The US-Israeli Attack on Iran- Trigger to Nuclear WWIII.

Ambassador Syed A.Ahsani

.A war on Iran has been envisaged by analysts and think tanks since the mid-19
90s as part of strategic operations. During the Clinton administration, US Centr
al Command (USCENTCOM) had formulated "in war theater plans" to invade first Ira
q and then Iran:
"The broad national security interests and objectives expressed in the President
's National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman's National Military Strateg
y (NMS) form the foundation of the United States Central Command's theater strat
egy. The NSS directs implementation of a strategy of dual containment of the rog
ue states of Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a threat to U.S. interes
ts, to other states in the region, and to their own citizens. Dual containment i
s designed to maintain the balance of power in the region without depending on e
ither Iraq or Iran. USCENTCOM's theater strategy is interest-based and threat-fo
cused. The purpose of U.S. engagement, as espoused in the NSS, is to protect the
United States' vital interest in the region - uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied
access to Gulf oil."
In other words, we are dealing with a potentially explosive scenario in which a
number of countries, including several former Soviet republics, could be brough
t into a US led war with Iran. IranAtom.ru, a Russian based news and military an
alysis group has suggested, in this regard:
"since Iranian nuclear objects are scattered all over the country, Israel will n
eed a mass strike with different fly-in and fly-out approaches - Jordan, Iraq, T
urkey, Azerbaijan, and other countries... Azerbaijan seriously fears Tehran's re
action should Baku issue a permit to Israeli aircraft to overfly its territory."
(Defense and Security Russia, 12 April 2005).
An early action is called for preventing war with Iran.
What is required is a grass roots network, a mass movement at national and inter
national levels, which challenges the legitimacy of the military and political a
ctors, and which is ultimately instrumental in unseating those who rule in our n
ame.
To reverse the tide of war, military bases must be closed down, the war machine-
the production of advanced weapons systems- must be stopped and police state mu
st be dismantled.
The corporate backers and sponsors of war and war crimes must also be targeted i
ncluding the oil companies, the defense contractors, the financial institutions
and the corporate media, which has become an integral part of the war propaganda
machine.
What is needed is to reveal the true face of the American Empire and the underly
ing criminalization of US foreign policy, which uses the "war on terrorism" and
the threat of Al Qaeda to galvanize public opinion in support of a global war ag
enda.
Today, estimates of the Israeli nuclear arsenal range from a minimum of 200 to
a maximum of about 500. Whatever the number, there is little doubt that Israeli
nukes are among the world's most sophisticated, largely designed for "war fighti
ng" in the Middle East. A staple of the Israeli nuclear arsenal are "neutron bom
bs," miniaturized thermonuclear bombs designed to maximize deadly gamma radiatio
n while minimizing blast effects and long term radiation- in essence designed to
kill people while leaving property intact.(16) Weapons include ballistic missil
es and bombers capable of reaching Moscow.
The bombs themselves range in size from "city busters" larger than the Hiroshima
Bomb to tactical mini nukes. The Israeli arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
clearly dwarfs the actual or potential arsenals of all other Middle Eastern sta
tes combined, and is vastly greater than any conceivable need for "deterrence."
Nuclear Free Middle East and a comprehensive regional peace agreement much more
likely. Unless and until the world community confronts Israel over its covert nu
clear program it is unlikely that there will be any meaningful resolution of the
Israeli/Arab conflict, a fact that Israel may be counting on as the Sharon era
dawns.
Preparations for a Hit against Iran: Stopping Israel’s Next War
A new war in the region is inevitable

The Israeli Mossad had staged a Hollywood-style extravaganza to murder Hamas lea
der Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai on January 20. Four days later, Netanyahu declar
ed that Israel would maintain control over parts of the West Bank for all eterni
ty. He followed up with the announcement that Israel would designate three sites
on the West Bank as part of Israel’s national heritage.
\
“The Target is Iran: Israel’s Latest Gamble May Backfire,”). As a preparation f
or a hit against the Islamic Republic in both cases, Tel Aviv was attempting to
remove from the scene, or at least weaken, those factors in the region which cou
ld respond militarily and politically. Israel lost both wars, albeit at a heavy
price for the civilians of the targeted populations. Now it is gearing up for re
newed attacks, in tandem with an artfully orchestrated international campaign ar
ound Iran’s alleged nuclear bomb program.
