MODERN TIMES
by Art Hobson
ahobson@uark.edu
NWA Times 10 June
2006
ANOTHER WAR?
Pulitzer
Prize-winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh broke the immensely
important story of the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War, blew the lid off
the Abu Ghraib torture scandal in The New Yorker magazine in April 2004, and
authored the eye-opening book about the Iraq quagmire "Chain of
Command: The Road From 9-11 to Abu
Ghraib." Now, in The
New Yorker for April 17, 2006, he tells of "The Iran Plans." We should listen.
Hersh
writes that many U.S. military officers and international observers believe
that Bush's goal in Iran is regime change, because "the real issue is who
is going to control the Middle East and its oil." Bush believes he must do "what no
Democrat or Republican [President], if elected in the future, would have the
courage to do," and that "saving Iran is going to be his
legacy."
Bush
has stepped up planning for a possible major air attack, launched American
Naval maneuvers in the Arabian Sea in an effort to intimidate Iran, and ordered
U.S. combat troops into Iran to collect targeting information and contact
anti-government groups. Planning
is based on the belief, by the same neo-conservative geniuses who led us into
Iraq, that "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the
religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the
government." Yeah,
right. We've heard this song and
dance before.
It's
estimated that 400 targets must be hit to destroy Iran's nuclear program, not
to mention the military bases we would hit to weaken Iran's
counter-attack. Some of these
sites are underground and might "require" our new Robust Nuclear
Earth Penetrator (don't you love that name). According to Hersh, "One of the military's initial
option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter,
calls for a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon ... against underground
nuclear sites. One target is
Iran's main centrifuge plant," an underground and probably concrete-reinforced
site at Natanz, 200 miles south of Tehran. Although the Joint Chiefs consider nuclear weapons an
option, many Pentagon officials are alarmed and are even considering resigning
unless the administration takes nukes off the table.
But
Bush seems intent on preserving the nuclear option. A few weeks ago, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw
pronounced any use of nuclear weapons against Iran "nuts," and was
promptly fired by Tony Blair. Two
London newspapers state that the firing was prompted by a phone call from Bush
to Blair.
It's
ludicrous to think that Iranians will rise up against their government if we
strike Iran. In fact a strike
would unite Iran, and most of the world, against us. It would deepen Iran's resolve to develop nuclear
weapons. Iran could cut off their
oil production, block the chokepoint at the Strait of Hormuz, and attack oil
fields in other Gulf nations, pushing oil prices sky-high. And, according to one Pentagon
official, "If we go, the southern half of Iraq will light up like a
candle."
Iran's
uranium enrichment is inherently suspicious because the technology that
produces low-enriched uranium for nuclear power can be extended to produce
high-enriched uranium for nuclear weapons. Iran is also developing a heavy water nuclear reactor and
fuel reprocessing technology, just what's needed to produce weapons-grade
plutonium (either uranium or plutonium can fuel a bomb). Although there's no proof of an Iranian
nuclear weapons development program, it's unlikely that this two-track
development is meant only for peaceful nuclear power. At best, Iran is
preserving the option of developing nuclear bombs in the future; at worst, it
is pushing for nukes within a few years.
But
threatening war only pushes Iran into a corner and compounds earlier
mistakes. There are rational
solutions. Suggestions that the
Middle East be made a Nuclear-Weapons-Free Zone go back decades. The U.N. has called frequently,
beginning in 1974, for a NWFZ. But
Israel already has a nuclear arsenal and, with U.S. backing, has refused to
sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty or place its nuclear facilities under
international inspection. Iran and
other Middle Eastern countries have long argued that Israel's nuclear arsenal
threatens their security and makes an "Islamic bomb" essential for
self-defense. It's not too late to
head off Iran's nukes by negotiating seriously on a NWFZ.
Flying
in the face of our promise under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to "reduce
nuclear weapons globally, with the ultimate goal of eliminating those
weapons," we have failed to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban
Treaty, developed the new bunker-busting nuke, and withdrawn from the 1972
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in order to unilaterally pursue the weaponization
of space. Now we are implicitly
threatening a non-nuclear nation with nuclear attack, giving pro-nuclear hawks
around the world the potent argument that nuclear weapons are essential for
deterrence against an attack by the United States.
And
we've resisted negotiating. The administration recently reiterated that we
would not consider direct talks until Iran ends uranium enrichment and accepts
inspections, in other words until they accept our demands in advance. This position is incomprehensible if we
want Iran to renounce nuclear weapons, but makes excellent sense if our real
goal is regime change. Yesterday
(I'm writing this on June 1), Bush offered direct multilateral negotiations if
Iran would first suspend enrichment and reprocessing. This is not much of a change from our previous
position. I hope Iran responds
favorably, but I'd be more optimistic if we offered one-on-one talks, without
preconditions.
We could still solve this peacefully. But our President prefers macho talk, and thus might blunder into another war in addition to the two we're already fighting. This one could involve nuclear weapons.