Lebanon-
Foreplay
For The Rape Of Iran
By Dick Mazess
09 September, 2006
Countercurrents.org
The Attack on Lebanon:
There
is simply no question in the international press: the attacks on Lebanon
by the Israeli armed forces constitute war crimes comparable or worse
than those perpetrated by Nazi Germany on defenseless civilians (ex
Belgium) in WWII. Amnesty
International has documented the deliberate destruction
of civilian infrastructure, as well as attacks on civilians, and called
for a war crimes investigation. [For more information see the follow
articles: the
Guardian and the
New York Times]
While Europeans are appalled,
the Arab street is celebrating what they see as a successful military
effort by Hezbollah against one of the world's best equipped and trained
armies, essentially a division of the US armed forces but with far superior
soldiers than ours. About 100-150 Hezbollah fighters were killed in
the Israeli war on Lebanon, similar to the number of dead Israeli soldiers
(officially 118 killed by enemy fire). The big difference is that 1200
Lebanese civilians were killed by Israeli shells and bombs, while only
30 or so Israeli civilians were killed by Hezbollah rockets. Hezbollah
basically held Israel to a standoff despite the massive destruction
of civilian infrastructure (bridges, hospitals, gas stations, factories,
warehouses, apartment houses), the massacre of civilians, including
those escaping from the south, and the creation of an ecological
disaster.
Villages in southern Lebanon
were carpeted with US-made cluster bombs, which are basically anti-civilian
weapons, and this was done even days immediately before
the cease-fire. The true magnitude of the atrocity has been covered
in the
Israeli press, which documented the use of over a million
cluster
bombs, and white phosphorus, (both banned by international
law) ; the US press has been silent until recently when hundreds of
Lebanese civilians were killed or maimed. Several thousand Lebanese
also are expected to die from the short-term effects of the destroyed
infrastructure.
Are there Winners
and Losers?
The Bush administration and
the parroting US media, are perhaps the only sources who view the attack
as a victory for Israel; because of media spin the American public supports
Israel more than Europeans, who view the Israeli attack as much like
the US attack on Iraq i.e. an illegal "preemptive" war.
In contrast the Israeli public
views the war as a defeat; the commanding general was replaced and the
military leadership is under serious review. The
Olmert government is likely to fall because, as the Jerusalem
Post puts it, "There is a widespread perception that this war,
by not producing a definitive outcome, has certainly not prevented
the next war, and may have even laid the
groundwork for it". A few days after a ceasefire
was agreed to Israeli forces violated it by conducting an unsuccessful
raid into Lebanon prompting
a warning by Kofi Anan. One measure of the pro-Israel bias
of the US media is its failure to note that last raid violated the agreed-upon
UN ceasefire agreement!
The Israeli assault on the
civilian population and infrastructure of Lebanon
has set back Islamic moderates everywhere by 20 years; it has strengthened
the fundamentalists and exacerbated jihadist sentiments in Iran and
Syria. One major blowback has been the promotion of Hezbollah (and of
Iran) as the leadership of the Arab world, and the uniting of Moslems
everywhere against the US "crusade" which officially deems
them as "Islamic
fascists". [Also see the
New York Times]. The debacle in Lebanon, coming on the
heels of the US wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, has launched Iran as the
overwhelmingly dominant
power in the mid-east. A major UK report points out that
Iran has rapidly moved into the power vacuum created by the removal
of the Taliban and the toppling of the Hussein regime.
Hezbollah itself not only
emerged the conflict more powerful than ever, but its rapid response
to reconstruction and medical care of the injured has earned it widespread
support from the previously uncommitted Shia population (according to
Beirut resident Robert
Fisk). A recent demonstration in Beirut brought out hundreds
of thousands to celebrate the appearance of Hezbollah chief Sheik
Nasrallah. He claimed that Hezbollah now had more weaponry
than before the conflict, despite attempts by Israel to prevent re-supply.
Was the US Involved
in the Attack?
Seymour Hersh claimed that
Washington did not directly order the Israeli attack on Lebanon but
that the Bush administration had long sought a military solution to
Hezbollah forces since missile attacks on Israel could be part of the
retaliatory
response in the event of long-planned US
attacks on Iran.. Others believe not only that the attack
was developed
and approved by the US (certainly the Department of Defense,
but not necessarily the Department of State) perhaps as long as
a year or two in advance,
but that the US supplied
both the armaments (precision bombs, cluster bombs, shells), intelligence
intercepts, and satellite imaging of targets [see Information
Clearing House]. Clearly the Israeli Defense Force is a
major arm of the US military, with annual
military financing of $3 to$4 billion and closely coordinates
all activity with the US Department of Defense.
The Message of Lebanon
was a Warning to Iran
Analysts and pundits have
attempted to understand why there was such a disproportionate military
response to the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers. Noam Chomsky discussed
the attack in relation to a half-century of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The public rationale was
response to the capture of two Israeli soldiers, but both sides have
been capturing isolated individuals over the years and then arranging
prisoner exchanges. The latest Hezbollah capture of soldiers was done
to facilitate exchange for thousands of Lebanese captured and held long-term
in Israeli "Guantánamos" without charge. The best possible
explanation is that the massive retaliation was a warning to Iran of
US intentions should it continue to disregard US concerns. Leaders in
Israel, as well as US politicians, view Hezbollah as a branch of the
Iran military just as leaders in the Moslem world view the Israeli forces
as a branch of the US military.
Both the Republican
and the Democratic Party Support Attacks on Iran
Both major parties have,
for the last few decades, been the maidservants to AIPAC, the lobbying
group of hawkish
American Jews. There is obvious support for Israel, and
against Iran, by Republicans but key Democrats also are hawkish. This
is especially true for east coast politicians, and is obvious in the
bellicose pronouncements of prominent senators, like Charles Schumer
and Hillary Clinton. However, even congressional opponents of the Iraq
occupation, with rare exception, are unwilling to speak out against
attacking Iran, and progressive lapdogs, like MoveOn are equally cowardly.
The US House passed a bill in September 2006 supporting unilateral sanctions
against Iran and those doing business with Iran even as the administration
was seeking to refer the issue to the UN Security Council.
On the other hand traditional
power brokers are less enthusiastic about military meddling. The fact
that the Middle East has become even more unstable than in the past
has led the world elite (Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, Council
on Foreign Relations) to repudiate the neo-con preference for military
solutions to political problems. The former president of Morgan Stanley
called Israel's war on Lebanon a "catastrophe", and he asserts
the Democrats made a "huge mistake" in backing the Republican
administration's Israel policy. In his view "democracy"
has become a codeword--and not a good codeword--in
the Middle East.”
Leading Democratic politicians
supported the Israeli
attack on Lebanon, just as they back the most odious of
administration positions including: the continued occupation of Iraq,
the "Patriot Act", torture of prisoners, repeal of habeas
corpus, and military confrontation with Iran. A House
resolution supporting the Israeli attack and condemning
Hezbollah was approved with 410 for, 8 against (7 Democrats and Ron
Paul), 4 present (including Kucinich), and 10 not-voting. Only 11 House
Democrats voted against the invasion of Iraq in 2002. The leaders of
the Democratic Party attempt to obscure their positions by claiming
that the Bush administration is inept, and/or corrupt, and by calling
for the resignation of its demonic leaders (Don Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales,
Dennis Hastert et al) but they do
not repudiate the policies.
The Coming Attack
on Iran
There has been much concern
that the joint US-Israeli
attack on Lebanon is the first step to a wider
war that would involve Iran and Syria, with one justification being
Iran's
refusal to terminate its program for nuclear power generation.
The Iran story has been developing over the past six months and briefly
became a prominent cause when it was leaked to the press that the administration
was considering nuclear bombs to destroy underground installations in
Iran. Noted expert James Bamford produced a detailed story on the possible
attack on Iran. Only a few analysts believe more
pragmatic voices will prevail.