The targeted nations and political movements are well aware of this fact. It is
no coincidence that the leaders of those forces joined in a public display of so
lidarity on March 4 in Damascus. As pictured in major media, Syrian President Ba
shar al-Assad hosted talks with Iranian President Ahmadinejad and Hezbollah lead
er Sheikh Hassan Nasrullah. Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal and other Palestinian re
jection front representatives were also on hand. There is no need to inquire int
o the agenda of their talks. They are preparing for the worst case scenario: a d
irect Israeli attack.(1)
Whether or not the ongoing escalation will spark conflict-- one that would quick
ly spread beyond the region—will depend on several interrelated considerations:
first, will the U.S. embrace the suicidal option of endorsing and/or joining an
Israeli “preemptive” strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities? As a corollary, w
ill leading Arab states allow themselves to be pummeled into acquiescing to yet
another disastrous conflict?
The Casus Belli: Nuclear Energy
Ostensibly, the impetus for renewed calls to attack Iran came after Iranian Pres
ident Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced on February 11 that scientists had achieved
20% enrichment.
A week later, the new Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA), Yukiya Amano, issued his first report on Iran, which all but the Chines
e seized upon like vultures preying on carrion, to claim that it confirmed Tehra
n’s alleged intentions to build an atom bomb, and to demand new action to force
Tehran’s compliance. A worldwide mobilization unfolded, spearheaded by U.S. Secr
etary of State Hillary Clinton, and flanked by the French and Germans. Chancello
r Angela Merkel chimed in with her vow that tougher sanctions would be imposed o
n Iran. Either such sanctions would be voted up in the U.N. Security Council, or
, in the likely event that China refused, they would be imposed outside the U.N.
framework. Merkel went out of her way to say that the Europeans should declare
independent sanctions (for reasons we will see below). (2) As for Israel, its le
aders turned up the volume in their demands for “crippling sanctions, or else,”
meaning: if the international community were not disposed to take effective acti
on against Iran, then Israel would go it alone with a military strike.
Proceeding from the assumption that Iran’s program is military, the Security Cou
ncil has demanded that Iran stop enrichment Iran has engaged in considerable bac
k-and-forth posturing in response. Iran did not start developing nuclear technol
ogy yesterday. In 1974, at the time of Shah Reza Pahlavi, a close ally of the We
st, Iran had outlined an ambitious program for introducing nuclear energy as a m
otor for economic development. If the U.S. and Europe not only okayed an Iranian
nuclear program, but organized and fanced it under the Shah, why is this a casu
s belli today?
The issue that the IAEA document (and the international and regional discussion
it has ignited) should have put on the table -- but did not -- is Israel Why, o
ne should ask, don’t we have or demand such periodic reports on the progress of
Israel’s nuclear program? Why doesn’t U.S. President Obama or Secretary of State
Clinton compel Israel to prove to the international community that it has no in
tentions of developing a nuclear weapons program? Obviously, because it already
has one and everyone knows it. Israel has refused to adhere to the IAEA guidelin
es or to sign the NPT. .
Thus, when Israel, the sole nuclear power in the region, begins to rattle its sa
bres, fear sweeps the neighborhood.
Now it appears that U.S. policy-shaping circles have also begun to debate the me
rits of a containment policy, were Iran to achieve such a capability. Zbigniew B
rzezinski was quoted by the New York Times saying he thought containment would f
unction because the Islamic Republic “may be dangerous, assertive and duplicitou
s, but there is nothing in their history to suggest they are suicidal.

Will Israel Go To War?

There is no doubt that the current Israeli establishment is exploiting hysteria
around Iran’s nuclear program to pursue war against Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria, and
the Islamic Republic itself. This does not mean they would or could win these w
ars. Were the Israeli establishment (God forbid) to attack Iranian nuclear sites
with aerial bombardments all Hell would break loose.
There remains the political question: Could war against Iran be thinkable under
the Obama Administration? To attack, Israel would need a green light from the Pe
ntagon
Similarly now, military spokesmen from the U.S. have tendered their opinion that
Tehran is not in possession of such weapons, and others have warned outright ag
ainst the Israeli use of force. U.S. General David Petraeus told Reuters on Febr
uary 3 that a strike against Iran “could be used to play nationalist tendencies.
” US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen warned Israel against “un
intended consequences” of an attack.
Another alternative being debated in Washington is regime change. CFR president
Richard N. Haas raised this in Newsweek in late January, arguing that “The Unite
d States, European governments, and others should shift their Iran policy toward
increasing the prospects for political change.” Measures would include outspoke
n support for the Iranian opposition, sanctions, and new funding for documenting
human rights abuses, etc. Iranian-American A number of well-known neocons like
David Frum and William Kristol, are talking up regime change. (7) If it is tru
e that the leader of the terrorist Jundullah group in Iran has been financially
and politically controlled by the U.S., this means covert operations are already
well underway. Such operations would tend to backfire, and merely exacerbate te
nsions between the U.S. and Iran. Iranian history warns against attempted regime
changes from abroad.
Pressure on Germany
In its campaign to mobilize political opinion against the “perceived” Iranian da
nger, the Israeli establishment has opened all stops. Significantly, it was Germ
any that the Israeli elite chose for its full court press in Europe , Netanyahu
and Merkel confirmed that the focus of their talks had been Tehran’s nuclear pro
gram, and Germany’s “historic responsibility” to guarantee Israel’s security. Is
raeli President Simon Peres (father of the Israeli nuclear weapons program), fol
lowed on January 26, and was granted the special honor of addressing the Bundest
ag,
Peres had many things to say, but the leitmotif of his statements to the Bundest
ag and in newspaper interviews was unambiguous: “It is wrong to consider Iran on
ly as a threat to Israel. The country is a danger for the entire world,” he told
the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (January 23, 2010). “The Iranians want to do
minate the Near and Middle East,” and cast their ambitious glance also into Lati
n America. “It is a new imperialism, which is religiously motivated and embellis
hed at the same time,” said, adding that “there can be no compromise with religi
ous fanatics like those in Tehran.” Germany is obligated to agree: “The specia
l relationship between Germany and Israel rests more on values than interests. I
t is a moral alliance.”
The Israeli deployment to Berlin was the opening salvo of a campaign aimed at ar
m-twisting reluctant members of the U.N. Security Council to impose tougher sanc
tions on Iran.
The U.S. Secretary of State did her best to convince the Saudis that they should
jump on the anti-Iran bandwagon, but the response was tepid. Clinton also urged
the Saudis to use the oil weapon vis-a-vis China, that is, to promise Beijing l
arger fuel supplies in a bid to win the Chinese over to sanctions.
At the time of this writing it is highly unlikely that the U.N. Security Council
could agree on “crippling sanctions” against Iran.
If China were to forego its veto right and merely abstain in a UNSC vote, still
there is no guarantee that the U.S. would get the required 9 out of 15 votes fro
m among the non-permanent members, to pass a resolution.
If the Security Council were to fail to reach an agreement on new sanctions, the
n the losers could go for actions outside that venerable and discredited body. A
ngela Merkel’s option, to sanction Iran on the basis of a coalition of the willi
ng, could come onto the table.
Would sanctions work? Yes and No.
Solution
Neither sanctions nor a new Israeli military assault in the region represent any
solution to the problem. Either move would only worsen conditions. A new war wo
uld spell catastrophe for all.
If there is to be a rational way out, the U.S. is going to have to develop a pol
icy for the region. Right now, in lieu of a policy, it is running a three-ring c
ircus: in one ring is the giant America, flexing its muscles to hold back mad do
g Israel on a leash with a muzzle; in the next ring are a trio of monkeys clippi
ng the tail of peacock Iran, while Russian bears and Chinese pandas taunt them;
and in the third ring is a dog-and-pony show featuring a Palestinian and an Isra
eli, endlessly going through the motions of the peace process dance. Meanwhile U
.S. and allied military patrol the circus grounds to ensure that no one interrup
t the performances.
The policy would entail a package comprised of one-on-one negotiations with Iran
to reach a workable solution to the nuclear issue, and a commitment to overcome
the 60-year-old Arab-Israeli conflict by exerting international political and e
conomic pressure to force Israel to come to terms with reality.
First, Iran: What the Iranians want is nothing out of the ordinary. Tehran deman
ds a square deal with the West, in the form of a direct dialogue with Washington
, and/or in the 5+1 format on an equal footing. 7, entitled, “The West should
make an approach to Iran.” He proposed accepting Iran’s bid to keep 800 kilos of
enriched uranium there under IAEO control, then exchange it for fuel rods. The
West should seek cooperation with Iran in stabilizing Afghanistan and fighting d
rugs. In his view, if Iran did cross the threshold to military use, the U.S. mis
sile defense systems in the region would provide a regional shield. (Several rep
orts have stressed that the deployment aims at preventing Israel from moving mil
itarily.)
