(Ray Close:) Why Bush will Choose War Against Iran

[Ghost Dog]

A seemingly up-to-date, although quite US-centric, analysis. Providing some new (STRATCOM) info? Further geopolitical food for thought can be found in recent posts, especially from Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya (which would benefit from some attention from a good copy-editor), at globalresearch.ca/

People here know how to stop this happening, of course.

Trapped By His Own Rhetoric
Why Bush will Choose War Against Iran

By RAY CLOSE
Former CIA analyst

http://www.counterpunch.org/close08262006.html

Like many people, I find it extremely difficult to believe that President Bush could actually do anything so crazy as to launch a military attack against Iran, and that even if he wanted to, the Congress, the Pentagon, and the American public would ever countenance such action. But I remember in the spring of 2002 writing a "Dear Friends" memo just like this one predicting that the apparent intentions of the Bush Administration to invade Iraq would certainly turn out to be nothing but a bluff, and supporting that assertion by listing all the reasons why actually doing so would lead to utter disaster. Many of my friends told me at the time that I was missing the point --- regime change was DEFINITELY going to happen, and I was exaggerating the downside consequences. The problem is that today the downside risks of attacking Iran seem even more horrendous ---- and yet? (As George Will said last Sunday to George Stephanopoulos -- "When was the last time this president ever worried about getting approval in advance from the Congress or the public?") It makes me nervous when my president truly believes he is carrying out the will of God.

<snip>

4. So this is the calculus facing Bush:

a. He has vowed that he will not leave office without first ensuring that Iran cannot become a nuclear power. He has probably given the leaders of Israel a similar promise --- privately and perhaps explicitly. That means that he is effectively committed to attack Iran militarily before January 2009 if all other means of accomplishing the objective fail --- which they will. He believes deeply that Iran poses an existential threat to our ally Israel and an extremely dangerous threat to the American people, as well. Bush also believes that Iran is determined to sabotage American hopes of establishing a "new Middle East" ---- by covert support of anti-American terrorist elements such as Hizballah and Hamas --- backed up by the added power implicit in its eventual possession of nuclear weapons. Given Bush's overarching dedication to "winning the Global War on Terrorism", the neutralization of Iran has become a sine qua non, equal if not higher on his list of priorities than "victory" in Iraq --- another impossibility that he is stubbornly unwilling to recognize, even privately --- much less acknowledge publicly.

b. Bush presently intends (with little faith or sincerity) to exhaust all opportunities to achieve his objectives by diplomatic means or through economic sanctions. Failing those, he will attempt to achieve his purposes by intimidation --- by raising the threat of military attack. This will only stimulate more internal support for the regime inside Iran and more international opposition to U.S. policies, especially in the Muslim world. Without question, moreover, an escalating danger of US-Iranian military confrontation will greatly intensify internal and regional opposition to US objectives in Iraq. (Note: A mystifying disconnect in logic persists on this point in Bush's mind.)

c. The best hope for avoidance of war with Iran (the catastrophic consequences of which are too numerous and wide-ranging even to catalog) will be opposition to the idea from the U.S. military and from American politicians of both parties who have an appreciation of the weakened state of U.S. defense forces. I am told, on the other hand, that Bush has been persuaded by some military advisers that STRATCOM (Strategic Air Command) has a workable plan for a comprehensive attack to be launched almost simultaneously against 1500 targets in Iran that will effectively prevent any Iranian retaliation, and will obviate the need for a major ground operation or post-conflict occupation. (The logic of this strategy apparently depends on the hope that destruction of Iran's nuclear potential and its conventional military capabilities in a spectacular display of shock and awe will trigger an internal revolt against the present government, with moderate pro-western elements standing ready to seize power in the name of freedom and democracy. This must be another fantasy dreamed up in the twisted minds of people like Michael Ledeen and other neocon illusionists.)

5. I believe that Iran wants very much to be accepted as a respected member of the community of prosperous and influential modern states. And an Iran that was indeed a trustworthy member of that community would be an enormous benefit to America and to the world. That should be the objective of American policy, therefore --- accommodating and eventually modifying the legitimate national aspirations of a self-interested and pragmatic Iran --- not launching a potentially catastrophic preemptive war against a potentially powerful and influential Muslim nation of seventy million people. Coaxing Iran down a path leading toward successful achievement of international respectability and acceptance is the single most important "carrot" that we have to offer the Iranian leadership today. The potential value of that positive incentive has been completely squandered, however, by the pointless hostility and belligerence of American "diplomatic" language --- starting with the "axis of evil" and proceeding downhill from there to the most recent offer of patently unacceptable ultimatums. This has greatly diminished our own bargaining power while making the job of arriving at a reasonable accommodation with Iran infinitely more difficult in every way.

