Will Iran be attacked by Israel the US or both? Is the escalation of tensions with Iran being driven by US and Israeli domestic political considerations? Will we ever actually see any proof of the claims the US and Israel make about an Iranian nuclear weapons program? So far, there is none at all.
The Sunday Times in the UK makes it look like an Israeli attack on Iran prior to the US elections in November is all but a done deal.
President George W Bush has told the Israeli government that he may be prepared to approve a future military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations with Tehran break down, according to a senior Pentagon official.On the other hand, a dispassionate analysis of pros and cons by the BBC makes an attack on Iran seem very unlikely, with tough talk in Tel Aviv being driven by the Kadima Party's leadership vote in September.
Despite the opposition of his own generals and widespread scepticism that America is ready to risk the military, political and economic consequences of an airborne strike on Iran, the president has given an “amber light” to an Israeli plan to attack Iran’s main nuclear sites with long-range bombing sorties, the official told The Sunday Times.
Politicians, of course, have to talk tough wherever they come from, and here Israel's leaders need no lessons from outside.Israeli media are saying Olmert is toast.
Everything now is influenced by domestic politics.
The weakness of Israel's embattled Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, beset by allegations of financial irregularity, means that the battle to replace him has already been joined.
The hawkish Jerusalem Post looks at how the US and Israel are more or less agreed on what they believe may have to be done, but increasingly out of sync as to what actions should be taken and when. The Israelis appear to have talked themselves into a corner with respect to attacking Iran while overlooking the lack of any proof Iran is working on a bomb.
US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, said this week:
"There is a lot of signaling going on," he said. "But I think everybody recognizes what the consequences of any kind of a conflict would be. And I will tell you that this government is working hard to make sure that the diplomatic and economic approach to dealing with Iran, and trying to get the Iranian government to change its policies is the strategy and is the approach that continues to dominate."The Washington Post carries a column by Lamis Andoni, a Middle East consultant for Al Jazeera, may have the best overall analysis of what we are seeing now:
Israel has been openly and aggressively inciting war against Iran – with the complicity of the Pentagon.What I notice above all else in reading report after report, is the near complete lack of any questioning of the so far unproven claim by the US and Israel that Iran is working to make nuclear weapons.
According the Israeli Yediot Ahranot, the news about Israeli military exercises for war with Iran was deliberately leaked by the Pentagon, in coordination with Israel, to prepare the atmosphere for war against Iran.
I think that the Bush Administration is determined to plant the seeds for war before it leaves, but the question remains if that means an overt strike or a covert action against Iran. It could be an Israeli strike or a covert – yet huge – act of sabotage on Iran that could set the wheels of war turning.
In other words, the administration will not go quietly without starting another explosion.
We have seen no proof at all. None.
The US and UK media - yet again - appear to be dropping the ball spectacularly. No one is asking why we have not seen any proof of US and Israeli claims regarding an alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program.
Our own media simply carry the wire stories and features from overseas without apparent thought or comment. Of the few who have mentioned it, like Fran O'Sullivan in the Herald, there is no recognition whatever that the claims against Iran remain completely unproven.
After the lies told to sell the invasion of Iraq, such one-sided and persistent blindness by most of the media to the lack of proof of claims about Iran can only be deliberate. There can be no more excuses for not rigorously testing a US or Israeli case for war after the way the US and UK-based media we source our news from almost completely ignored the lack of proof of any WMD in Iraq...and effectively enabled a war based on lies they refused to question.
Our own journalists and politicians should be asking tough questions instead of swallowing whole unproven claims being used to justify more war.
Experts have been predicting that Bush would authorize a strike on Iran for years:
ReplyDelete“I believe President Bush is going to order air strikes (on Iran) before he leaves office”
-Norman Podhoretz (Lyons, 2007).
Bush and his cronies say they want peace and diplomacy, but the problem with the members of Bush administration is that you can't trust them. You can't take what they at face value.
As former Nixon aide John W. Dean wrote, “George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have created the most secretive presidency of my lifetime. Their secrecy is far worse than during Watergate.”
The administration secretly planned and prepared for war with Iraq without disclosing it to the general public. Planning began in November of 2001 and included upgrading airfields in various Gulf countries, moving supplies to the region and the construction of necessary facilities.
By April 2002, the planning and preparation for war was also being hidden from Congress. Bush had instructed General Tommy Franks not to make financial requests through Washington. “Anything you need, you’ll have.”
The money would no longer be appropriated through congress. By the end of July 2002, Bush had approved more than thirty projects totaling over $700 million. Congress had no knowledge or involvement.
In December of 2002, Bush and Rumsfeld agreed to start secretly deploying troops into the theatre so as not to attract the attention of the press or the rest of the world.
The first deployment order went out on December 6, 2002 and deployments continued every two weeks or so thereafter. Troops were given less than a week’s notice at times.
In January 2003, the Bush administration arranged for much of its humanitarian relief to be disguised as general contributions to conceal its war planning from the NGO recipients.
Yet, when asked about Iraq, Bush’s favorite response was “I have no war plans on my desk.” At one point or another after the planning began, nearly every member of the administration publicly denied any plans to go to war with Iraq.
The question remains: Why would we expect the Bush administration to start being honest and up front about its intentions now?
A better approach to Iran would be negotiations. We need to give Iran an honorable path of retreat. While Fareed Zakaria agrees that there is no reason not to use sanctions and embargoes against states such as Iran, he suggests that we also need to “allow a viable way out.” That is to say, we need to negotiate and not merely mandate.
I think we should more concerned about acquainting ourselves with the realities of Iran's foreign policy initiatives, and intelligently determining our most reasonable course of action.