Threats of War in Iran, U.S.-Driven Violence Surges in the Region

By Phyllis Bennis
Institute for Policy Studies
September 22, 2006

Threats of a U.S. attack on Iran continue, although the nature of a possible attack may be different than what was earlier anticipated.

The Bush administration seems to be shifting away from its effort to coerce the UN Security Council to endorse harsh sanctions or even military force against Iran, but the threat of unilateral action remains.

New diplomatic possibilities are opening and the U.S. is increasingly isolated.
Seven weeks before U.S. elections and following Bush's series of rally-the-troops speeches, violence is rising across the Middle East; public opinion is strongly against the war but the Democrats still refuse to embrace that position, and many are afraid of the charge of "cut and run."

Post-Lebanon war, Israel-Palestine is back on the global agenda; new dangers are rising from renewed U.S. pressure on the Palestinians to accept continued U.S. control of the diplomacy, even as new international initiatives appear as possibilities.

Renewed U.S. interest in solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may have less to do with ending Israel's occupation than with consolidating Arab governments' acquiescence to new escalations against Iran.
>>> Continued@ Institute for Policy Studies

Threats of War in Iran, U.S.-Driven Violence Surges in the Region

By Phyllis Bennis
Institute for Policy Studies
September 22, 2006

Threats of a U.S. attack on Iran continue, although the nature of a possible attack may be different than what was earlier anticipated.

The Bush administration seems to be shifting away from its effort to coerce the UN Security Council to endorse harsh sanctions or even military force against Iran, but the threat of unilateral action remains.

New diplomatic possibilities are opening and the U.S. is increasingly isolated.
Seven weeks before U.S. elections and following Bush�s series of rally-the-troops speeches, violence is rising across the Middle East; public opinion is strongly against the war but the Democrats still refuse to embrace that position, and many are afraid of the charge of �cut and run.�

Post-Lebanon war, Israel-Palestine is back on the global agenda; new dangers are rising from renewed U.S. pressure on the Palestinians to accept continued U.S. control of the diplomacy, even as new international initiatives appear as possibilities.

Renewed U.S. interest in solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may have less to do with ending Israel�s occupation than with consolidating Arab governments� acquiescence to new escalations against Iran.
>>> Continued@ Institute for Policy Studies

The March to War: Iran Preparing for US Air Attacks

Friday, September 22nd, 2006
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Centre for Research on Globalization

Iran is bracing itself for an expected American-led air campaign. The latter is in the advanced stages of military planning.
If there were to be war between the United States and Iran, the aerial campaign would unleash fierce combat. It would be fully interactive on multiple fronts. It would be a difficult battle involving active movement in the air from both sides.
If war were to occur, the estimates of casualties envisaged by American and British war planners would be high.
The expected wave of aerial attacks would resemble the tactics of the Israeli air-war against Lebanon and would follow the same template, but on a larger scale of execution.
The U.S. government and the Pentagon had an active role in graphing, both militarily and politically, the template of confrontation in Lebanon. The Israeli siege against Lebanon is in many regards a dress rehearsal for a planned attack on Iran.1
A war against Iran is one that could also include military operations against Syria. Multiple theatres would engulf many of the neighbors of Iran and Syria, including Iraq and Israel/Palestine.
It must also be noted that an attack on Iran would be of a scale which would dwarf the events in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Levant. A full blown war on Iran would not only swallow up and incorporate these other conflicts. It would engulf the entire Middle East and Central Asian region into an extensive confrontation.
An American-led air campaign against Iran, if it were to be implemented, would be both similar and contrasting in its outline and intensity when compared to earlier Anglo-American sponsored confrontations.
>>>Continued @ Centre for Research on Globalization

Iran's Response to the EU: Confused but Sporadically Hopeful

By David Albright and Jacqueline Shire
September 11, 2006
The Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS)

ISIS recently obtained a copy of Iran's response to the EU package; this is the document that Ali Larijani, Iran's senior nuclear negotiator, delivered on August 22 in Tehran to diplomatic representatives of Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China and the United States.

Iran is an adroit, skilled practitioner of diplomacy. If the purpose of this response was to muddy the water, buy additional time for its delayed pilot-scale uranium enrichment program at Natanz, while giving China and Russia some ammunition for delaying discussion of sanctions at the Security Council, Iran may have succeeded. The document in some ways recalls a Rorschach test from which any country can find and take what it seeks, if it tries hard enough.However, EU diplomats would be wise to interpret the document in a favorable manner and not reject it out-of-hand, while insisting on a full suspension of Iran's uranium enrichment program, even if for a limited time as a condition for launching formal negotiations. At this time, offers to allow Iran to continue with its uranium enrichment activities during the formal negotiations remain counter-productive. Despite the difficulties, the EU and United States have an obligation to try to find a successful strategy to re-establish negotiations with Iran and re-institute robust IAEA inspections in Iran. The Iranian document, while not particularly helpful, does not preclude achieving both of these goals in the short term. ...

>>> Continued @ ISIS

Voices From Iran

A report written by:
Alex Bigham
September 2006
Foreign Policy Centre - UK

This report, Voices from Iran, seeks to flesh out the spectrum of opinion amongst Iranians. In a recent trip to the Islamic Republic, we conducted interviews with people both inside and outside government. We believe, and we felt throughout our trip, that, whatever the style of debate, and however tense the discussions may be, engagement is the only means to avert a military conflict, and an informed dialogue will avoid such a crisis.

The potential crisis that could occur if Iran were attacked has been hideously illustrated by the conflict between Israel and Lebanon. Some have seen a conspiracy in the timing of that crisis. The leaked memo by the Foreign Office's Political Director John Sawers, argued that there was an opportunity to send a united message to the Iranians at the G8 meeting in St Petersburg.

"the obvious occasion to do so would be in the margins of the G8 Foreign Ministers' meeting. The period running up to the G8 Summit will be when our influence on Russia will be at its maximum, and we need to plan accordingly."

However, the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah, and the subsequent air assault on Lebanon put paid to any kind of substantive discussions on Iran while the G8 leaders thrashed out a muted compromise statement on the Lebanese conflict. Both sides have produced their own theories of the timing behind the attacks. From the Israeli perspective, the Iranians gave the green light to Hezbollah to launch Katusha rockets into Northern Israel, many of which have "made in Iran" stamped on their sides.

This was a deliberate attempt to distract the attention of world leaders from Iran's ongoing nuclear research and development.

>>> Download the report @ Foreign Policy Centre

Iran, Its Neighbours And The Regional Crises

A Middle East Programme report at Chatham House
Edited by Robert Lowe and Claire Spencer

Iran's regional position is key to its strength

published Wednesday 23 August 2006
Key messages:

• The 'war on terror' removed the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, Iran's two greatest regional rivals, and strengthened Iran's regional leverage in doing so;
• Israel's failure to defeat Hizbullah has reinforced Iran's position as the region's focal point against US-led policy;
• If seriously threatened, Iran has the potential to inflame the region yet further;
• A US-sponsored military strike would be devastating for Iran, the Persian Gulf region and beyond

Iran's influence in Iraq has superseded that of the US, and it is increasingly rivalling the US as the main actor at the crossroads between the Middle East and Asia. Its role within other war- torn areas such as Afghanistan and southern Lebanon has now increased hugely. This is compounded by the failure of the US and its allies to appreciate the extent of Iran's regional relationships and standing - a dynamic which is the key to understanding Iran's newly found confidence and belligerence towards the West.

As a result, the US-driven agenda for confronting Iran is severely compromised by the confident ease with which Iran sits in its region. This is the key finding of Iran, its Neighbours and the Regional Crises, a major new report published by Chatham House.The report also looks into the ideology of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and unpicks Iran's complicated power structure. It claims that despite his popularity, Ahmadinejad neither holds an insurmountable position within Iran nor commands universal support for his outspoken foreign policy positions. The paper outlines the friction between Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, with the former increasingly trying to wrest control of foreign policy away from the extreme positions of Ahmadinejad and his hardline supporters.On hostility with the US, the report argues that while the US may have the upper hand in "hard"power projection, Iran has proved far more effective through its use of "soft" power.

According to the report, the Bush administration has shown little ability to use politics and culture to pursue its strategic interests while Iran's knowledge of the region, its fluency in the languages and culture, strong historical ties and administrative skills have given it a strong advantage over the West. The report also holds a cautious view of the Iran-Israel relationship. It outlines four future scenarios for the relationship between the two states, one of which is the creation of a "cold-war"style nuclear stand-off should Iran achieve nuclear capability.

Dr Claire Spencer, Head, Middle East Programme said 'Iran's intricate relationships with other states in the region, as well as a number of sub-state actors within these countries, have put it in a remarkably flexible position from which to defend its interests'

Dr Ali Ansari, Associate Fellow, Middle East Programme, said: 'Western policy towards the Middle East shows a complete lack of imagination. There is a world of opportunities between neglect and military action which has yet to be fully explored.'

Nadim Shehadi, Associate Fellow, Middle East Programme, said: 'While the US has been playing poker in the region, Iran has been playing chess. Iran is playing a longer, more clever game and has been far more successful at winning hearts and minds.'
>>> Download the main report in 52 pages @ Chatham House