/more...

[HereSince1628]

1. I would add that as an addictive peronsality Bush sees another

chance to roll the dice and win big enough to overcome the failings of the Iraq occupation.

Sure, he will rationalize using the best arguments Team Iran comes up with, just as Wolfowitz says he did choosing the "Iraq has WMD" gambit to justify the attack on Iraq. But the danger his team of advisors will twist the evidence to create a marketable rationale as probable as it is is less scarry to me than the knowledge that Bush's addictive behavior biases his decision making toward betting the farm against the hope that the next roll of the dice will bail his ass out of the current trainwreck.

[Ghost Dog]

3. "betting the farm against ... the next roll of the dice"

...He's always been 'bailed out', 'saved' from his mistakes (from himself) by some people older, perhaps more (darkly) sagacious (and certainly more powerful) than himself, up to now, right?

(ed. Thanks for the 2 recs, btw. More, please: I think this material is important).

[teryang]

2. He's painted himself into a corner

I wrote an opinion similar to this about a month ago.

Overlooked in the nuclear "weapons" program analysis, is that this is really about diversifying the electrical power grid to free up more fossil fuels for export and increase industrial and agricultural applications. This enhances the accumulation of foreign currency reserves which in turn empowers Iranian national sovereignty and independence from foreign meddling. The "framework" type alternatives proposed involve forcing the Iranians to buy nuclear technology and fuel from the west, with the concommitant loss of control, reversal of capital flow, and the possibility of breach of agreements and sabotage (by the west) such as experienced by N.Korea with devastating economic consequences. Although Iran is less vulnerable to economic diaster then N.Korea, they can't help but recognize the manipulative pattern repeating itself after the N.Korean model.

The one thing that the American regime seeks to abolish is an independent sovereign Iran. Naturally, US energy corporations have regarded Iranian petroleum resources jealously for decades. According to professional journals, the Iranians are techologically inept at developing their own resources and an obstacle to "progress." Progress, not suprisingly is defined as US corporations cutting themselves in on Iranian national resources, by force if necessary. The US arms contractors are spoiling for "shock and awe" because they are not military professionals and have (like Hitler) no real comprehension of the inevitable consequences of such belligerence. Shock and awe means huge profits building up and then replenishing, sophisticated ordnance stockpiles, at six figures a unit. The only consequence understood by the defense industry is the prospect of interminable profits from interminable warfare.

The bogey man here is an increasingly powerful Iran, with advantageous demographics, diversified energy resources and power grid, accumulating foreign currency reserves, with an independent foreign policy, allied with the Shanghai Cooperative and the central Asian military initiatives.

The nuclear weapon issue is really secondary, because China and Russia are not going to let anyone "conquer" Iran. Even if the great Asian powers stood by and did nothing during shock and awe which is extremely unlikely, they would quickly form a more solid military block aimed at causing the collapse of what's left of the United States. Merely by supplying Iran with weapons and logistical support, a war of resistance would bleed the US white and cause its financial collapse.

[Ghost Dog]

4. Yes. 'Eurasian' moves appear to be entirely rational,

economically, culturally, gepolitically, in many senses (and, in essence, directed towards peaceful, intelligent, general human development). Unlike the apparent policies of a very greedy few (you know, we know who you are).

One wonders whether the current White House/Pentagon cabal and associated lobbyists have ever seriously attempted to play even Chess, never mind the great strategic game of Wei-Chi (Go). Not to mention the kinds of psycho-socio-mathematical mind games that used to be all the rage during the so-called "Cold War".

[yurbud]

5. weapons? Bush is retard but Cheney aint. They are after OIL.

Iran can become a productive, respectable member of the international community on their own, but that won't help American oil companies, will it?

[Ghost Dog]

6. So whatever happened to the supposed virtue of open competion,

"free" markets, laissez-faire deregulation and all that within the private-capitalist worldview, huh?

Is it possible that these (private, pampered) monopolists don't really believe in it?

[yurbud]

7. think of it as not free but a "free for all" with no ethics, so if you can

rig the rules in your favor, it's all good.

It is not about the ideology of capitalism, but making sure that MY business profits.

[Ghost Dog]

8. Ah. So, as we see: red in tooth and claw, then.

No rules. No holds barred.

Goodbye, civilization.

(ed: short-term profits, perhaps (if "my" interest wins, right now): long-term loss for all (including "me").

Hmm. Maybe "I" should read more history. And join the Revolution...).

[yurbud]

9. yeah, Marx was right when he said the capitalist will sell you the rope

you hang him with.

I don't even want to hang him, but he's giving us a hell of a lot of rope.