MWC News - A Site Without Borders - - Attacking Iran? It will not happen

Home

Commentary

OPINIONS

Features

Attacking Iran? It will not happen

Jul 12 2008

Attacking Iran? It will not happen

| Print |

E-mail

Special Features

By Uri Avnery

Article Index
Attacking Iran? It will not happen
Page 2

Page 2 of 2

Translation

That did not prevent Ariel Sharon from planning to conquer Iran, as I have already disclosed in the past. When I was writing an in-depth article about him in 1981, after his appointment as Minister of Defense, he told me in confidence about this daring idea: after the death of Khomeini, Israel would forestall the Soviet Union in the race to Iran. The Israeli army would occupy Iran in a few days and turn the country over to the much slower Americans, who would have supplied Israel well in advance with large quantities of sophisticated arms for this express purpose.

He also showed me the maps he intended to take with him to the annual strategic consultations in Washington. They looked very impressive. It seems, however, that the Americans were not so impressed.

All this indicates that by itself, the idea of an Israeli military intervention in Iran is not so revolutionary. But a prior condition is close cooperation with the US. This will not be forthcoming, because the US would be the primary victim of the consequences.

IRAN IS now a regional power. It makes no sense to deny that.

The irony of the matter is that for this they must thank their foremost benefactor in recent times: George W. Bush. If they had even a modicum of gratitude, they would erect a statue to him in Tehran's central square.

For many generations, Iraq was the gatekeeper of the Arab region. It was the wall of the Arab world against the Persian Shiites. It should be remembered that during the Iraqi-Iranian war, Arab Shiite Iraqis fought with great enthusiasm against Persian Shiite Iranians.

When President Bush invaded Iraq and destroyed it, he opened the whole region to the growing might of Iran. In future generations, historians will wonder about this action, which deserves a chapter to itself in "The March of Folly".

Today it is already clear that the real American aim (as I have asserted in this column right from the beginning) was to take possession of the Caspian Sea/Persian Gulf oil region and station a permanent American garrison at its center. This aim was indeed achieved - the Americans are now talking about their forces remaining in Iraq "for a hundred years", and they are now busily engaged in dividing Iraq's huge oil reserves among the four or five giant American oil companies.

But this war was started without wider strategic thinking and without looking at the geopolitical map. It was not decided who is the main enemy of the US in the region, neither was it clear where the main effort should be. The advantage of dominating Iraq may well be outweighed by the rise of Iran as a nuclear, military and political power that will overshadow America's allies in the Arab world.

WHERE DO we Israelis stand in this game?

For years now, we have been bombarded by a propaganda campaign that depicts the Iranian nuclear effort as an existential threat to Israel. Forget the Palestinians, forget Hamas and Hizbullah, forget Syria - the sole danger that threatens the very existence of the State of Israel is the Iranian nuclear bomb.

I repeat what I have said before: I am not prey to this existential Angst. True, life is more pleasant without an Iranian nuclear bomb, and Ahmadinejad is not very nice either. But if the worst comes to the worst, we will have a "balance of terror" between the two nations, much like the American-Soviet balance of terror that saved mankind from World War III, or the Indian-Pakistani balance of terror that provides a framework for a rapprochement between those two countries that hate each other's guts.

ON THE basis of all these considerations, I dare to predict that there will be no military attack on Iran this year - not by the Americans, not by the Israelis.

As I write these lines, a little red light turns on in my head. It is related to a memory: in my youth I was an avid reader of Vladimir Jabotinsky's weekly articles, which impressed me with their cold logic and clear style. In August 1939, Jabotinsky wrote an article in which he asserted categorically that no war would break out, in spite of all the rumors to the contrary. His reasoning: modern weapons are so terrible, that no country would dare to start a war.

A few days later Germany invaded Poland, starting the most terrible war in human history (until now), which ended with the Americans dropping atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Since then, for 63 years, nobody has used nuclear weapons in a war.

President Bush is about to end his career in disgrace. The same fate is waiting impatiently for Ehud Olmert. For politicians of this kind, it is easy to be tempted by a last adventure, a last chance for a decent place in history after all.

All the same, I stick to my prognosis: it will not happen.

This_Category
When Sadat Spoke to Israelis America! Yes, You Can! Mr President, We Too Have A Dream Where is the Israeli Obama? The US President- King of the Planet Is Akko Burning? Category:: Special Features

Recommend this article...

Did you enjoy this article? Please bookmark it onto:

Quote this article on your site | Views: 2442

Comments (5)

1. 13-07-2008 14:18

Excellent. Highly persuasive. As an Indian I very much dread the eventuality of such an attack which is threatened again and again.But the geo-political situation of Iran will make such an attack a global disaster. I commend this article.

http://jaina.in

Guest

balpatil@globaljains.comNOSPAM! ">Bal Patil

2. 13-07-2008 18:58

Middle-east politics is indeed complex, full of superficial alliances of expedience that swirl away into whirlpools and re-surface unpredictably on hidden under-currents. Aside from the strands of extreme religious passions there is also the basic character of the people driving the behavior of nations. Israel is like an attention-seeking child, so elated in a feverish pitch of excitement at being thrust by circumstances into the centre stage of world politics (obsessed with the former persecutions that won it\'s inception, world sympathy and world attention in a former stage of history) it could be capable of forgetting it\'s own safety in the performance of attention-seeking acts. Arab states, like arab people, can be driven by pride to acts and shows of bravado that cannot be matched in deed due to practical limitations - so typified by Saddam Hussein\'s games of brinkmanship with the US through two wars and 10 years of sanctions. Iran, the heart of the old persian empire is a mysterious unknown. The inner causes of outward acts don\'t seem to be easily determined. The transition from the Shah to the Ayatollahs also is not as simple as it looks on thesurface and assumptions of a consistent national identy through this transition (as seems implicit in Uri\' excellent analysis) are by no means certain. Just as the dichotomy of the will of the American people and their government (or should I say, those who own it\'s government) creates a quagmire of contradiction for anyone with \"single identity\" assumptions, so it is with Iran. During the Iran Hostage crisis the \"outrageous behavior\" of Iran in holding American hostages for over a year, which so inflamed the Anger of the US, was quietly encouraged in the end, as evidenced by meetings between Bush senior and Iranian officials with a view to ensuring the hostages were not released before a Regan election victory over Carter. The Iran-Contra affair of itself evidences that the US-Iran relationship is complex and no-one should make assumptions about \"who loves who\" in this cess-pool of intrigue and deceit at the centre of the world\'s primary source of riches and power.
Right now the Americans desperately need enemies. Most of the \"elite and favoured\" in the US who have the blessing of the owners of American capitalism are tied into the Industrial Military comples and without being able to justify the need for it (such as with a \"cold war\" or a \"war on terror\") these ugly megalamaniacs and their hangers-on have a credibility problem right at the foundations of the organisational structure of social order and control. A US-Iranian deal to string along the public (a gaggle of frighten chickens who may be deserving of their place in the chicken pies of the world) with a charade of powerful confrontation that serves their mutual interests. But people should not fail to recognise that the people who own western capitalism LOVE the idea of Islam. This extremely flat social structure that cedes ALL power (and with it all control of wealth and resources) to a privileged few. All over the world, through Indonesia, Africa, South America, (Australia :-)) the US has been aiding and abetting these FLAT social structures that allow easy, reliable, low-cost access to the resources of the countries dominated by the privileged elite. The only ball that everyone needs to be watching is access to resources. Or at least, if you\'re not interested in the slow (or not slow) death of of the planet that is taking place outside the stadium.

Registered

Allen L. Jasson

3. 14-07-2008 03:45

I have been saying the same thing for many months as the situation appeared to be escalating; there will be no attack. The author of this article mentions briefly the economic consequences of hundreds of dollars for a barrel of oil and a worldwide depression then moves on to further explore the military reality. However it may be instructive to linger on the economic implications for a moment longer while remembering some of the basic rules. The first rule is all wars are about money and there would be no profit in attacking Iran.

The dollar as reserve currency is being systematically destroyed and, although the public is asleep at the wheel, foreigners who hold trillions of dollars are already heading for the exits. This divestment of dollars will occur in any event but, should Iran be attacked, the subsequent tsunami of worthless dollars flowing back into the U.S. will crush us under its weight immediately. It would not simply be we common dolts who will suffer; Big Money would also take a terrible hit which brings us to the second rule; Big Money makes all the final decisions and they won\'t allow it to happen. They are already rather frantically attempting to hide the current economic devastation from investors and the public at least until after the election at which time they are going to make a serious attempt to blame the subsequent economic collapse upon Barack Obama. Make no mistake, Obama, like Hillary and John, were all chosen for us by the the same people they all work for; Big Money. Like Ben Bernanke, you have to assume if any of them really knew what they were doing, they wouldn\'t want the job.

A third, and very important, rule is those who are the most guilty must be able to create \'plausible lies\' to misdirect the public; to aim the public ire anywhere but in the correct direction. Should Iran be attacked the result would be beyond horrendous and there would be a gigantic red flashing arrow hanging in the air pointing directly at Washington, D.C. with the word \'neocons\' written on it. It is clear they would have no way of escaping responsibility for the total, international financial collapse that would ensue after such an idiotic and murderously illegal attack. Therefore, I completely agree with the author; it will not happen.

Guest

wolf1929@bellsouth.netNOSPAM! ">Billie Wolf

4. 15-07-2008 14:39

Logic.

Sir,
Your article is logical indeed.
Jabotinsky was logical according to your article.
The trouble is how does logic stand up against insanity.
The corporations were pulling Bush's strings, when he and his cronies denied global warming, then it was climate change, but nothing to do with mans activities.
The invasion of Iraq was about trying to gain control of the oil, the cat appears to be out of the bag it seems. The government appeared to be acting as an agency for 'military for hire' to the corporations, a sort of corporate enterprise.
The problem is the wisdom of the corporations who run the USA,is,it appears, to be overcome with insane greed.
The USA is spinning out of control, banks are failing now, where is there any corporate wisdom now. Too many fat noses in the national trough. The USA is very dangerous, a wounded giant.
Sir I hope you are right, but my gut feeling is that the national ego will bring the USA out swinging punches.

Mike

Registered

mike keenor

5. 16-07-2008 04:14

Logic.

Unfortunately, the look here is for the Middle East as is sensible. However, Bush and his Band of Thieves is not sensible, more like a bully on a rampage when the teacher's no longer present.
And look to history: the US was the first to use a nuclear weapon--and for no reason whatsoever than to prove to the Russians that it had a really fucking powerful weapon and wasn't at all worried about wiping out hundreds of thousands of innocent people to get what it wanted. And the US has continued in this mold.
You cannot talk sense to the senseless.

Guest

znzfqlxskj@gmail.comNOSPAM! ">jimsecor

Write Comment

Please keep the topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article. Personal verbal attacks will be deleted. Please don't use comments to plug your web site. Such material will be removed. Just ensure to Refresh your browser for a new security code to be displayed prior to clicking on the 'Send' button. Keep in mind that the above process only applies if you simply entered the wrong security code.
Name:
E-mail
Homepage
Title:
BBCode:
Comment:
Code:*
	I wish to be contacted by email regarding additional comments