Does Another War Loom?

I hesitate to post about this. Partly because it's been touted as happening on certain dates or at certain times for years now, and still nothing has been remotely done to indicate such an event will occur. And partly because I just can't bring myself to believe such a situation will happen, because not only is it going to be strategically impossible and hofficly stupid, but because it can open up some pretty terrible doors all its own.

I'm talking about Iran, of course. I'm talking about war.

It cannot be forgotten, the air of lies and deceit that surrounded this country over three years ago. So many people were captivated by the stories, the lies and the supposed need to liberate Iraq. I recall watching the bombing begin while sitting in a telecom classroom, my face a mirror of my classmates, consumed in awe. Very fitting, as it turns out, for the campaign was known as shock and awe. I had never seen anything remotely like it short of a movie screen. It was absolutely spell binding. Now, in 2006, the spell has been very clearly broken, and I can honestly say that I hope to never see something like that again. And I hope that my fears are just those, fears, and that I won't have to sit in front of my television and watch, a world away, as bombs fall, buildings crumble, and people die.

But are the pieces being moved to facilitate war with Iran? Is this country, due to its leadership and more behind the scenes, moving slowly forward to yet another, and quite probably, deadlier conflict in the Mid East? Some definitely think so:

Here's how it is being done: the key US strategy is to give the appearance of seeking a diplomatic solution, but simultaneously sabotaging the process by demanding that Iran give up its enrichment process as a precondition of talks. Acting State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos told a news conference, "We acknowledge that Iran considers its response [to the so-called 'incentives' proposal] as a serious offer, and we will review it. The response, however, falls short of the conditions set by the Security Council, which require the full and verifiable suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities." In other words, it doesn't matter what compromises are being proposed by Iran; as long as Iran fails to fully suspend its enrichment activities, the US will not engage in further talks.

-----

The hypocrisy of this position is remarkable. Why even have talks if, as a precondition of talks, Iran has to yield its entire position? What is there left to negotiate? One commentator told NPR radio that the threat of sanctions and military assault on Iran by the West is such a drastic alternative to talks, that it is unconscionable for the US to put such high preconditions on talks. He suspects that in indicates the US actually wants to make sure talks don't happen. He suspects the US is only building up the pretense for going to war.

Then to note, of course, is Israel's position, which as previously noted, is the forceful (yet bs, quite probably) position that they will be prepared to 'go it alone'. It seems now that the propaganda machine in that country is also being turned up a notch, gathering steam until it reaches full force:

But the other option is being touted more loudly, by more influential voices. Maj.-Gen. Yadlin warned: “If there won't be a [diplomatic] solution, the stance is that we must prepare to liberate the Golan through different means – there aren't many other ways. … Iran is using Syria as a giant weapons cache for Hizbullah.” (To drive the point home, a sidebar to this article in Yediot Aharonot is headlined: “Assad: We’ll liberate Golan Heights.”)

The Syria-Iran link is crucial to the picture painted by Israeli leaders: “Minister Rafi Eitan warned Tuesday that Israel should prepare for the possibility of a missile attack from Iran. ‘We are liable to face an Iranian missile attack. The Iranians have said very clearly that if they come under attack, their primary target would be Israel,’ Eitan, a member of the decision-making security cabinet, told Israel Radio. ‘We must prepare for what could come, and prepare the entire country for a missile strike attack.’

------

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is playing this card in his bid to replace Olmert. “Every living thing must do two things in order to survive: it must identify dangers and it must arm itself sufficiently to protect itself from these dangers,” Netanyahu recently said. He cast himself as a follower of the founder of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, who “saw the burning coals of anti-Semitism and understood that there was a threat of a fire that would threaten the Jews of Europe and eventually the Jews of the rest of the world. Today I say: we are standing before a grave danger. A new potential fire threatens our people. … Since Hitler, there has not risen such a bitter enemy as Iran's president, Ahmadinejad, who openly declares his desire to annihilate us and his development of nuclear weapons in order to carry out this desire.”