Then, Israel: A solution to the decades-long conflict requires a totally new app
roach.
Vice President Biden’s sharp rebuke, followed by Clinton’s telephone blast at Ne
tanyahu, was an important signal; it communicated to the Israelis that there are
limits to how they can treat their leading ally and a superpower. To shift Isra
eli policy, however, the U.S. must move beyond rebukes. According to the March 1
7 New York Times, this crisis between Israel and the U.S., characterized by many
as the worst in decades, is prompting Washington to consider an independent app
roach. The idea is that such a new American plan would catalyze a shift inside I
srael, leading to the formation of a new ruling coalition. (www.nytimes.com/2010
/03/18/world/middleeast/18diplo.html)
Shaking up the internal Israeli equation is indeed what is required
Judging by past performance, any Israeli government would reject such demands ou
t of hand, just as Netanyahu has continued to refuse a halt to settlement expans
ion. But, as one leading think-tanker put, the “time of truth” has come in U.S.-
Israeli relations. Washington does have the power, if it wants to use it.
The time could not be more propitious for a concerted international drive to for
ce a transformation in Tel Aviv. .
In this moral confrontation, the Goldstone Report is a precious asset. Internat
ional pressure can become a powerful weapon, as seen in the response to the Gaza
war. And such pressure from outside Israel can contribute to strengthening thos
e inside the country which have
mustered the civil courage to speak out.
It may yet come into being That process of profound critical rethinking among so
me Israeli intellectuals (like Ilan Pappe and Avraham Burg) is underway. Now is
the time for international political action to move the process forward.

Notes
1. Prior to that gathering, they had each made public what Israel should expect
in that event. Syrian Foreign Minister al-Muallem was quoted by Al Jazeera on Fe
bruary 7, saying, “If war breaks out in the region … it will be widespread even
if it is waged against [only] southern Lebanon or Syria.” He warned Israel that
if it attacked, “the war will move into your cities.” It was not Hezbollah, but
the Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri who said, “there won’t be division in Le
banon… We will stand against Israel. We will stand with our own people,” PressTV
reported on February 1.
2. The British had earlier put military action on the table. British Prime Minis
ter Tony Blair, in January hearings on the intelligence failures leading to war
against Iraq in 2003, not only reaffirmed the correctness of his stance then, bu
t added that the same applied to Iran today. Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s subse
quent testimony in early March only seconded his judgment.
3. Bijan Mossavar-Rahmani, “Iran,” in Nuclear Power in Developing Countries: An
Analysis of Decision Making, Edited by James Everett Katz and Onkar S. Marwah,
D.C. Heath and Company, Lexington, Massachusetts, Toronto, 1982, pp. 201-219.
4. See my book, Through the Wall of Fire, Armenia – Iraq – Palestine: From Wrath
to Reconciliation, edition fischer, 2009, Part Two, and Cultural Cleansing in
Iraq: Why Museums Were Looted, Libraries Burned and Academics Murdered, Raymod W
illiam Baker, Shereen T. Ismael, and Tareq Y. Ismael, Pluto Press, 2010.
5. Many Arab nations have responded to Iran’s mastery of the technology by sayin
g they, too, want this power source of the present and future. See Nuclear Progr
ammes in the Middle East: In the shadow of Iran, an IISS strategic dossier, May
20, 2008.
6. “Beyond Sanctions: How To Solve The Iranian Riddle,” TIME, March 15, 2010.
7. Richard Haas, “Enough Is Enough,” Newsweek, January 22, 2010, www.newsweek.co
m/id/231991.
Steven Clemens of the New America Foundation and David Frum of FrumForum,
www.videonytimes.com/video/2010/02/18/opinion/1247467090180/bloggingheads-iran-r
egime-change.html
and William Kristol, “Iranian regime change: An Obama achievement we could belie
ve in,”
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/11/AR2010021102723.html.
8. See New York Times, “In Response to Iran’s Nuclear Program, German Firms Are
Slowly Pulling Out,” February 3, Reuters, “German firms in no rush to follow Sie
mens Iran exit,” January 27, and Washington Post, “Italy’s ENI to pull out of I
ran,” February 4, 2010.
9. See Note 3 above.
10.Muriel Mirak-Weissbach can be reached at mirak.weissbach@googlemail.com
11.(www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/weekinreview/14sanger.html)
Ambassador Syed AAhsani is President, The Muslim Renaissance Foundation Interna
tional (MRFI)
He can be reached at: Syedahsani@sbcglobal.net