|
U.S., Israel may
attack Iran, Syria
By
David Storobin, Esq.
1/19/2005
In an article for the New Yorker Magazine that was deemed
as “riddled with errors” by the U.S. Department of Defense, Seymour Hersh
alleged that the George W. Bush administration is planning a military
strike against Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons. "This
is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush
Administration is looking at this as a huge war zone…Next, we're going to
have the Iranian campaign. We've declared war and the bad guys, wherever
they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah-we've got four years, and
want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism," an official
was quoted.
According to the report, American military and intelligence are already
conducting reconnaissance and other spying missions to find the proper
targets for the anti-nuclear strike. While the Pentagon may be denying the
report, it did not deny that a military strike may be in the offing.
President Bush also refused to eliminate the military option as one of his
choices.
While some in the American media have described the attack against Iran as
“Bush’s Cambodia”, comparing it to American excursions in countries around
Vietnam during the war there, others – including editorials for the NY
Post and NY Sun – have unequivocally endorsed such strikes as necessary to
prevent a terror-sponsoring regime from gaining potentially
nation-destroying weapons.
During the recent campaign for President, both George Bush and his
Democratic Party opponent John Kerry agreed that Iran’s nuclear build-up
is the greatest foreign challenge faced by the United States. Many
Democrats have condemned Bush for attacking Iraq, rather than dealing with
a more dangerous Iran that has a known nuclear program and openly sponsors
organizations listed as terrorist by the United States Department of
State.
Tehran continues to deny that its nuclear program is meant for any
military purposes, claiming that it is merely developing nuclear energy
for civilian purposes to provide the country with another form of energy
that Iran’s economy requires. The claim has been attacked by some as
ridiculous because Iran is one of the world’s leading suppliers of oil and
gas, so a civilian nuclear energy program would just be a huge waste of
the country’s resources. It also did not help Tehran that the country’s
former President threatened to destroy Israel once nuclear weapons are
developed, claiming that the Jewish state will be destroyed in one shot,
while the Islamic world will be able to tolerate a nuclear response from
Jerusalem.
In recent months, Europeans have been leading diplomatic efforts to thwart
the Islamic Republic’s WMD program, hoping that financial incentives would
lead it to choose money over weapons. Washington seemed to have embraced
the European efforts, but many believe this is only due to the Bush
Administration’s conviction that diplomatic efforts will fail. Once
non-military methods are exhausted, America will likely push for military
threats against Iran in the U.N. Security Council, or it may even decide
to unilaterally strike the country. The Pentagon may not be keen on this
strategy because many military leaders believe Tehran will use the new
gains from Europe to not only build a nuclear program, but also re-build
its tremendously outdated Air Force and air defenses.
Some reports also suggested that Iraq was chosen as the second step in the
War on Terror to surround Iran, with American troops to the east of the
Islamic Republic in Afghanistan and to the west of it in Iraq. While such
claims remain unsubstantiated, having well over 100,000 American soldiers
stationed right next to Iran certainly does help Washington and should
keep the Ayatollahs in Iran awake on many nights to come.
Recent rumors have also been heard about a potential strike against Syria,
a close ally of Iran and known for its support of anti-American insurgents
and terrorists in Iraq, as well as for the Hizballah and various
Palestinian terrorist organizations. A recent
Global Politician Report
quoted an American official as saying that Syria should worry about an
attack by the United States, unless it stops supporting terrorist
organizations and turns over wanted Iraqis who are living within the
country’s borders. Syria denies allegations of anti-American
terror-sponsorship.
Israel, too, threatened Damascus in the recent months, even flying its Air
Force jets over the residence of President Bashir Assad. It has also
expanded into Syria its policy of assassinating terrorists.
Some have contemplated that Israel may attack Syria, while the United
States will attack Iran.
Others reject this as a bluff because the U.S. is currently tied down in
Iraq and, to a lesser degree, in Afghanistan, so it may not have the means
to invade either Syria or Iran, much less both, even with Israel’s help.
Proponents of this theory believe that Washington is merely trying to play
“bad cop” to Europe’s “good cop”, so as to persuade the Iranian leadership
to cooperate with Europe’s diplomatic efforts in order to avoid the wrath
of America.
This theory has been challenged by those claiming that the United States
would not need as much military in Iraq if Iran and Syria did not aid
terrorists and insurgents. As such, an invasion and destruction of
terror-sponsoring regimes in Iran and Syria would immediately lead to a
peaceful Iraq, with Iraqi insurgents quickly running out of weapons, money
and intelligence information.
At this point, it is impossible to confirm which, if any, of the above
theories are accurate and whether the Pentagon’s denial of the report in
the New Yorker is merely an attempt to avoid disclosure of national
secrets. However, United States, Israel, Europe and even many Arab
countries remain very concerned about Iran’s nuclear program and terror
sponsorship. Even if the Bush Administration is merely bluffing, war
threats often have a way of spinning out of control, leading to
hostilities. Furthermore, based on the available information, it certainly
does not seem like George Bush and his people would be adverse to
attacking the fundamentalist regime in Iran if such war would be winnable
according to American Generals. Whether a coalition of nations can be
built for such operation remains to be seen.
David Storobin
is a New York lawyer who received Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from Rutgers
University School of Law. His Master's Thesis (M.A. - Comparative
Politics) deals with Extremist Movements in the Middle East and the
historical causes for the rise of fundamentalism. Mr. Storobin's book
"The Root Cause: The Rise of Fundamentalist Islam and its Threat to the
World" will be published in
2005. |
