Blowback of Iran War Likely to Be ‘Terrible’
WASHINGTON - Since the release of the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran’s nuclear capabilities last December, the prevailing conventional wisdom has been that the report’s finding that Iran is not currently pursuing nuclear weapons had derailed the possibility of the George W. Bush administration launching a military strike before leaving office.
In the months preceding the report’s release, the anti-Iranian rhetoric coming out of Washington had been increasingly bellicose, with President Bush suggesting that allowing Iran to gain ‘the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon’ could ultimately lead to ‘World War III’.
The release of the NIE — the consensus view of all 16 U.S. intelligence services — and its conclusion that Iran halted efforts to pursue nuclear weapons ‘in 2003 primarily in response to international pressure’ appeared to be a serious blow to proponents of military action.
Yet some believe the Bush administration could still choose to attack Iran, perhaps so as to ensure a Republican victory in the upcoming November presidential election.
‘Their intention to use fear is very clear, and I think that you have to understand how they manipulate American fear to keep power,’ said Rep. Jim McDermott, a Democrat from the state of Washington.
‘[President Bush] wants to find a way to provoke a military confrontation, or gin up some data to frighten the American people into believing a preemptive strike is defensible,’ McDermott said at a recent forum in Washington organised by the group Just Foreign Policy. ‘And I live in constant fear that he intends to do just that,’ he said.
Entitled ‘The Folly of Attacking Iran’, the forum was aimed at encouraging support for direct, unconditional negotiations with Iran. Yet much of the discussion was rooted firmly in the past — in particular, 1953, the year U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower authorised the overthrow of the democratically-elected Iranian prime minister Mohammed Mossadeq.
Mossadeq had angered the British government by nationalising Iran’s oil, which the British had been extracting and selling with little benefit to the people of Iran thanks to a favourable concession gained more than 50 years earlier. Unable to overthrow Mossadeq themselves after he expelled their diplomats, rightly fearing they were seeking to launch a coup, Britain responded by persuading the U.S. government that Iran was on the verge of a Soviet-inspired communist revolution.
Though Mossadeq was in fact a committed nationalist who abhorred both socialists and communists, President Eisenhower, in a staunch Cold War mindset, was soon convinced by British arguments that he be overthrown. After just a few weeks of bribing and back-room dealing, ‘Operation Ajax’, as the CIA-led plot was known, succeeded in overthrowing Mossadeq, who was then sentenced to house arrest until his death in 1967.
‘That coup did not only result in the end of one man’s premiership, it resulted in the end of democratic rule in Iran,’ noted Stephen Kinzer, a former foreign correspondent for the New York Times and author of the book ‘All the Shah’s Men’, which details the U.S.-sponsored 1953 coup.
The overthrow of Mossadeq, followed by the successive support of six different U.S. presidents for the repressive dictatorship of the Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, directly led to the Islamic revolution that brought the current Iranian government to power, argued Kinzer. Further, that revolution in part led the United States to provide military support for Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein during his war with Iran in the 1980s — a conflict that cost upwards of one million lives.
‘The great lesson that I draw from this is that when you violently intervene in the political development of another country, you can never predict what the long-term consequences will be. And most likely, although the consequences will be terrible and tragic for the target country, they will be even worse for the country that launched the intervention,’ said Kinzer.
‘The same thing will be true if we fail to learn this lesson and launch an attack on Iran now,’ he added.
Other speakers suggested that though the NIE seems to have diminished the chances of an attack on Iran in the next 10 months, efforts still need to be made to push the issue of rapprochement with Iran onto the agenda of the next U.S. president.
‘Neither Senator [Hillary] Clinton nor Senator [Barack] Obama has seen fit to openly discuss this issue’ of dialogue with Iran, said William Nitze, a former State Department official under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush. ‘And I think part of that has to do, frankly, with what they perceive — not correctly, in my view — as the interests of Israel and its supporters in the United States.’
