - CapeTown (South Africa); Professor J. David Singer - University of Michigan (Ann Arbor); Professor Majid Tehranian - Director Toda Institute for Global Peace and Policy (University of Hawaii); Dr. Marlyn Tadros - Deputy Director, Legal Research and Resource Center for Human Rights (Cairo); Ismail Zayid, M.D. - Dalhousi University (CA).

A year ago this month the Committee On The Middle East, COME, published a major statement strongly opposing U.S. policies in the Middle East, especially the bombing and devastation of Iraq. That statement is reprinted below. Lack of organization and resources prevented us from doing more. Yet much more needs to be done. To do so we need to be able to pursue our concerns on a sustained basis, involve more people like yourselves, and build up a much stronger movement that not only opposes the policies being pursued but also actively and credibly advocates alternative policies that should be pursued. In order to be able to do these things we are now going to make COME a membership organization and begin a program of monthly activities. To do so we need your support and your involvement. In the days ahead we will be sending you more information and details. At this time please read this Statement in full -- it remains extremely relevant today -- and please join and support these efforts.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

D O N O T B O M B I R A Q A Major Statement from the Committee On The Middle East Sunday, 1 Feb 1998 - The following is a statement from the Committee On The Middle East (COME) concerning the American threats to bomb Iraq. We urge you to circulate it as much as possible. The International Advisory Committee of COME, including Middle East experts and professors throughout the world, is listed at the end of the Statement. Please join with us and support our efforts at this critical time. To reach COME: Phone: 202 362-5266 Fax: 202 362-6965 Email: COME@MiddleEast.Org

D o N ot B omb I raq

While the United States clearly has the military power to further devastate and prostrate Iraq, we strongly believe that the course the U.S. has chosen is not only grossly unjust, but also exceedingly hypocritical and duplicitous. We further believe that though the U.S. may be able to pursue its imperial policies without substantial opposition in the short term, the policies being pursued today, especially the new and massive military assault being prepared against Iraq, are likely to have tremendously negative historical ramifications. As Middle East experts and scholars - many with close and personal ties to this long troubled and misunderstood region - we feel a political, a moral, and a historical responsibility to speak up in clear opposition at this critical time. Origins of Today's Imbroglio:

Throughout this century Western countries, primarily the United States and Great Britain, have continually interfered in and manipulated events in the Middle East. The origins of the Iraq/Kuwait conflict can be found in the unilateral British decision during the early years of this century to essentially cut off a piece of Iraq to suit British Empire desires of that now faded era. Rather than agreeing to Arab self-determination at the end of World War I and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Western nations conspired to divide the Arab world into a number of artificial and barely viable entities; to install Arab "client regimes" throughout the region, to make these regimes dependent on Western economic and military power for survival; and then to impose an ongoing series ofeconomic, cultural, and political arrangements seriously detrimental to the people of the area. This is the historical legacy that we live with today. Throughout the 1930s and the 1940s the West further manipulated the affairs of the Middle East in order to control the resources of the region and then to create a Jewish homeland in an area long considered central to Arab nationalism and Muslim concerns. Playing off one regime against the other and one geopolitical interest against another became a major preoccupation for Western politicians and their closely associated business interests. Following World War II:

After World War II, and from these policy origins, the United States became the main Western power in the region, supplanting the key roles formerly played by Britain and France. In the 1960s Gamel Abdel Nasser was the target of Western condemnation for his attempt to reintegrate the Arab world and to pursue independent "non-aligned" policies. By the 1970s the CIA had established close working relationships with key Arab client regimes from Morocco and Jordan toSaudi Arabia and Iran - regimes that even then were among the most repressive and undemocratic in the world - in order to further American domination and to secure an ever-growing supply of inexpensive oil and the resultant flow of petrodollars. By the late 1970s the counter-reaction of the Iranian revolution was met with a Western build-up of the very same Iraqi regime that is so condemned today in a vain attempt to use Iraq to crush the new Iranian regime. The result was millions of deaths coming on top of the terrible devastation of Lebanon, itself a country that had been severed from Greater Syria by Western intrigues, as had been the area of southern Syria, then known as Palestine. Additionally the Israelis were given the green light to invade Lebanon, further devastate the Palestinians, and install a puppet Lebanese government - an attempt which failed leading to an American and Israeli retreat but ongoing militarism to this day. Meanwhile, throughout all these years Western manipulation of oil supplies and pricing, coupled with arms sales policies, often seriously exacerbated tensions between countries in the region leading to the events of this decade. The Gulf Conflict:

