Stepped
Up US Preparations
For War Against Iran
By Peter Symonds
02 February, 2007
World
Socialist Web
A relentless and unmistakable
American buildup for war against Iran is currently underway. Military
preparations are being accompanied by a daily barrage of propaganda
against Tehran issuing from US sources and relayed uncritically via
a compliant media. The chief accusation currently being levelled against
the Iranian regime is that its agents are supporting and arming Shiite
militias inside Iraq to attack US troops—a charge that has yet
to be substantiated with concrete evidence.
President Bush last month
not only ordered the US military to “seek out and destroy”
Iranian networks in Iraq, but confirmed last week that he had authorised
American troops to capture or kill Iranian agents. On Monday, in an
interview with National Public Radio, Bush reiterated: “If Iran
escalates its military action in Iraq to the detriment of our troops
and/or innocent Iraqi people, we will respond firmly.”
In Congressional confirmation
hearings this week, Bush’s new appointees echoed the same message.
John Negroponte, who has been nominated as deputy secretary of state,
told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday, that Iran’s
“behaviour, such as supporting Shia extremists in Iraq, should
not go unchallenged. If they feel they can continue with this kind of
activity with impunity, that will be harmful to the security of Iraq
and to our interests in that country.”
Admiral William Fallon, who
has been nominated as head of Central Command, told the Senate Armed
Services Committee on Tuesday that Iran’s involvement in terrorism
and sectarian violence was “destabilising and troubling”.
“They have not been helpful in Iraq. It seems to me that in the
region, as they grow their military capabilities, we’re going
to have to pay close attention to what they do and what they may bring
to the table,” he added.
Fallon indicated that he
intended to assist in building a regional coalition “to address
Iran’s actions”. As the first naval officer to be appointed
head of Central Command, his role will obviously not be limited to diplomatic
activity. Fallon will preside over a huge US naval buildup in the Persian
Gulf, which, for the first time since the US-led invasion of Iraq in
2003, will include two aircraft carrier groups.
The Jerusalem Post reported
that the assault ship, USS Bataan, steamed through the Suez Canal on
Tuesday on its way to the Persian Gulf. The seven-vessel battle group
includes 2,200 US Marines and sailors, helicopters and Harrier fighter
jets. The aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis and its associated warships
are due in the region later this month, joining the carrier USS Dwight
D. Eisenhower which is already in the Gulf. In all, Fallon will have
around 50 warships as well as hundreds of warplanes at his disposal.
A comment in the French newspaper
Le Figaro on January 27 noted that with the two carrier groups, “the
United States now has the ability to conduct an air offensive 24 hours
a day for 30 to 40 days. It can rely on Bahrain, the huge al-Udaid airbase
in Qatar and its operational command centre, and the Diego Garcia base
in the Indian Ocean for supply. The American satellites have reportedly
identified 1,500 targets linked to the Iranian nuclear weapon program,
distributed over 18 main sites. No one doubts that considerable damage
could be inflicted on them. Industrial and oil targets could be added
to them.”
Ominously, an article appeared
in the Los Angeles Times yesterday outlining plans for more aggressive
patrols by US warplanes along the Iran-Iraq border, ostensibly to counter
the smuggling of weapons into Iraq. A senior Pentagon official told
the newspaper: “Air power plays major roles, and one of those
is as a deterrent, whether it be in border control, air sovereignty
or something more kinetic.” As the Times noted, “kinetic”
is a term used to denote offensive military action. Whatever the stated
purpose, provocative US air patrols close to Iranian air space could
quickly escalate into open conflict.
While top US officials keep
repeating as fact that Iranian agents are involved in supporting anti-US
militia in Iraq, no proof has been offered for the allegation. US ambassador
to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, was scheduled yesterday to present a “dossier”
of specific evidence of Iranian arms shipments to Iraq, including serial
numbers and shipping documents. But the plan was put on hold, indicating
that the “proof” is just as threadbare as the lies about
weapons of mass destruction that were concocted to justify Iraq’s
military occupation.
A propaganda war
Lack of evidence has not
stopped the US media from publishing stories that have all the hallmarks
of planted articles from the Bush administration, the CIA or Pentagon.