Though Democrats have criticised President Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq, many have echoed the administration’s hawkish rhetoric when it comes to Iran. One recent Democratic-sponsored resolution which passed overwhelmingly called for the United Nations to indict Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for ‘inciting genocide’ because of his anti-Israel rhetoric.
And last year, after further tightening economic sanctions against Iran, Democrats in Congress removed a provision in an Iraq war spending bill that would have forbidden an attack on Iran without congressional approval. The measure was removed after intense lobbying from groups such as the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, an influential lobbying group that is seen as supporting policies in line with Israel’s right-wing Likud Party.
‘It would be a disaster for Israel if the United States took military action against Iran, because it would fundamentally weaken the United States and it would fundamentally weaken Israel’s position in the Middle East,’ argued Nitze. ‘But nobody in the political horizon, including on the Democratic side of the aisle, has been willing to say this.’
Of the major party candidates, only Senator Obama has suggested that he would meet with the leader of Iran — a stance that was ridiculed by many in the Washington political establishment when he voiced it last summer. But even that position is now in question, as Obama told reporters recently that he supported Israel and the Bush administration’s refusal to talk to the leaders of the Palestinian group Hamas, saying, ‘You can’t negotiate with somebody who does not recognise the right of a country to exist.’ Like Hamas, Iran also refuses to recognise Israel.
Still, speakers at the forum urged attendees to lobby their members of Congress to support legislation urging President Bush to engage Iran in direct and unconditional negotiations.
‘I think if we passed that bill tomorrow, probably Bush would name [Vice President] Dick Cheney as his ambassador,’ said Kinzer. ‘Nonetheless, I think it would be a great symbol, a great sign, that Congress doesn’t really want this military option.’
‘It really is a question of whether we will learn the lessons of history or whether we will repeat them,’ Rep. McDermott added.
© 2008 Inter Press Service
George has come to assume that somebody will magically appear to get him out of whatever he gets himself into. This is not surprising since in his experience it has always been true; but no military is going to magically appear to relieve the quagmire in Iraq, much less Iran.
George has an aversion to planning or for that matter thinking that is downright phenomenal. The prospect of his being the leader of anything is absurd—the reality is tragic.
I’m curious as to how many believe that cheney/bush will get us involved in a military conflict with Iran by about September or October. I’d say there’s about a 75% chance. The other 25% is on cheney directing another terrorist attack here at home. They’ve invested too much to simply hand over all this executive power to Clinton or Obama to spy on them. Be very afraid…
You are forgetting one thing. Bush has Jesus on his side. He’ll make sure every thing is ok. Unless Allah is stronger.
truthmonger has a point. Peter Dale Scott, one of the most careful researchers on this topic, expressed his deep concern for this last summer:
“I have been speaking in public for 60 years, but this is perhaps the most important topic I have ever spoken about.”
“I want to talk about the threat to world peace, and the possibility of a US attack, possibly a nuclear attack, on Iran.”
Even The New York Times is worried about it, and has reported on the split between the pro-war Vice-President’s office and Condoleezza Rice’s State Department . . . the plans are there, and they concern a lot of people within the Bush administration, who are leaking them. One thing the leaks show is that the plans are massive.”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6155
If we had learned the lessons of history, we wouldn’t be in Iraq. Occupiers cannot win against an insurgency. It’s their country, they aren’t going away. And flabby and self indulgent as we are, how many Americans think we would passively submit to an occupation? Many Americans might, but those right wing gun nuts hiding in the hills would never give up, and they would have the passive and sometimes not so passive support of many Americans. And likely more and more young people would be joining them, just like the Iraqis. And our invaders would be calling us terrorists. That’s the reality.
kathyodat
Maybe someone can explain how another UNNECESSARY attack on a country that is NO threat will ensure a Republican victory in November.
Are people so low in intelligence that all it takes to win an election or back a criminal administration is to wage unnecessary war and kill more innocent human beings by the millions? Get out your flag and get ready to start waving it; we’re going to cause more death and destruction. Yipee!
Are they all war profiteers, and does everyone have stock in the weapons industry/military-industrial complex or what?
Sorry, I don’t get it
Bush and Cheney are obviously still fighting the civil war. They will do anything in their power to destroy these United States. God help America if it buys into their lies again.
A real reporter should ask bush this question: Do you see any scenario in which you would declare marshall law?
Then just watch his expression for a second or two and you’ll have your answer. Too bad there aren’t any real reporters left out there.
I agree there aren’t any real reporters left. They hear obvious lies repeated endlessly and never call them (BushCo) on it, never challenge them at all. The fascists are allowed to tell one lie after another and every reporter keeps quiet and submissive. Reporters in this country are a huge joke.
Ever watch the British House of Commons on C-Span? They’re not afraid to question their leader and get into feisty discussions. Not so here.
Yes, lillulu, many Americans ARE that dumb. Did you happen to catch the 60 Minutes interview Sunday before last with Ohio voters? One man thought Obama was a Muslim and that he refused to be sworn into Congress on a Bible. Even after being informed that neither of those canards was true, you could see by the look in his eye he still believed the rumor, not the informed 60 Minutes reporter.
It will be easy, oh so easy, for BushCo to bushwhack the American people. Look at what Clinton is stooping to in the campaign with her infamous “3 AM phone call” tv ad. And it’s WORKING. Lambs to slaughter.
This just in. Adm. Fallon, chief military critic of aggression against Iran, has just announced he is stepping down from CENTCOM.
WTF - Thank you.
Now its just a countdown until we strike.
We may be able to avert war with Iran by starting a war with Venezuela instead. Remember when you vote this November–only the Republicans can keep us safe.
lillulu,
I empathize with your frustration. It baffles me as well as I have always placed truth above loyalty. Remember how before the invasion of Iraq the people of the US were divided 50-50 but right after the invasion support went up to 75%? Had there been some new development that showed Iraq to be a real threat? No. When faced with the reality of going to war the people of the US felt a primitive surge of loyalty to get behind their own. It’s a primitive tribal thing.
WTF March 11th, 2008 3:39 pm:
“This just in. Adm. Fallon, chief military critic of aggression against Iran, has just announced he is stepping down from CENTCOM.”
Is Admiral Fallon the new General Shinseki? I guess you have to go to war with Iran with the navy you have, not the navy you want.
Wow, look at the handsome Iranian guys. They’re built, too — just look at their arms. I saw some really handsome ones in Los Angeles when I lived there.
Too bad the ugly red-neck knuckle-draggers and paranoid Israelis are just waiting around the corner ready to nuke them and kill them all off.
Remember if you want to live in a safe America and Americans want to be safe in the world (not even thinking about the rest of the world: The American Way)we cannot attack Iran or Venezuela.
How much more disaster can your brothers and sisters in the military, air forces, navy, and marine (not even thinking about the people in those countries: The American Way) take just for a few rich people to get richer!
Anyone who doesn’t go along with Bush’s war plans is out in spite of his lies that he listens to his commanders in the field. Only when they are doing what he says.
Now it’s a matter of time. More precisely, timing for the coming election.
kathyodat
People see that Bush and Cheney are “mad” yet they just wait for the start of a nuke war. Are we beyond redemption?
When people heard the news today of Adm. Fallon’s (forced) retirement, many realize this is an ominous sign that the Bush-Cheney-neocon bunch may attack Iran.
Fallon is an honorable officer who stood up to these warmongers and war profiteers, helping block their efforts to attack Iran.
More on this in the articles:
“Will Bush, Cheney Attack Iran? When and Why?”
Truthout.org
02 February 2007
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020207A.shtml
—–
“Military Draft Needed for War With Iran and Syria?”