I'd like to point out that, as with Iraq, there is no real evidence Iran is developing nuculear arms. Instead, it is pursuing the ability to provide energy for the country and its people. Iran went ahead and opened a facility, a plant that produces heavy water. Some would want everyone to believe this plant would give Iran the capability to make nuculear weapons (and then, you know, destroy Israel, destroy America, destroy the world, blah blah) but that's just not realistically the case. As WHR points out:

Heavy Water Reactors are special case reactors. Because of the low absorption of heavy water (used as a moderator in the primary loop to carry heat to the steam generator) such a reactor can create more of the varied isotopes used in the medical, agricultural, and industrial needs. The fuel used in a Heavy Water Reactor needs even less enrichment than that in a conventional light water reactor. So what we have here is a reactor designed to use LESS enriched uranium which has been the main focus of US efforts to provoke a war with Iran.

As a side note, both the US and Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which authorizes signing nations to use nuclear reactors for power generation and to process the fuel for those reactors. Iran is within its rights under international law to build power reactors and fuel them. In attempting to rescind that right, the United States is now in violation of that treaty.

The warhawks will scream that Heavy Water Reactors are more efficient at making plutonium, which is a key ingredient of implosion type nuclear weapons. However, to recover the plutonium from the spent reactor fuel requires a processing plant as complex and large (and observable) as a weapons-grade uranium enrichment plant, i.e. 16,000 centrifuges in a cascade in a plant covering 700 acres of ground. As of this writing, Iran's agreement with Russia under which the reactor was constructed is that fuel rods are returned to Russia for processing.

In summary, what Iran is doing is exactly what it is allowed to do under treaty the US has signed. As was the case with Iraq, claims that nuclear weapons are being built are undocumented and unproven. There is no evidence that Iran is doing anything other than building power stations.

And, unlike Iraq, which was invaded by a 'coalition of the willing', there are quite a few key players in this global scheme who would be very, very upset with any destabilization in Iran. Most notably, Russia and China. It would be wise not to under-estimate their presence in the situation:

The reply seemed designed to crack the ramshackle united front of four Western powers and Russia and China behind the U.N. Security Council deadline. The West sees Iran's nuclear work as a looming threat to peace. Russia and China do not.

"I know of no instances in world practice and previous experience in which sanctions have achieved their aim and proved effective," Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov told reporters during a trip to Russia's far east

-------

Some analysts believe that widespread anger in the Arab and Muslim worlds over Washington's perceived slowness to push Israel into a ceasefire with Hizbollah could erode support in the 15-member Security Council for a showdown with Iran.

"The strongest motivation to give talks a chance seems to be the international community's lack of appetite for a fourth conflict in the Middle East," said Trita Parsi, a U.S.-based Iranian author and commentator.

Russia, which is building Iran's first nuclear power plant, has traditionally argued that sanctions would not work.

Russia and China, also long averse to sanctions as a policy tool, have major energy and investment stakes with Iran and could veto sanctions in the Security Council.

With such high stakes in Iran, how would China and Russia react to military intervention, especially in the aftermath of Iraq, which have decimated that country on so many levels. More so, with Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Lebanon showing so many more negatives than positives, who in their right mind would push for a 'fourth war' in the Mid East so soon, if at all? Europe and others have made it clear, at least quietly and out of the spotlight, that they are more than shying away from yet another failed conflict. Russia and China are standing firm against Western thought processes. And yet Israel feeds the fire, and Bush and Co here continue to slowly shift pieces on the global chess board. And I haven't even touched on some things, specifically the fact we lack the forces to do this on the ground, among other issues.

So what happens next? Who knows. Hopefully talks continue, a diplomatic solution is reached, and things stay stable enough until the warhawk is removed from office (forcibly or when his term ends). Realisticly, however, it may be much dire, much darker times ahead.