Don’t Bomb Iran

A US war of choice with Iran may be inevitable because of geopolitical reasons completely separate from any supposed nuclear threat from Iran.  Indeed, a war started perhaps by an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities could suit both of them, which may explain the sudden “appearance” of a imminent Iranian threat that, it seems, cannot be resolved diplomatically.
Many people assume that the US cannot launch a new war because it is stuck in a self-created quagmire in Iraq.  In fact, the US is perfectly able to conduct a huge air campaign throughout the Middle East, next week if necessary - it’s infantry is overstretched, but it’s air power is in position and virtually unused. It’s armour and artillery are also not doing much, should the whole Middle East explode as a result. (WHAT ABOUT THE MARINES?)

Many also assume the US would not be so “stupid” as to start a war that could easily spread throughout the Middle East.  However, in a way it is “logical” for the Neocons to see another war as the only way to stay in the White House; to keep the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) on course; to settle the Palestinian problem; to gain control of Middle Eastern oil, and to avoid another Vietnam. Such a war might even draw NATO closer into the PNAC, a long term aim that is rarely spoken about.

To keep power in the US: Opinion polls put Bush at an all time low, with the Iraq invasion seen as a White House mistake and the Iraq occupation seen as having no chance of buiding infrastructure or democracy. Domestically, Bush is beset with scandals and has no winning cards. And with foreign debt at record levels, international money markets may not be keen for another Cheney government. Being caught up in another blood and guts wrapped-in-the flag proper fighting war might just save the election.

To avoid another Vietnam and save the PNAC: The prospect of the US “winning” in Iraq is vanishing, and within a couple of years it will probably be another war the US lost. The Vietnam syndrome had a massively traumatic effect on US foreign and domestic policy - another one would destroy the Neocon PNAC agenda of unipolar US domination of the world. Unable to win, they need some other solution to the Iraq fiasco, and a proper fighting war might do the trick - especially against towelheads who held hostages in Tehran and are led by Mad Mullahs - they look to the US public like a much more likely enemy than “our old ally, the secular Saddam”.

To keep the PNAC project on track: A new Middle East war would be on the PNAC agenda anyway, even if all was perfect in Iraq, even if they didn’t need a diversion to keep power. This administration believes, uniquely, it is on a historic crusade to rebuild the world. Part of the agenda is spreading democracy in the Middle East by military means, and part of it is maintaining strategic control of oil for the containment of China. Large military presence in the area has been a priority for years - first in Iran until it was thrown out, then later in Saudi Arabia until thrown out; so now in Iraq - where their permanence is far from guaranteed. One alternative to occupation is the destruction of military capacity in the region - the USAF could easily take down the air defences and air forces of Syria and Iran, leaving its armour completely vulnerable.

Such an ambition was, until recently, unthinkable - now it is policy: under the Bush Docrine which is made firmer and firmer by the month. The US will remove possible military threats before they become attacks, at a time of its choosing. As The President has repeatedly stated: the “Battle” of Iraq is just one battle in a decades long war.

To settle the Palestinian problem: When Hamas won the Palestinian elections, observers say there was shock in the White House. Intelligence had not predicted it, and dealing with a strident, pugnacious Hamas will be almost impossible for a pro-Israel White House. The US Road Map, already very sick, is almost certainly now dead.

Furthermore, Sharon’s new party, Kadima, is likely to win the upcoming elections, on a platform of unilaterally defining Israel’s borders within two years. With the Road Map dead, this new policy will, presumably, be supported by the White House. Enforcing such a border will involve “selling out” a few of the illegal settlements in the West bank, and it will massively inflame resentment in Palestine and across the Arab world. It will inevitably have to be enforced militarily as well as unilaterally, so the chances of military conflict with Syria are high - in other words the will likely be a war in the Middle East anyway. Whether the unstable western-imposed monarchies in Jordan and Saudi could survive such a trauma on the Arab Street is anybody’s guess.

To draw in NATO troops: US ground forces are severely overstretched, a cause of great friction between professionals in the Pentagon and Rumsfeld, who refuses to acknowledge it publicly. More troops are desperately “needed”, recruitment in the US is falling, and bringing in NATO (with the likes of Japan and Australia) is an obvious answer. After a few years of downgrading NATO in US posture strategies, recent documents have re-emphasised the “need” for cooperation across the Atlantic. With little public discussion, NATO has already been changed from a purely-defense-of-Western-Europe alliance to one which takes command of offensive operations in Central Asia (and even heroin destruction in Afghanistan??).

The 10,000 man NATO Rapid Reaction Force has been stood up for a couple of years now… being defensive, NATO previously had little capacity for fast, distant force projection. This force, where Europe takes the troops and the US does command, airsupport and logistics, has been repeatedly mentioned as part of a ’solution’ to the Palestinian problem - with ex-US Ambassador Martin Indyck even recommending it as a sort of occupying force, not even in a peace-keeping role.

A messy, wider war in the middle east could easily “bring in” NATO as forceful “peace-makers”.