The Bush administration has
been spreading
the story that Iran is close to having nuclear weapons,
a story reminiscent of the supposed WMD of Iraq, as a justification
for a "preemptive" attack. Again, as in the case of Iraq,
the misinformation stems from the Pentagon and the Vice-President’s
office. The “story” is being amplified by the same propaganda
machine. the administration used to create frenzy for the
invasion of Iraq. There has been vocal opposition to the administration
exaggerations about Iran, by
both intelligence experts and UN
inspectors. The International Atomic Energy Agency said
a House report on Iran’s nuclear program was not only erroneous
and misleading but “outrageous and dishonest” as well. As
a consequence of the propaganda tirade against Iran two-thirds of the
American
public believes it is a threat not only to Israel but to
the US. Even young
adults, who generally view the Iraq occupation more adversely
than older adults, also view the use of military force against Iran
or North Korea as justified.
As in the case of Iraq, the
US public is being prepped for an attack based on Iranian intransigence.
Time
magazine actually ran a cover story on the potential US
"preemptive attack". Retired air force colonel Sam Gardiner
indicates that the first phase of the war would be intensive air raids
lasting about five nights, but would be followed by a second wave of
more extensive air raids as well as attempts at eliminating
political and military leadership. Gardiner also outlines
potential Iranian responses, and notes that US attacks could result
in a fundamentalist overthrow in Pakistan.
Former US Senator Gary Hart
believes an attack on Iran will come as the October
surprise that Karl Rove promised GOP insiders. Some evidence
for a near-term war on Iran is the recent call
up of "inactive" forces who have already served
their maximum service-time. On October 1 Michel Chossudovsky produced
a detailed summary of the military actions recently undertaken by US
naval forces. The timetable well may be late October as
two naval strike groups have been ordered to the Persian Gulf., and
one is already there. Strike Force 8 (including the aircraft
carrier Eisenhower with a full load of Cruise missiles)
left from Norfolk, VA for arrival at Iran on Oct 21 Strike
Group 5 group is sailing
out of San Diego and the west coast; a
Canadian ship is joining them.
An October attack would rally
the US public around the currently unpopular Republican Congress and
undercut the hapless Democratic Party whose virtually only appeal is
"anti-Bush". It would also undermine
the attempt of Iran to establish its oil bourse, a move
that would bring Iran an additional $10 billion in revenues, and that
some think would help undermine the US dollar as the world reserve currency.
The US invasion of Iraq took place in 2003 just as an Iraqi oil bourse
based on the euro was being established.
Will the Attack use
Nuclear Weapons?
The only question remaining
is whether and to what extent nuclear bombs will be used. The excuse
will be to destroy underground installations. Paul Craig Roberts opines
that the nuclear option is required because the armed forces have in
essence "lost the wars" (failed in establishing a stable occupation)
in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The true rational will be to demonstrate
to our adversaries that
America will do whatever it takes to assert hegemony. Roberts
states:
"Neo-cons believe
that a nuclear attack on Iran would have intimidating force throughout
the Middle East and beyond. Iran would not dare retaliate, neo-cons
believe, against US ships, US troops in Iraq, or use their missiles
against oil facilities in the Middle East. Neo-cons have also concluded
that a US nuclear strike on Iran would show the entire Muslim world
that it is useless to resist America's will. Neo-cons say that even
the most fanatical terrorists would realize the hopelessness of resisting
US hegemony. The vast multitude of Muslims would realize that they have
no recourse but to accept their fate".
The use of atomic bombs on
Nagasaki and Hiroshima is considered by scholars to have been militarily
unnecessary, but rather served as a warning to the Soviet Union. The
paradoxical effect, however, was that it hastened the acquisition of
nuclear weaponry by the Soviet Union and other nations. A nuclear attack
on Iran would not only alienate European allies and make the US a pariah
state but likely would stimulate nuclear proliferation worldwide.
There are several groups that are organizing against US intervention,
including:
Stop War on Iraq,
Campaign Iran,
and Action Iran.
This article was originally
published on www.DemocracyRising.US
as part of their efforts to prevent a U.S. military attack on Iran.
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights