The Next World War Starts in Iran

By Mike Whitney

"We consider that it would be counter-productive and dangerous to use
force, the serious consequences of which would be barely predictable."
warning from the Russian Foreign Ministry to the Bush Administration about
prospective plans to attack Iran

There’s only one thing that Americans need to remember when the read
about the standoff between the Bush administration and Iran. There is no
evidence whatsoever that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. But, don’t take
my word for it. That is the conclusion of Mohammed El Baradei, the chief of
the UN’s watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency; the most
respected nuclear investigative agency in the world today.

After conducting 2 years of the most rigorous "go anywhere, see anything"
investigations, the agency gave Iran a clean bill of health.
No nukes! Not now, not ever!

We should recall that it was the IAEA headed by El Baradei that warned
the US that Saddam did not have a nuclear weapons program, and tried to save
the Bush administration the embarrassment of attacking an unarmed country.
That didn’t work. As we know now the intelligence was “fixed” to fit the
policy, and the policy was aggression.

With that tragedy in mind, we should not allow ourselves to be duped by
the propaganda that passes as news in the US. We must continue to remind
ourselves over and over again; there is no evidence that Iran has a nuclear
weapons program.

None, Nada, Zippo!

This is not a detail that you should expect to see in the western media.
Of the hundreds of articles I’ve combed through on Iran only 1% to 2% even
casually mention this salient fact. The reasons for this are fairly obvious
to those who watched the media carefully build the case for war with Iraq
based entirely on false information. We don’t need to go over that appalling
story here. We simply need to recognize that the media to large extent has
been successfully “embedded” into the political establishment and operates
in the interests of ownership. If the elites who control our “privately”
owned media want war, you can bet that there will be a torrent of
cleverly-written articles supporting that effort.

That, in fact, is what is happening with Iran today.
Two major stories appeared this week connecting Iran to the IED
(roadside bombs) that are killing American servicemen in Iraq. One story was
in Time magazine by Michael Ware and seemed reasonably credible except that
none of the information could be reliably proved.

Is this simply more disinformation used to pave the way for war?
It certainly merges nicely with Rumsfeld’s claims that Iran is involved
in the insurgency, but it, in many respects, it completely defies logic.
Why would Iranian Shia’ support Sunnis in their quest to retake power?
Iran already has “their guy” al Jaffari in the top spot so why rock the
boat?

This question is never seriously addressed in either article, which
leads us to suspect that there may be ulterior motives.

The Bush Administration has never backed away from its original goal of
“regime change” in Iran, so we must assume that the reports of ethnic
disturbances in Iran’s Ahwaz province are probably instigated by either the
CIA or surrogates in the various Iranian dissident groups acting on behalf
of the Bush administration. The Iranian government claims to have captured
suspects of these regional uprisings and have said that they have solid
proof that they are supported by the US.

The most prominent of these groups is the Mujahidin Klaq (MEK) a group
that is still on the US State Depts. list of terrorist organizations even
though they receive direct funding and support from the US government.
According to Seymour Hersh the MEK and other organizations have been sent
back into Iran to foment revolution or carry out covert operations.
Certainly no one is surprised by this given the administration’s open
hostility towards the current Islamic regime. The fact that the “ethnic
strife” is taking place in oil-rich Ahwaz province, however, is interesting.
We can be reasonably certain that the US does not plan to occupy all of Iran
if there is a war.

Can we be equally certain that the administration strategy isn’t simply
to annex the primary oil producing region and bomb the main chemical,
biological and conventional weapons sites across the country at the same
time?

That way, the US would control the oil, eliminate Iran as a
regional-military rival to Israel, and avoid the pitfalls of a massive
occupation.

Game; Set; Match.

There are potential hazards to Washington’s prospective plan. For one
thing, Iran has violated none of its agreements under the current NPT
(Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty) so, there is no reason for the IAEA to
refer the case to the UN Security Council and no cause for punitive action.
Iran is allowed to convert uranium under the NPT if it is carefully
monitored by the watchdog agency and if it is used strictly for peaceful
purposes. The conversion process does not produce weapons-grade enriched
uranium, which can be used in nuclear weapons, but a milder form that can be
used in nuclear power plants. If there are any violations to this regimen,
the IAEA is required to report them immediately to the Security Council.
So, we can see that the US is just ratcheting up the pressure in the
media to make it appear as though the EU supports the hard-line policies of
the Bush administration and is willing to support their position before the
UNSC.

The EU, of course, is simply being bullied by the administration and
trying to avoid the impending conflict.

Another possible drawback to the Bush strategy is the sudden and
unexpected insertion of Russia into the standoff. Last week Russia cautioned
the US against considering the use of force with Iran. The Russian foreign
ministry issued a statement saying, “We consider that it would be
counter-productive and dangerous to use force, the serious consequences of
which would be barely predictable."

Russia’s statement was predictably oblique, but the message is clear;
Russia will not allow Iran to go the way of Iraq. Not surprisingly, this
veiled-threat of Russian retaliation did not appear in any newspaper in the
United States. It simply wouldn’t due to have the American public know that
the administration was risking nuclear holocaust to further its interests in
the region.

When I wrote my first article on this topic 2 weeks ago ("Why Iran will
lead to World War 3) very few readers took the possibility seriously. Since
then, the more-insightful political analyst Paul Craig Roberts added his
voice to the fray with his article “Get Ready for WW 3”. This new statement
from the Russian foreign ministry should demonstrate that we may be closer
to the brink then anyone had imagined.

The UN and the EU need to convene meetings immediately on the likelihood
of an American attack on Iran and issue an unambiguous statement that any
military action taken on the part of the United States or Israel without
Security Council approval will be taken as a direct assault on the rest of
the international community an a tacit declaration of world war. This is no
time for equivocating or backpedaling. World leaders need to rise to the
occasion and perform their duties. As we know from Iraq, if Washington is
planning for war, it won’t be easily deterred.

http://tinyurl.com/8w2hf