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

Backing Israel attack by the US is empowering Iran

Empowering Iran
by Ivan Eland

Despite growing world outrage, the Bush administration's continued backing of Israel's over-the-top military action in Lebanon can only help Hezbollah and its patron Iran. The administration's foreign policy could not be more pro-Iranian if the White House had become infested with Iranian agents.

Even after the carnage in the Lebanese town of Qana, the administration continues its nonsensical rhetoric about seeking a "sustainable cease-fire" in Lebanon as Israeli military action continues. Most casual observers employing any logic would conclude that it would be difficult to determine the sustainability of any cease-fire unless it was first attempted. Obviously, the administration's rhetoric is designed to give Israel more time to damage Hezbollah. Of course, Israel's original and implausible goal was to eradicate Hezbollah without invading Lebanon and becoming bogged down in another quagmire there. Israel has found, however, much like the Bush administration has in Iraq, that guerrilla organizations, especially ones as competent as Hezbollah, are not that easily eliminated. Israel has found Hezbollah's infrastructure and combat skills to be much more formidable than anticipated.

The bombing of Qana has united the previously divided Lebanese and much of the rest of the world against Israel's veiled terrorism. Israel will have even less time to degrade Hezbollah, which is also committing terrorist acts against Israeli towns. Soon world opprobrium will force the U.S. to stop Israeli military action. And the thimbleful of aid the U.S. is offering Lebanon will not win back any hearts for the cause. The paltry $30 million in U.S. aid being offered to that war-ravaged country is like an armed gang busting up someone's business and then leaving them $5 for repairs. ...
>>> Continued @ Antiwar

Ivan Eland is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute and Assistant Editor of The Independent Review.

Tony Benn: Blair is a party to the war in Lebanon.

Interview by Majid Khabazan
Monday 31 July 2006

London - Tony Benn a former minister in the labour governments in Britain said that not only Tony Blair ,the British prime minister, did not criticise Israel for the killings in Lebanon but in fact he is a party to this war.

"This is more than being silent", he said, "Britain is fully supporting Israel and London allowing American bombs to go through British airports and they are supplying arms and sale them to Israel," he added in an interview in London here on Monday. The labour left wing activist said, "Bush and Blair say they do not want ceasefire meaning that they want the killing to go on" so there seems to be a complete agreement between the pair.

Referring to the messages given by Bush and Blair for the casualties in Lebanon Benn angrily added, "you can weep over the deaths but it is not the same as demanding the end of fighting as Kofi Annan the Secretary General of the UN and Rowan Williams the Archbishop of Canterbury have asked for." Served in the Wilson and Callaghan governments from 1964 to 1979 as secretary of state for both industry and energy ministries, Benn described the situation as outrageous and said people are angry and are going to make a big demonstration on Saturday 5 August in Hyde Park London.

"We have organised three demonstrations in the UK so far: one was yesterday in Trafalgar square and also we presented an open letter to Downing Street two days ago," Benn said.
Asked about why Blair is supporting Israel to the price of isolating his country from the rest of the world Benn said, "I believe Blair is a Neo-Conservative and he wants American power to extend in the Middle East) and for that he agrees with Bush in every aspect.
Benn said he is worried that the invasion in Lebanon might really be a way by Americans of getting Syria and Iran to the conflict rather than doing it through the argument over nuclear power. "Because Israel might be authorised to bomb Syria or even Iran, even if it is foolish to do so but they might do that," he added.

Asked about some analyses which suggest the ultimate aim of attacking Hezbollah was to involve Iran Benn said, "I think one scenario might be that as Bush has not made progress on nuclear question so he might think that if the war extended then without invasion he might try to justify bombing or something of that kind against Iran." The activist said the ceasefire will only occur when Israel feels it is enough for it and as they said they need 10 to 14 more days.
"However, when Israel stops then presumably Bush and Blair will bring NATO army in the Lebanon to destroy Hezbollah themselves," Benn emphasised.

He argued that if they are going to have any military forces in the area they have to send these forces to occupied territories of Palestine too.

Should Iran attack Israel or vice versa?

TWO SIDES TO EVERY STORY : Should Israel take out Iranian nuclear weapons sites in retaliation for Iran's supplying Hezbollah?

By John B. Quigley

The answer is NO
COLUMBUS, Ohio - One of the more persistent rumors in the Middle East is that Israel may bomb Iran's nuclear power facility. And that the United States would give Israel a wink and a nod.

Israel's invasion of Lebanon has moved the rumors from the back burner to the front. One theory of Israel's motive in Lebanon is that it wants to provoke Iran into action that would provide a pretext for going after Iran's nuclear facility. Whereas President Bush points his finger at Syria for Hezbollah's capture of two Israeli soldiers, Israel points its finger at Iran.
For the United States, Iran is perceived as even more of a threat than previously because of our own invasion of Iraq and the consequent rise to power of the Shities in Iraq. That development has given Shites' Iran new stature in the region.

One awkward aspect for Israel is that it itself has nuclear weaponry at its Dimona facility and refuses to acknowledge it to the international community. Israel has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, so it is not under the inspection obligations that it accuses Iran of violating. Of any country, Israel has the shakiest grounds for criticizing Iran.

Iran would have more grounds to take out Dimona than would Israel to take out Iran's facility. Not that that would be lawful, either. But the rationale would be more plausible. ...
>>> Continued@ Grand Forks Herald

Empire: war and propaganda

John Pilger
July 2006

The US role in supporting Israeli's military assault on Lebanon falls into a pattern of imperial tyranny, where history is rewritten to suit America�s needs while Europe stands cravenly by. John Pilger provides a personal assessment from Washington.

The words "invasion" and "controversial" make only fleeting appearances; there is no hint that the "great mission" has overseen, since 1945, the attempted overthrow of 50 governments, many of them democracies, along with the crushing of popular movements struggling against tyranny and the bombing of 30 countries, causing the loss of countless lives. In central America, in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan's arming and training of gangster-armies saw off 300,000 people; in Guatemala, this was described by the UN as genocide. No word of this is uttered in the Grotto. Indeed, thanks to such displays, Americans can venerate war, comforted by the crimes of others and knowing nothing about their own. ...
>>> Continued @ New Statesman

Mideast Conflict Boosts Chances of Iran-US Showdown

Analysis by Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON, Jul 19 (IPS)

The week-old Israeli-Hezbollah conflict is likely to boost the chances of U.S. military action against Iran, according to a number of regional experts who see a broad consensus among the U.S. political elite that the ongoing hostilities are part of a broader offensive being waged by Tehran against Washington across the region.

While Israel-centred neo-conservatives have been the most aggressive in arguing that Hezbollah's Jul. 12 cross-border attack could only have been carried out with Iran's approval, if not encouragement, that view has been largely accepted and echoed by the mainstream media, as well as other key political factions, including liberal internationalists identified with the Democratic Party.

As was the case with Iraq, the only dissenters among the policy elite are the foreign policy "realists", who argue that this administration, in particular, has made a series of disastrous policy errors in the Middle East -- especially by providing virtually unconditional support for Israel and invading Iraq. They also include regional specialists like Norton, who maintain that the depiction of Hezbollah, for example, as a mere proxy for Iran -- let alone the notion that Tehran was behind the Jul. 12 attack -- is a dangerous misreading of a much more complex reality. These forces have been arguing for some time that Washington should engage Iran directly on the full range of issues -- from Tehran's nuclear programme to regional security -- that divide. But the current crisis, and Israel's and the neo-conservatives' success in blaming Iran for it, is likely to make this argument a more difficult sell. �

>>> Continued @ IPS

US hawks smell blood

By Jim Lobe

07/19/06 "IPS" -- -- WASHINGTON

- Seeing a major opportunity to regain influence lost as a result of setbacks in Iraq, prominent neo-conservatives are calling for unconditional US support for Israel's military offensives in Gaza and Lebanon and "regime change" in Syria and Iran, as well as possible US attacks on Tehran's nuclear facilities in retaliation for its support of Hezbollah.

In a Weekly Standard column titled "Our war", editor William Kristol called Iran "the prime mover behind the terrorist groups who have started this war", which, he argued, should be considered part of "the global struggle against radical Islamism". He complained that Washington recently had done a "poor job of standing up and weakening Syria and Iran" and called on President George W Bush to fly directly from the "silly [Group of Eight] summit in St Petersburg ... to Jerusalem, the capital of a nation that stands with us, and is willing to fight with us, against our common enemies". "This is our war, too," said Kristol, who was also a founder and co-chairman of the recently lapsed Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

Echoed Larry Kudlow, a neo-conservative commentator, at the Standard's right-wing competitor, the National Review: "All of us in the free world owe Israel an enormous thank-you for defending freedom, democracy and security against the Iranian cat's-paw wholly owned terrorist subsidiaries Hezbollah and Hamas. ...

>>> Continued @ IPS

Jim Lobe is the Washington bureau chief for Inter Press Service.

U.S. must change its thinking on Iran

Trudy Rubin

As battles raged last week between Israel and Islamist groups in Gaza and Lebanon, my mind flashed back to a conversation I had with a senior Iranian official in May.
"The United States has problems in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Afghanistan," he said. "Iran is the one who can help (in all those places). The United States needs Iran's help, not confrontation."
When I asked what would happen if tensions between Washington and Tehran over Iran's nuclear program led to a U.S. military attack on Iran, the official swiftly replied: "I don't think the United States is in a position to think like that." The message was clear: You Americans need us if you want to stabilize the region. But if you threaten us, we can make things much, much worse.

Flash forward to the outbreak of Mideast violence in recent days.

I recalled the Iranian's warning when fighters from the Iranian-backed groups Hamas and Hezbollah made separate incursions across Israel's southern and northern border, within two weeks of each other, to kidnap Israeli soldiers. Their timing was telling, just before the G-8 conference of the world's top industrial democracies in St. Petersburg, Russia, where the question of whether to push for U.N. sanctions against Iran was at the top of the agenda.
Suddenly, the G-8 agenda shifted from how the world community might press Iran to freeze its suspect nuclear program to how to prevent new Mideast wars from exploding.

Iran was delivering a warning to Washington via proxies, without firing a gun. ...
>>> Continued @ Centre Daily Times

Trudy Rubin is a columnist and editorial-board member for The Philadelphia Inquirer. Readers can write to her by e-mail at trubin@phillynews.com.