An article appeared in the New York Times yesterday based on anonymous
US and Iraqi officials suggesting that Iranian agents were involved
in an attack on a secure compound in Karbala on January 20 in which
five American soldiers were killed.
The report provided details
of the raid, emphasising its sophistication—the use of forged
identity cards, “American-style” uniforms and rifles, sports
utility vehicles and communications devices. But it did not offer a
shred of evidence that any Iranians, let alone Iranian government agents,
were involved. As “proof,” all that was offered was the
argument that the operation was too complex for Iraqi insurgents to
have carried out alone.
An unnamed senior Iraqi official
alleged that rogue elements of the Mahdi Army of Shiite cleric Moktada
al-Sadr were being armed and controlled directly from Iran. An American
military official hinted at a broad conspiracy involving senior Iraqi
officials, asking: “Was the [Karbala] governor involved? Were
the Iraqi police that were on guard complicit or just incompetent?”
The New York Times pointed
quite openly to the real purpose of the story, which has been recycled
throughout the media: “Tying Iran to the deadly attack could be
helpful to the Bush administration, which has been engaged in an escalating
war of words with Iran.”
The article followed another
dubious New York Times report on January 29 alleging that “Iranian
intelligence” had been involved in the assassination of the Egyptian
ambassador to Iraq, Ihab Al Sharif, shortly after his posting in June
2005. The story was based on a front-page article in the Egyptian newspaper
Al Ahram, which offered no evidence other than the comments of anonymous
sources. Both the Iranian and Egyptian foreign ministries denied the
allegations. Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the murder at the time.
None of this, however, stopped the New York Times circulating the story
as good coin.
It is certainly possible
that Iranian intelligence agents operate inside Iraq, like those of
other countries, including American allies like Saudi Arabia and Jordan.
Iran has close links with Shiite parties and militia, including those
in the US puppet regime in Baghdad, and may well be supplying them with
assistance. It is also possible that insurgents are purchasing arms
legally or illegally inside Iran, as well as in other countries. But
there is no proof that the Iranian government is backing anti-US insurgents
in Iraq.
In comments for the US-based
Council on Foreign Relations website, Kenneth Pollack from the Brookings
Institution remarked: “The Bush administration seems to be regarding
the Iranians as the source of many, if not all, of Iraq’s problems
today. To me, it is dangerously reminiscent of how they talked about
the Syrians in 2004 and 2005, when they ridiculously exaggerated Syria’s
role in the Sunni insurgency.”
An article in the Los Angeles
Times on January 23 noted: “For all the aggressive rhetoric, the
Bush administration has provided scant evidence to support these claims
[of Iranian involvement]. Nor have reporters travelling with US troops
seen extensive signs of Iranian involvement. During a recent sweep through
a stronghold of Sunni insurgents here, a single Iranian machine gun
turned up among dozens of arms caches US troops uncovered. British officials
have similarly accused Iran of meddling in Iraqi affairs, but say they
have not found Iranian-made weapons in areas they patrol.”
In an interview with an obviously
hostile New York Times journalist on January 29, Iran’s ambassador
to Iraq, Hassan Kazemi Qumi vigorously denied Iranian support for anti-US
militias. He dismissed evidence seized by US troops in provocative raids
in which a number of Iranians were detained in December and January.
“He ridiculed the evidence
that the American military said it had collected, including maps of
Baghdad delineating Sunni, Shiite and mixed neighbourhoods—the
kind of maps, American officials have said, that would be useful for
militias engaged in ethnic slaughter. Mr Qumi said the maps were so
common and easily obtainable that they proved nothing,” the newspaper
noted.
In the coming weeks, the
US propaganda offensive will undoubtedly intensify in order to obscure
the real reasons for the war preparations against Iran. In the first
instance, Washington is determined to prevent Iran from expanding its
influence as a result of the disasters that the US has created in neighbouring
Iraq and Afghanistan. More broadly, however, the Bush administration
views the eventual subjugation of Iran as a necessary stage in its long-held
plans for US dominance over the Middle East and Central Asia and their
rich reserves of oil and gas.
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights