Is the USA Already at War With Iran?

Prof Dr Colonel (Retired) K Prabhakar Rao

There is a great speculation in the world that that USA would soon strike Iran with the aim of destroying its potential to build nuclear weapons and to seek a regime change. It is believed that once invincibility of the Mullahs is blown apart, the regime would collapse like pack of cards where saner and democratic elements would soon emerge on the scene. America on several occasions in the past has made it clear that military option against Iran has not been ruled out. It has also been reported that there is a great American naval build up in the Gulf that is considered as prelude to the inevitable western initial missile strikes for softening against Iran in very near future. Some are of opinion that US troops are already on the soil of Iran while it is also being claimed that US is conducting attacks on Iran through Iraqi ground forces in clandestine manner (1) (2). Thus, many are of the opinion that the war has already started although open hostilities are yet to surface. Middle East is on the brink of war and is the biggest hot bed of confrontation for attaining supremacy in the region. President George W Bush once thundered, "The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons." This is the heart of the Bush doctrine from the President's "axis of evil" address to Congress before Iraq was invaded. And the nations that constituted that axis were Iraq, Iran and North Korea.( AlQaeda and Taliban also are included in the word axis of evil although not spelled out). The American President has taken on his shoulders the war against terrorism in the world and in the process; Taliban and Iraq have been vanquished. Al Qaeda that has no formal country as its own is on the desperate run after the fall of Taliban in Afghanistan and many of its leaders have been slain and captured while some of the seniors have gone underground like rats in Pakistan’s inhospitable Waziristan province. North Korea is silenced after its nuclear blast.

With elimination of Saddam Hussein, Iran is emerging as the strong voice in the gulf region and has made its intentions clear on the issue of confrontation and its nuclear ambitions. Although it claims that its efforts to acquire nuclear capability are for building nuclear power plants, its intentions are of serious suspect. Iran is probably is convinced that only way open to it to protect its nuclear sites from attacks by western powers is to acquire a bomb and delivery system. Iran too is wary of potential threat from USA and Israel. Hence it is struggling to acquire a bomb. Terrorism wasn't the only concern when it came to Iran. For decades, Washington's abiding fear has been that Iran might pick up where the shah's nuclear program (initially U.S.-backed) left off, and make the Great Satan the target of its atomic weapons. The Iranians, who were signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, insisted they had nothing to hide. They lied. In August 2002, a group affiliated with the Mujahedeen-E-Khalq (MEK) a group opposing Iran’s regime revealed the extent of nuclear activities at a facility in Isfahan, where the Iranians had been converting yellow cake to uranium gas, and in Natanz, where the infrastructure needed to enrich that material to weapons-grade uranium was being built. A year later Pakistani scientist AQ Khan's covert nuclear-technology network unraveled, bringing further embarrassments and investigations. Any sovereign country has the right to establish nuclear power for peaceful purpose. But when it declares that it would acquire a bomb from its capability and would surely destroy another country by dropping bomb, it surely forfeits its claim for acquiring such powers. In case of Iran, it has lost its claim because its President Mahmoud inejad has declared that it would wipe off Israel from the face of the earth by dropping nuclear bomb (3).

Thus, Western powers are apprehensive that the bomb in the hands of Iran would be a serious challenge to the world peace and there is a need to curtail Iran in this aspect. Israel is very apprehensive Iran’s nuclear capability when it acquires it. The Israeli government is, not surprisingly, skeptical of the European approach. Silvan Shalom, the Foreign Minister of Israel, said reportedly in an interview in Jerusalem, with another New Yorker journalist, “I don’t like what’s happening. We were encouraged at first when the Europeans got involved. For a long time, they thought it was just Israel’s problem. But then they saw that the [Iranian] missiles themselves were longer range and could reach all of Europe, and they became very concerned. Their attitude has been to use the carrot and the stick—but all we see so far is the carrot.” He added, “If they can’t comply, Israel cannot live with Iran having a nuclear bomb.”

The Israelis have reportedly practiced strikes on Iran by crossing Turkish airspace and have Special Forces in the Kurdish regions of Iraq. There are rumors Sharon has told the White House that if USA did not effect the nuclear castration of Iran, Israel will do the surgery herself, because she cannot live under the cloud of an atomic bomb in the possession of the patrons of Hezbollah.

At the outset of Bush's second term, Vice President Dick Cheney dropped a bombshell. He hinted, in no uncertain terms, that Iran was "right at the top of the list" of the rogue enemies of America, and that Israel would, so to speak, "be doing the bombing for us", without US military involvement and without us putting pressure on them "to do it":

"One of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being asked... Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards," (quoted from an MSNBC Interview Jan 2005) (4)

The foregoing statements are misleading. The US is not "encouraging Israel". What is important is a joint US-Israeli military operation to bomb Iran, which has been in the active planning stage for more than a year. The Neocons in the Defense Department, under Douglas Feith, have been working assiduously with their Israeli military and intelligence counterparts, carefully identifying targets inside Iran. As per Seymour Hersh, for more than a year, France, Germany, Britain, and other countries in the European Union have seen preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon as a race against time—and against the Bush Administration. They have been negotiating with the Iranian leadership to give up its nuclear-weapons ambitions in exchange for economic aid and trade benefits. Iran has agreed to temporarily halt its enrichment programs, which generate fuel for nuclear power plants but also could produce weapons-grade fissile material. (Iran claims that such facilities are legal under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or N.P.T., to which it is a signator, and that it has no intention of building a bomb.) But the goal of the current round of talks, which began in December in Brussels, is to persuade Tehran to go further, and dismantle its machinery. Iran insists, in return, that it needs to see some concrete benefits from the Europeans—oil-production technology, heavy-industrial equipment, and perhaps even permission to purchase a fleet of Airbuses. (Iran has been denied access to technology and many goods owing to sanctions.)

The Europeans have been urging the Bush Administration to join in these negotiations. The Administration has refused to do so. The civilian leadership in the Pentagon has argued that no diplomatic progress on the Iranian nuclear threat will take place unless there is a credible threat of military action. “The neocons say negotiations are a bad deal,” a senior official of the International Atomic Energy Agency (I.A.E.A.) told me. “And the only thing the Iranians understand is pressure. And that they also need to be whacked (5)..

Iran is a matter the President of USA and Pentagon must address. Can USA live with an Iranian atom bomb, which will restrict U.S. freedom of action in the Gulf and likely lead to proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Arab world? Or is Iran the place where the Bush Doctrine must be applied, even if it ultimately requires U.S. air and missile strikes on Iran's nuclear sites? (6). Will USA go- in for limited strategic nuclear strikes against Iran to minimize losses of American uniformed men and then occupy an helpless and shattered nation as it did in Japan at the end of world War II.. Will another Harry Truman emerge at this crucial hour when USA is being targeted by a rogue nation that has been spewing venom against Americans and declared death to it? Will Democrats who spare no time and leave no stone unturned in condemning President George W Bush for Iraq war and for not finding WMD in Iraq turn cold feet towards Iran and develop attitude of an Ostrich after Bush leaves ( Provided Iran is already not attacked by President George W Bush) the white House and invite another WTC type chaos which could be a dirty bomb this time? Will democrats accept nations pride to nose dive in international arena? Will USA lead another war against a potential Adolph Hitler in the name of Mahmoudinejad who is emerging on the world scene to destroy Jews and hold the USA to ransom? During World War II, America was the only country that possessed the nuclear weapon and could use them and bring Japan on to its knees. What happens if Iran acquires a nuclear bomb? Can USA dictate terms in Gulf and protect its interests. Probably entire world scenario would change once for all, cutting USA to size if Iran goes nuclear. These are some of the most important questions that pester the minds of strategists.

Iran has obviously spread its nuclear facilities to prevent strikes from enemies. After Osirak, Iran situated many of its nuclear sites in remote areas of the east, in an attempt to keep them out of striking range of other countries, especially Israel. Distance no longer lends such protection, however: Israel has acquired three submarines capable of launching cruise missiles and has equipped some of its aircraft with additional fuel tanks, putting Israeli F-16I fighters within the range of most Iranian targets. The immediate goals of the attacks would be to destroy, or at least temporarily derail, Iran’s ability to go nuclear. But there are other, equally purposeful, motives at work. The hawks in government propagate a limited attack on Iran because they believe it could lead to a toppling of the religious leadership. “Within the soul of Iran there is a struggle between secular nationalists and reformers, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the fundamentalist Islamic movement,”. “The minute the aura of invincibility which the mullahs enjoy is shattered, and with it the ability to hoodwink the West, the Iranian regime will collapse”—like the former Communist regimes in Romania, East Germany, and the Soviet Union. Former stalwarts Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz reportedly shared that belief.

On the other hand, Iran being great oil producing country and being in possession of great quantities of gas is dominating the field of oil and gas supply and the world powers are hesitant to take bold all out offensive action against Iran, else, the supply position of oil is seriously disturbed in the world market. This aspect is being used by Iran to blackmail the world market. Secondly can war on Iran be simple like on Iraq. Iran is a very large country. War on Iran would automatically activate Hezbollah via Iran and there would be spurt in terrorist activities and suicide missions abetted by Iran. As stated earlier Oil would be used as weapon by Iran. Ground invasion of Iran with blockade of Gulf would be a serious proposition and US troops would be overstretched. Activities in Afghanistan also would be activated further through Al Qaeda network. Taliban would be inspired by Mullahs of Iran. Thus US military activities would be stretched further.

However there are critics who believe that American attack on Iran would be seen as an attack on their ambition and there could be national upsurge and unity subsequentlyand it could be counterproductive. “The idea that an American attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would produce a popular uprising is extremely il informed,” said Flynt Leverett, a Middle East scholar who worked on the National Security Council in the Bush Administration. “You have to understand that the nuclear ambition in Iran is supported across the political spectrum, and Iranians will perceive attacks on these sites as attacks on their ambitions to be a major regional player and a modern nation that’s technologically sophisticated.” Leverett, who is now a senior fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, at the Brookings Institution, warned that an American attack, if it takes place, “will produce an Iranian backlash against the United States and a rallying around the regime.” However these are hypothetical discussions and time is ticking away and Iran is drawing close to its objective. Tehran has confirmed that it will retaliate if attacked, in the form of ballistic missile strikes directed against Israel (CNN, 8 Feb 2005). These attacks could also target US military facilities in the Persian Gulf, which would immediately lead into a scenario of military escalation and all out war. In other words, the air strikes against Iran could contribute to unleashing a war in the broader Middle East Central Asian region. Moreover, the planned attack on Iran should also be understood in relation to the timely withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, which has opened up a new space, for the deployment of Israeli forces. The participation of Turkey in the US-Israeli military operation is also a factor, following an agreement reached between Ankara and Tel Aviv. In other words, US and Israeli military planners must carefully weigh the far-reaching implications of their actions (7).

The question also would be how many major nations like Russia, France, UK, Italy, Germany, Japan, and China would come forward in subduing Iran militarily and hold the hand of USA in the hour of crisis by actually taking part in the war physically. It would be obvious that many would be fence sitters and play cat on the wall game. Some would stand up and watch like prairie dogs to vanish quickly into their holes at slightest danger. It would fall surely on the shoulders of USA, UK (?) and Australia and with small help from France, Italy and some Scandinavian nations.

Countries like India would as usual watch from a very safe distance and shout “Peace, peace and peace and touch me not and be sure” while its own nation is thoroughly hammered by the Islamic terrorists with in and across the borders black and blue. It will be the best fence sitter and cat on the wall and self proclaimed apostle of the peace in entire world. Its Muslim population would compel the Government to preach sermons against the war and take pro- Muslim stand in international affairs as India cannot afford to antagonize its Muslim population who feel that they have separate status in India and need pampering, cajoling and shoulder carrying and piggy backing all the time inspite of wrecking the nation in 1947.

. In recent months, senior American officers have condemned Tehran for providing training and deadly explosives to insurgents in Iraq. In a predawn raid on Dec. 21, 2006 U.S. troops barged into the compound of the most powerful political party in the country, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, and grabbed two men they claimed were officers in Iran's Revolutionary Guards. Three weeks later U.S. troops stormed an Iranian diplomatic office in Irbil, arresting five more Iranians. The Americans have hinted that as part of an escalating tit-for-tat, Iranians may have had a hand in a spectacular raid in Karbala on Jan. 20, in which four American soldiers were kidnapped and later found shot, execution style, in the head. U.S. forces promised to defend themselves. Sometimes it seems as if a state of conflict is natural to the U.S.-Iranian relationship - troubled since the CIA-backed coup that restored the shah to power in 1953, tortured since Ayatollah Khomeini's triumph in 1979. With the election of George W. Bush on the one hand, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad on the other, the two countries are now led by men who deeply mistrust the intentions and indeed doubt the sanity of the other. Tehran insists that U.S. policy is aimed at toppling the regime and subjugating Iran. The White House charges that Iran is violently sabotaging U.S. efforts to stabilize the Middle East while not so secretly developing nuclear weapons. As the raids and skirmishes in Iraq underscore, a hidden war is already unfolding (8).

War between any two nations is always preceded by many confrontational activities. This also includes diplomatic confrontation, kidnappings at borders, serious espionage activities, minor skirmishes on ground, and air violations by fighter aircraft, pilot less aircraft, occasional artillery duels, and minor naval engagements and violation of territorial waters. Terrorist activities or guerilla actions also precede major engagements between the countries. All these activities are usually the continuous operations between two hostile countries and still both the nations may not declare war on each other.

It is reported and alleged by Iran that a group known as Jundullah (Army of God), a Sunni militant terrorist organization (in terms of Iran) and made up of members of the fear- some Baluchi tribe in Pakistan , has been secretly encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005, as it has carried out its deadly operations inside Iran. These actions are seen as the destabilizing tactics of the Western powers particularly USA that is spearheading the world sanctions against the nuclear program of Iran. Jundullah is headed by its youthful and dynamic leader Abdel Malik Regi and is made up of members of the Baluchi tribe and operates out of the Balochistan province in Pakistan, just across the border from Iran. The organization is also believed to be involved in narcotics trafficking across the porous Iranian-Pakistani border which is also the usual past time for the lawless Taliban now hiding in Pakistan and the tribes of Waziristan of Pakistan where no civilized law can be imposed effectively. For making fast buck, these lawless criminalized elements resort to drug pedaling and other illegal activities such as narcotics trade thereby causing great damage to the youth of the world (9).

These terrorist operations are being viewed as a part of greater future conflict with Iran and destabilizing tactics. It is claimed that USA seeks a change in the regime as discussed earlier that could bring some sanity to the thinking in Iran. This could be seen as a proxy war against Iran. Although many war plans have been made by the USA for attacking Iran along with Israel and along with NATO forces, the trigger is yet to be released by the American President. Although options of war are kept ready there is still some hope of some emerging sanity on the Iranian side there by avoiding war and probably this is delaying the action. The loss of mandate in both houses has made the hands of the president weak and this could be the reason for the delay in action.. All actions that prelude the actual war are going on at present and yet the war is not yet declared. Situation is tense indeed and a mighty war that could change global politics is lurking round the corner and this could be a part of World War III.

Bibliography

1. Prof Dr Colonel (retired) K Prabhakar Rao, Iran too fighting terrorists on its soil, www.faithcommons.org, April 26, 2007, 15:29

2. Prof Dr Colonel (Retired) K Prabhakar Rao, Iran Heating up, www.faithCommons.org, , February 28, 2007, 11:31

3. Sheikh Mohammed Mahmoud Siam, Palestine movement is on the true line of Islamic Jihad, Submitted by Correspondent, Radiance Views weekly, and Published by Board of Islamic publications, New Delhi, India, Volume XL, No 28, Dated 27 Nov- 3 Dec 2005, and PP14

4. Michel Chossudovsky , Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran, http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:b1mus1Xz7h4J:www.globalresearch.ca

/articles/CHO505A.html+Is+America+at+war+with+Iran&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4

5. Seymour Hersh, the coming wars, The New Yorker, 24 January 2005

www.globalresearch.ca 18 January 2005,

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/HER501A.html, © Copyright THE NEW YORKER 2005.

6.Patrick Bachanan, America’s next war, www.lewrockwell.com, http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:xdeQzzo7viwJ:www.lewrockwell.com

/buchanan/buchanan11.html+Is+America+at+war+with+Iran&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5

7. . Michel Chossudovsky , Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran, http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:b1mus1Xz7h4J:www.globalresearch.ca

/articles/CHO505A.html+Is+America+at+war+with+Iran&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4

8. Michael Hirsh and Maziar Bahari ,America's Hidden War With Iran, Newsweek,Monday 19 February 2007 Issue, www. truthout.issues, http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:L-5QsVkTdLYJ:www.truthout.org

/docs_2006/021107B.shtml+Is+America+at+war+with+Iran&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10 ,

9. Prof Dr Colonel (retired) K Prabhakar Rao, Iran too fighting terrorists on its soil, www.faithcommons.org, April 26, 2007, 15:29

RELATED ARTICLES


www.faithcommons.org

By

1. Nuclear threat and Israel, October 19, 2006, 13:18

2. Iran the Damocles’ sword on Israel and USA. November 03, 2006, 09:11 

3. American policy in the Middle East after Republican Party debacle, November 25, 2006, 07:07

4. Is Iran going to be a nuclear reality? December 05, 2006, 12:14

5. Nexus of North Korea and Iran could be dangerous to USA, January 06, 2006, 18:17

6. The Sunni Bomb, April 19, 2007, 08:36

7. The American President uneasy January 30, 200, 10:22

Bookmark/Search this post with: