When Don Rumsfeld ruled over the Department of Defense, articles from the Daily Telegraph (and the Jerusalem Post) would often be featured in the Pentagon’s daily “Early Bird” compilation of important news stories that was then distributed throughout the national-security bureaucracy. Since Rumsfeld’s departure, however, the frequency with which Telegraph articles have appeared has diminished sharply, a measure, I believe, of the degree to which Robert Gates and his principal aides consider the publication credible, as opposed, say, to yet another media megaphone through which neo-conservatives and other hawks could shout their views and wage their “war of ideas” against liberals and other assorted enemies.
Now, the Telegraph has offered a soapbox to John Bolton who, consistent with his views of the past four or five months, still believes that George W. Bush will not order an attack on Iran before he leaves office, but also now argues that Israel will do so between the November elections and the inaugural of the new president, particularly if that president is Sen. Obama. “With McCain they might still be looking at a delay” beyond the inauguration, Bolton told the newspaper. “But, [g]iven that time is on Iran’s side, I think the argument for military action is sooner rather than later absent some other development.”
(Bolton also insists that the Arab world would be privately “pleased” by such an attack, although, given his acute cultural sensitivity, I have no idea how he might reach such a conclusion, particularly given recent polling data, as well as the consistent and unequivocal statements of opposition to any attack (least of all one by Israel) by top Arab leaders, most recently in the Washington Post by Jordan’s King Abdullah.)
The interview with Bolton comes on the heels of the New York Times’ (somewhat credulous) account of Israeli military exercises over the eastern Mediterranean and Greece last week which was depicted as a trial run for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. That report, which has traveled through the global media at the speed of light, has obviously added to speculation regarding Israel’s intentions and Washington’s attitude.
Unfortunately, neither the Telegraph article nor Bolton addresses whether Israel would seek a green light from Washington before carrying out such an attack and whether, if it did, the Bush administration would offer one — a key point given the fact that Israeli warplanes would almost certainly have to traverse U.S.-controlled Iraqi air space to get to their targets. Most analysts believe that Israel is most unlikely to act without some sign of U.S. approval in light of the enormous consequences — economic, as well as military and political — that would almost certainly ensue from such an action. And, of course, if Washington went along, then it would clearly be considered an accomplice, which, accordingly, raises the question why, under those circumstances, it wouldn’t itself take part. (The Telegraph notes that Bill Kristol still holds out hope that Bush himself will order an attack, particularly if Obama wins the election.)
I believe it is increasingly clear that if there is going to be an attack on Iran — be it Israeli or U.S. or both — before Bush leaves office, it will take place in the period between the election and the inauguration. And I also agree that an attack is more likely if Obama wins the election than if McCain win. That said, however, I still believe an attack is more of a possibility than a probability and that what we are seeing in the ongoing flurry of threats, predictions, and leaks is more psychological warfare directed at persuading Iran, Russia, China, and Washington’s European allies that war is really going to happen unless Tehran halts its uranium enrichment program than it is the real thing. As one former senior U.S. Middle East intelligence officer noted today, the Israelis have long relied on the element of surprise in their military strategy (see last December’s attack on the alleged Syrian nuclear facility), and advertising their intentions quite as ostentatiously as they have been does not appear consistent with that record. Indeed, using Bolton in the Telegraph as a channel for scaring the Iranians, if, indeed, the Israelis put him up to it, would seem counter-productive.
Still, this drumbeat of threats, which shows no signs yet of diminishing, carries with it its momentum that not only strengthens hard-liners in both camps, but also makes the situation on the ground far more tense and volatile. So, regardless of actual intention, the chances of war breaking out accidentally appear to be on the rise.
Since there is no hope of making a legal case of the pretext even (as we can witness) by corrupting the NPT and the IAEA-BoG and even the UN to the point of negating it’s entire raison d’être. And since the American and Iranian public are by and large opposed to expand the epic catastrophy of the neoconomicon to Iran. And since the press has lost it’s effectiveness to stir up a war frenzy at their discretion to a significant extent. Inside the infernal majesty of the neocon empire they have probably decided that the best chance for another desired war to commence is a to create an atmosphere of threats and urgency and keep trying to provoke some kind of incident they could exploit.
It is credible that the Israeli manouvre is part of a the ongoing psychological war, maybe in the hope of provoking some token reaction they could allow the press to blow up beyond recognizing. There is no reason however to suspect in my mind that the US (Aipacistan) will settle for anything less than war.
I don’t know if the American public could do anything about it, but where they could they should perhaps do it, beginning with writing to your representative, so he or she might have other input than powerpoints from Aipac: http://capwiz.com/justforeignpolicy/issues/alert/?alertid=11518951
Bolton’s comments taken alone are essentially — Israel will eliminate Iran’s nuclear program ONLY if McCain is elected. A nuclear Iran will be the result if Obama is president.
Cue the justification for Bush in Kristol’s scenario.
This may be psyops against Iran, but it is also part of a web of cynical psyops against the US electorate.
When did we become Israel’s lapdog?
The recent discussion fails to take into account the threat of Hezbullah launching 600 missiles, by Israeli estimate, from Lebanon as far south as Tel Aviv should Israel bomb Iran. See below.
Letter from Beirut: Hezbullah Holds the Balance of Power
by James F. Houle
Synopsis: Hezbullah’s well-fortified and battle ready army presents a threat to Israel should they or the United States decide to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. Hezbullah missiles in southern Lebanon are capable of inflicting instant retaliation upon Israeli towns, should their Iranian ally demand their help. Recent attempts by political opponents in the Lebanese cabinet to reduce the power of Hezbullah have been unsuccessful. The détente signed in Doha in late May merely solidifies Hezbullah’s’ position and gives them veto power in the new government. While the fear of another massive bombing such as the Israeli Air Force inflicted upon Lebanon in 2006 could keep Hezbullah from responding to an Iranian request for help, Israel must take the threat on their northern border seriously.
Israeli Concerns: Israel has based its long-term defense strategy upon the neutralization of its Arab neighbor-states. This has been accomplished in the case of Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia with US support and funding. The potential threat from Syria is not real: they have not launched a single missile into Israeli-occupied land since 1973. The Palestinians are now walled off into small enclaves and unable to import any of the heavy weapons or guided missiles they would need to be taken seriously. Hamas in Gaza is repeatedly choked by Israel’s shutting off power, water and border crossings. Only the well dug-in Hezbullah militia in south Lebanon presents a serious and immediate threat to Israel’s regional hegemony.
The Iranian Challenge: Iran aspires to regain the respect and power it lost with the overthrow of Shah Reza Pahlevi in 1979. It had begun to emerge in the 1970s as the most advanced country in the Middle East with extensive oil, gas and mineral resources and with a growing middle class. Since the ascension of the Ayatollahs, the US has done its best to suppress any Iranian challenge to US hegemony in the Gulf Region. They will not much longer bend to U.S. financial sanctions nor will they abandon their nuclear ambitions.
Iran could become a major threat should their nuclear ambitions even appear to challenge Israeli nuclear dominance of the Middle East. As former Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer recently pointed out in this regard: “Politics is not just about facts but also about perceptions”. Israel feels that it cannot tolerate even the remote possibility of an Iranian nuclear bomb ten years hence. Thus, they propose the “Begin Option” last used to wipe out the Osirak test reactor in Iraq in 1982. Israel feels fully justified in a surgical strike upon Iranian test facilities at Nantaz. In their view, all of their Arab and Persian neighbors are irrational and totally unpredictable. Regional treaties or the establishment of some sort of nuclear parity would be worthless with such people.
Unfortunately for Israel, a single pinpoint raid would not eliminate the fear of future Iranian nuclear weapons. Iranian test facilities, pilot enrichment plants and processing centers are spread over hundreds of miles: the support of US air power and long-range missiles would be essential. With the Bush regime due to retire in seven months, it is now or never for the Israelis. Strangely enough, the Hezbullah could upset all of these strategic plans.
The Hezbullah Threat: It is real, as shown by the failure of ground attacks by the Israeli Defense Force during the 2006 conflagration. Their most advanced tanks were stopped in their tracks a few miles from the border and Hezbullah rockets attacks killed 40 IDF soldiers and civilians in northern settlement towns. New and much improved missile systems and other advanced weaponry supplied by Iran in the past two years could inflict unacceptable losses upon the IDF. As Hezbullah’s arms supplier and financier, Iran must expect and demand that their ally retaliate immediately for any Israeli action against Iran. They have not financed and supplied Hezbullah all these years merely because of their common Shi’ite traditions.
Israel has concluded that Hezbullah’s control of the southern Lebanese border must be eliminated. A state-of-the art command and control system has been installed linking Hezbullah front line troops with headquarters in the Ouzai District, just south of Beirut, using fiber-optic telecom lines that cannot be intercepted. Cameras on the Beirut airport runways now warn Hezbullah of any Israeli attempt to land advance battalions at the airport. Strangely enough, several political parties within the Lebanese cabinet suddenly complained in early May that Hezbullah’s fiber-optic lines were an intrusion upon Lebanese sovereignty and a forewarning of their plan to take over the national telephone system. After several days of uproar in the Cabinet, Hezbullah pointed out that this telecom system was what saved Lebanon in 2006 from an Israeli invasion. They further emphasized their determination to maintain these defenses by putting their very well disciplined militia on the street and taking effective control of West Beirut. Various pro-government militias offered little serious opposition and the Lebanese Army maintained its customary neutrality. Once it had made its point, Hezbullah militia turned security over to the Army, who stationed rusty 40 year-old tanks at major intersections for the next week while the politicians went off to Doha for a little negotiating over cabinet seats.
Conclusion: Now after four days of talks hosted by Sheik Kalifa El Thani of Qatar, all Lebanese parties have acquiesced in Hezbullah’s continued control of Lebanon’s southern defenses. They also settled a long-standing dispute by giving Hezbullah a more equitable number of seats in the next government. The big loser in this affair has been the Ohlmert government in Tel Aviv that wants no further threats from either their northern border nor from the Persians 1000 miles to the east. The Bush administration continues to see Hezbollah as the problem rather than as the holder of the balance of power between Israel and Iran in the region. Does all this maneuvering mean that the threat of US or Israeli air attacks upon Iran have been lessened? It does not appear that all the cards have been played in this political game.
James F. Houle most recently visited Beirut during May 2008. He has lived and directed development projects in ten Arab countries during his career as a consultant to the World Bank, the US Government and various local governments.
My thanks to Jim Lobe for his thorough and fearless coverage of these issues.
I would like to bring up one interesting point.
Jim writes: “I still believe an attack is more of a possibility than a probability and that what we are seeing in the ongoing flurry of threats, predictions, and leaks is more psychological warfare directed at persuading Iran, Russia, China, and Washington’s European allies that war is really going to happen unless Tehran halts its uranium enrichment program than it is the real thing.”
This presumes that Iran’s nuclear ‘program’ isn’t merely a pretext. I’ve been convinced for years that the real threat Iraq and Iran posed is to the hegemony of the U.S. dollar. Iran’s oil bourse opened in February. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_oil_bourse
This is why oil has reached $130 a barrel. Now read the text of what’s being called the “Iran War Resolution,” but skip all the ‘whereas’es and note what it really calls for:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hc110-362
This is expected to pass with strong support next week.
I suggest that not only is Iran’s nuclear ‘program’ a mere pretext, but Israeli nationalism is also merely a pretext. The real threat Iran poses is to the reigning plutocracy’s ability to extract wealth from the economy of the entire world by way of monetary expansion.