It was precisely such American manipulations and intrigues that led to the Gulf War in 1990. Indeed, we would be remiss if we did not note that there is already much historical evidence that the U.S. actually maneuvered Iraq into the invasion of Kuwait, repeatedly suggesting to Iraq that it would become the pivotal military stateof the area in coordination with the U.S. Whether true or not the U.S. subsequently did everything in its power to prevent a peaceful resolution of the conflict and for the first time intervened with massive and overwhelming military force in the region creating today's dangerously unstable quagmire. The initially stated American goal was only to protect Saudi Arabia. Then after the unprecedented military build-up the goal became to expel Iraq from Kuwait. Then the goal evolved to toppling the Iraqi government. And from there the Americans began to impose various limits on Iraqi sovereignty; took over much of Iraq air space; sent the CIA to repeatedly attempt to topple the Iraqi government;and placed a near-total embargo on Iraq that many - including a former Attorney General of the United States - have termed near-genocidal. The overall result has been the subjugation and impoverishment of Iraq and the actual death of approximately 5% of the Iraqis as the direct result of American sanctions, plus the reallocation of oil quotes and petrodollars to American client-states. With the Clinton Administration, the U.S. began to insist on the "dual containment" of both Iraq and Iran - both countries which just a few years ago the U.S. was working very closely with and providing considerable arms to. With few in the press able to remember from one year to the next, or to connect one historic event with another, somehow Washington has come to insist on Iraqi disarmament and Iranian strangulation. Furthermore, these policies are being pursued even while Israel and key Arab client states are receiving American weapons in ever larger amounts, with Israel's weapons of mass destruction making her forces 7 to 8 times stronger than all Arab armies combined. Furthermore still, the U.S. and Israeli strategic alliance has never been closer, the U.S. has repeatedly helped Israel defy the will of the international community and the United Nations, and the U.S.continues to champion a disingenuous Israeli "peace process" which in reality on the ground continues to dispossess the Palestinians and to corral them onto reservations in their own country!

The Future:

In a future statement we will move on to the crucial subject of what alternative policies the United States should be pursuing. But at this critical moment we are compelled to come forward and urgently condemn the policies now being pursued by the United States and regional ally Israel. We call for an immediate cessation of the economic embargo against Iraq, an end to U.S.-imposed restrictions on Iraqi sovereignty and airspace, and most of all immediately suspension of all plans to attack Iraq using the overwhelming technological and military instruments available to the U.S. If the U.S. continues to pursue its current policies then we conclude and predict it will not be unreasonable for many in the world to brand the U.S. itself as a arrogant and imperialist state, and if that becomes the historical paradigm it will be both understandable and justifiable if others pursue whatever means are available to them to oppose American domination and militarism. Such developments could quite possibly lead to still more decades of conflict, warfare, and terrorism throughout the region and beyond.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

INTERVIEW WITH MAE BRUSSELL ON THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN ONO LENNON

A short while ago we had the pleasure of talking to noted assassination/conspiracy researcher Mae Brussell at her home in Carmel, California. Mae was kind enough to share some of her thoughts on the murder of John Lennon last December 8, 1980 in New York City. She is just starting her 11th year of broadcasting on radio KLRB, Carmel, CA.

Tom Davis

***************************************

Tom: What would be the motive to kill John Lennon on December 8, 1980? Lennon had been in seclusion for many years and had not yet released his new album.

Mae: Both the date of Lennon's murder, and the careful selection of this particular victim are very important. Six weeks after Lennon's death, Ronald Reagan would become President. Reagan and his soon-to-be appointed cabinet were prepared to build up the Pentagon war machine and increase the potential for war against the USSR. The first strike would fall on small countries like El Salvador and Guatemala. Lennon, alone, was the only man (even without his fellow Beatles) who had the ability to draw out one million anti-war protestors in any given city within 24 hours, if he opposed those war policies.
John Lennon was a spiritual force. He was a giant, like Gandhi, a man who wrote about peace and brotherly love. He taught an entire generation to think for themselves and to challenge authority. Lennon and the Beatles' songs shout out the inequalities life and the messages of change. Change is a threat to the longtime status quo that Reagan's team exemplified.
On my weekly radio broadcast of December 7, 1980, I stated that "the old assassination teams are coming back into power." The very people responsible for covering up the murders of President John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert Kennedy, Reverend Martin Luther King, for Watergate and Koreagate, and the kidnapping and murder of Howard Hughes, and for hundreds of other deaths, had only six weeks before they would again be removing or silencing those voices of opposition to their policies.
Lennon was coming out once more. His album was cut. He was preparing to be part of the world, a world which was a worse place since the time he had withdrawn with his family. It was a sure bet Lennon would react and become a social activist again. That was the threat. Lennon realized that there was danger coming back into public view. He took that dangerous chance, and we all lost!

Tom: The common assumption is that Mark David Chapman, arrested the moment he killed John Lennon, was acting out his personal love-hate relationship with Lennon. Why do you have to look for a larger conspiracy than the conflicts in Chapman's own head?

Mae: Single crimes of passion are easy to explain and easy to solve. When someone is gunned down who is controversial, has political enemies, is hated by wealthy and well-organized religious movements, and is an open opponent of government policies at home and abroad, that kind of murder requires much more inquiry into the background of the assassin. The conclusions about the murder motive may turn out to be simple. Yet, in every political assassination since 1963, there were always more unanswered questions that led to a broader supposition of intention to kill by a group of people rather than one single individual.

Tom: What is the first clue you look for if you are suspicious of a larger conspiracy to assassinate, whether it is John Lennon, President John F. Kennedy, or the recent attempts on President Reagan and Pope John Paul II? KEEP GOING ...

Does Israel Conduct Covert Action in America? by Michael Scheuer

You bet it does. Michael Scheuer is a 22-year veteran of the CIA and the author of Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror.

Covert action is much talked about and little understood. At its most basic level, covert action is a set of intelligence operations undertaken by a specific state's intelligence agencies to advance its national interests. They are executed in a manner that limits the visibility of that state's hand in whatever is done. Ideally, covert actions cannot be traced back to their sponsor. Most people take the term covert action to mean violent actions of one kind or another: kidnapping, assassination, support for insurgents, etc. While violence can certainly be part of a covert-action campaign, the more insidious – and often more effective – arm of covert action is called "political action," whereby one state seeks to influence the public opinion of another by speaking through the mouths of that country's citizens. And let me stress, there is nothing wrong or immoral about covert political action. America used political action worldwide in the Cold War; Britain used it in the United States to accelerate neutral America's entry into both world wars; the Saudis pay untold amounts to retired senior U.S. officials to speak admiringly of the anti-American desert tyranny; and Israel uses it today against America to ensure unlimited and unquestioning U.S. support. It is a legitimate foreign affairs tool, and the leaders of any nation who choose not to engage in such activity are certifiably negligent fools. Read On. Other articles by Michael Scheuer: Doing bin Laden's Work for Him 7/21/2006 Does Israel Conduct Covert Action in America? 4/8/2006 Embracing a Lethal Tar Baby 2/27/2006 Throwing America a Life Preserver 6/10/2005 God, Drunks, and America 6/2/2005 A Fire Bell in the Night for the West? 5/19/2005 Put the Marx Brothers in Charge 4/29/2005 Deliberately Destroying America's Soul 4/22/2005 Sandy Berger's Scissors 4/11/2005 Toward a Sensible Israel Policy 3/22/2005 Accountability: Why Not Start at the Top? 3/17/2005