Truthout.org
20 September 2006
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/64/22754
As usual, many smart heads and enobled souls posting here. I dearly wish that a site like this could become at least part of the MSM.
“Blowback’ is the USA culture’s hyper-secularized term for what the general epistemology of some other, more cognitively-richer cultures still instinctively respect as ‘Karma.’
Another USA/western phrase which [now, only fatuously] acknowledges Karma, or the Interconnection of All Things is: “What goes around, comes around.”
But USA’ers are now, 24/7, perceptually bombarded, w/o restraint — like sheep musically led to slaughter — by a empirically-insane, planet-destroying pluto-industrial system which itself is no longer able to acknowledge ‘karmic’ principles, even tho it pretends to, and in pretending to, to itself,, needs to convince its consumers to pretend likewise.
Too many of us USA’ers have bought the premise {proffered by greed-sick people wanting to get richer-still by selling things to humans which humans dont’ need and which, chances are, will harm them, that KARMA — or what Carl Jung calls Synchronicity — is now a dispensible existential condition, ‘treatable’ by adopted consumerist behaviors; behaviors led by the captains of Global Capitalism (read: Spiritual Ghouls and Sociopaths.)
The USA has gone from being the global humanist hope of the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries, to the guaranteed destroyer of boh human-cognitive and natural earth-system wisdom, in the late 20th and early 21 centuries.
USA’er’s have become an historically unprecedented, mass Ego-mad pestilence upon the earth. And even the USA’s small quanta of progressive USA cognoscenti {humans who feel their fellows’ pain and are deep enough to debate w/others, their own proferred wisdoms], such as post on this site, are unable to turn aside the suicidal idiocy of millions of undeveloped human beings who’ve been stunted in their mindful growth and hypnotized by the elitist designs of a material greed so deep, it even gambles Life Itself, for the frothing possiblily of infinitely-further personal cash.
A sickenss of mindless ambition, never even contemplated by the the worst humans in our Republic’s past.
And now we hear that Admiral Fellon, the lone voice holding the line on a pre-emptive attack against Iran resigning suddenly. Are the rats jumping the sinking ship? Or is he so disgusted that no matter what he says, this insane Administration is hell bent on the second half of it’s hideous wet dream. Heaven help us if they do!!!!
US, Poland Lay Ground for Missile Deal
President Bush says he’s agreed to boost Polish military aid in return for Poland’s cooperation in hosting part of a US missile shield. Appearing with Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk Monday, Bush committed to reaching a final agreement before leaving office.
President Bush: “Well, I think there’s a commitment to a system that respects Polish sovereignty, that will ensure that the people of Poland will, you know, not be subjected to any undue security risks, that the system is necessary to
deal with the realities of the threats. Obviously there’s a lot of work to do, because many times, you know, a strategy on paper is a little different from the details. And so our experts are working through the system to make sure that, you know, the people of Poland are comfortable with the idea.”
Poland would host at least ten missiles as part of the deal. CRITICS SAY THE U.S. IS PUSHING THE MISSILE SYSTEM AS A FIRST-STRIKE WEAPON AGAINST IRAN. Public opinion polls continue to show majority opposition in both Poland and the Czech Republic, the other planned host.
starofthesea, I think Fallon got thrown off the ship.
kathyodat
“I’m curious as to how many believe that cheney/bush will get us involved in a military conflict with Iran by about September or October. I’d say there’s about a 75% chance. The other 25% is on cheney directing another terrorist attack here at home. They’ve invested too much to simply hand over all this executive power to Clinton or Obama to spy on them. Be very afraid…”
I believe the odds are roughly even for an attack against Iran. We’ll find out in the next few weeks if Fallon is an honorable man, by which I mean, will he speak up against the administrations plans?
I cannot see the US attacking Iran before the elections. This would be blatently obvious to even knuckle-dragging neanderthals.
I do see an Israeli attack on Iran that will be covertly coordinated and armed by the US.
Blowback? What ever happened to Usama bin Laden?