Opinion | Columnists
US is walking on a war line
Bush's use of the term 'nuclear holocaust' could be his way of preparing Americans, and the rest of the world, for an attack on Iran.
- By Manal Alafrangi, Staff Writer
- Published: 00:37 September 4, 2007
What is happening with the US and Iran? Each day, there is news being leaked of a new study or even presidential speeches warning us of a possible war if Iran doesn't adhere to American diktats.
One thing is for sure: the days of subtle messages are over for the two countries, are now openly "teasing" one another, sometimes in a manner better suited for comedians and entertainers than presidents of influential nations.
Two weeks ago, US President George W. Bush set America inexorably on a path to the next war by declaring in his speech, "Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust."
Bush's use of the term "nuclear holocaust" could be his way of preparing Americans, and the rest of the world, for an attack on Iran. Optimists are hoping his language is more of a warning to the Islamic Republic to try to push it to surrender its nuclear project than actual strategy.
The question that is looming in the media is this: Is Bush set on a confrontation course with Iran that will culminate in a bombing campaign to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities? The answer is yes, according to Britain's Sunday Times which, in an article published on September 2, said: "The Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive air strikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians' military capability in three days, according to a national security expert." Now, that is a very big clue that war is looming.
Then we have French President Nicolas Sarkozy taking over the role of former British prime minister Tony Blair and telling his people - upon his return from Washington - that Iran could be attacked militarily if it doesn't give up its nuclear aspirations. It is clear France's foreign policy is being re-shaped when the newly-elected French president cuts his summer break short to meet the American president.
We already knew that US Vice-President Dick Cheney was in favour of using force against Iran. As he stands alone and unchallenged in the US cabinet, he has regained the upper hand over Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defence Secretary Robert Gates, who both favour diplomacy and sanctions in dealing with Iran.
Provocative
The decision by this administration to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), an integral part of the armed forces of a sovereign state, a "terrorist organisation" is reminiscent of America's war of words against Iraq's former Republican Guard. It is provocative and aimed at stirring feelings of anger amongst Iranians. And let's not forget that for some time now, the US has been blaming the deaths of its occupying soldiers in Iraq on Iranian bombs and missiles and it has also accused Tehran of supporting the "insurgency" in Iraq, including Al Qaida.
In sharp contrast, we have the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reporting last week that there was "significant" cooperation with Iran over its nuclear programme, which only encompasses developing civilian nuclear power. Just two days ago, in an attempt to divert pressure on his country, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that Iran has met a key target for its nuclear programme and now has 3,000 centrifuges enriching uranium.
This announcement is likely to have been driven by political considerations. Some say it is not even scientifically precise.
Bush seems to think that it will be "wise" to use overwhelming and sudden force on Iran should he choose to attack the country. On the other hand, Israel has publicly warned that should the US back down from attacking Iran, it has made its own preparations for airstrikes. If nothing, this statement by itself paints an alarming future for the region.
The West, led by the US, is being plainly hypocritical in punishing Iran for a law it has not broken with regards to its nuclear project. Bush speaks of how "dangerous" Iran is, as though he has solid evidence of Iran producing nuclear weapons, which is simply not true.
One thing is for sure, we in the region, seem to interpret American performance in Iraq as a complete failure. True but as far as the decision-makers in Washington are concerned, the US has succeeded in terms of inflaming regional divisions and keeping Iraq weak and destabilised. That is also very true.
Opinion Editor's choice
-
Russia ties itself to Al Assad
By Francis Matthew, Editor at Large
Moscow's and Beijing's veto of UN resolution may lead to international action outside the body's supervision
-
Can the Free Syrian Army succeed?
By Joseph A. Kechichian, Special to Gulf News
Rebel forces need brigade-sized defections, heavy weaponry and better coordination to defeat Al Assad's forces
-
It's all about the money
By George S. Hishmeh, Special to Gulf News
Sheer magnitude of campaign donations received by both Republicans and Democrats reveals the influence of wealthy lobbies in Washington
Your turn
