Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, November 2004,
page 21
Special Report
Undeterred by Failure in Iraq, Neocons Push for U.S. Attack
on Iran
By Andrew I. Killgore
During the tacit alliance between Iran and Israel from
1972 to 1979, Iran provided oil and lucrative contracts to Israel.
In return, Israel—via the United States—provided huge
amounts of arms, stoking the ambitions of Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlavi
to play a larger role in the region. Nor did Washington object
when the shah announced plans to build 10 nuclear power plants.
Iran’s 1979 political cataclysm, however, ushered in a
Shi’i Islamist regime. Tehran began to support its fellow
Shi’i in Lebanon, particularly the resistance by Hezbollah
to Israel’s illegal occupation of south Lebanon. There flowed
the Litani River, the waters of which have been coveted by the
Zionists since the 1919 peace conference ending World War I.
Israel successfully argued in Washington that Iran’s support
of Hezbollah amounted to sponsoring “terrorism.” As
a result, Iran was linked to Libya in the 1996 Iran-Libya Sanctions
Act (ILSA), for which the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee
is largely credited with authorship. ILSA provided for U.S. sanctions
against any company spending $20 million on Iran’s or Libya’s
oil or gas industry. European companies failed to succumb to U.S.
pressure, however, and Iranian aid for Hezbollah continued. Under
AIPAC pressure—and without consulting newly inaugurated President
George W. Bush—Congress extended ILSA for five years in 2001.
In his 2002 State of the Union address, President Bush linked
Iran with Iraq and North Korea in an “axis of Evil.” The
2003 invasion of Iraq followed, based on Saddam Hussain’s
alleged possession of “weapons of mass destruction” and
ties to al-Qaeda. With over 1,000 American soldiers killed and
thousands wounded, that war has gone very sour, and may cost Bush
the November election.
Iran is geographically three and a half times bigger than Iraq
and three times as populous, so a U.S. ground invasion with an
already overtaxed military seems out of the question. That does
not rule out air strikes, however. The neocons’ excuse this
time is not Iran’s continuing support for Hezbollah, but
its alleged plans to produce nuclear weapons. Once again, the purported
threat is not against the United States but against Israel, which
already has up to 200 nuclear weapons.
But that threat to Israel is what accounts for the support of
such neocons/Zionists as Norman Podhoretz, “father of the
neocons,” for an attack against Iran. “Like anybody
else in the world who is sane,” Podhoretz told the Aug. 22 New
York Times, “I am very much worried by Iran gaining nuclear
capacity. I am not advocating an invasion of Iran at this moment,” he
added, “although I wouldn’t be heartbroken if it happened.”
In October 2003, Iran agreed with Britain, France and Germany
to allow unannounced inspections of its nuclear sites by the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in an effort to reassure the world
that it did not seek nuclear weapons. On Aug. 22 Assadollah Sabouri,
head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, announced that
Iran would delay until 2006 the start of its first nuclear power
plant. Tehran has contracted with Russia to build an unspecified
number of plants, he said, and had agreed to return the spent fuel
to Russia.
Iran plans to produce its own fuel, Sabouri stated, but is “many
years away” from doing so.
Predictably expressing his doubts was John R. Bolton, U.S. under
secretary of state for arms control and a certified neocon said
to have gotten his job in order to “keep an eye” on
Secretary of State Colin Powell. According to Bolton, “These
Iranian assertions give the lie to their contention that their
nuclear program is entirely civil and peaceful in purpose.”
With Iraq gone sour and the Europeans (France, Germany, Britain)
so deeply involved in Iran’s nuclear program, the chances
of avoiding a U.S. attack on Iran look good. But the neocons got
us into the disastrous war on Iraq, and have demonstrated that
they will go to any lengths to advance Israel’s interests.
Like a roomful of Energizer bunnies, they just keep going and going
and going…
Andrew I. Killgore is publisher of the Washington Report
on Middle East Affairs. |