As the clash between the US and Israel on the one hand and Iran on the other reaches a critical level, the powers that be have been desperately at work spinning a web of deception that may take the already war-exhausted Americans into the military conflict of the century, a confrontation that could eventually escalate into World War III.
“They will not close it… They will not be allowed to close it,” declared Vice Admiral Kevin J. Cosgriff at a Monday press conference in Bahrain.
The closure by Iranians of the Strait of Hormuz constitutes an “act of war” and would “not be an action against the United States but against the international community”, continued the commander of the US Navy 5th Fleet.
But little did the respected Vice Admiral know that the morally bankrupt echelons in Washington and the siege-mentality-enduring people of means had plans for him and his fleet.
PAX AMERICANA
The scheme gained momentum, perhaps, on May 21, when Haaretz reported that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert suggested in an over-lunch conversation with US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in Israel that a naval blockade be imposed on Iran.
“The present economic sanctions on Iran have exhausted themselves,” an under-fire Olmert told the Democratic heavyweight Pelosi, who was joined by 12 bipartisan Members of Congress.
According to the Israeli newspaper, the desperate-to-be-redeemed prime minister proposed two possible courses of action during the meeting: first, the imposition of a naval blockade on Iran using a US fleet, and second to prohibit the entry of Iranian aircraft, businesspeople and top officials at all world airports.
“Iranian businesspeople who would not be able to land anywhere in the world would pressure the regime,” opined the corruption-scandal-implicated politician.
While Nancy Pelosi on May 22 denied having any such conversation in Israel, that same day the notorious Resolution 362 found its way into the US Congress.
Present at the luncheon in Israel, bill sponsor Democrat Gary Ackerman demonstrated his unwavering support for the principles of Zionism, as the bill indirectly puts into play the controversial requests of the Israeli premier.
The bill’s key section “demands” that the president, among other things, make strenuous efforts, “prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program”.
Considering that Article One, Section Eight of the US Constitution says “Congress shall have power to … declare war” but does not specify how legislation text should be worded to be considered a “Declaration of War”, Resolution 362 can, and probably will, be construed by an already power-abusive President George W. Bush and his team of lawyers as a congressional “demand” for imposing a naval blockade on Iran.
Resolution 362 is, thus, a supposedly innocent way on the part of America of provoking hostility by necessitating the imposition of a blockade on all ships “entering and departing Iran… [and] prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products”.
While a naval blockade may be seen as acceptable to US politicians, it constitutes an act of war for Iran and will lawfully justify a response from Tehran.
The Western media will then plaster the headline America under attack! on the front page of all newspapers; Washington will portray Iran’s defense as an act of aggression and will easily manage to convince Americans that a swift victory is achievable by waging all-out war on the country under the pretext of the War on Terror.
But how does Israel ensure that a piece of legislation of such caliber is approved?
Lobbying began! The most powerful Zionist lobby, American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), convened on June 2-4 and declared its full-throated support for the bill, the approval of which has become its chief legislative priority. Some 80 Congressmen co-sponsored Resolution 362 in the three-day period.
On June 4, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was pressing for his cause in America, attempting to drum up further US support for “the need to vanquish the Iranian threat”.
“We reached agreement on the need to take care of the Iranian threat,” said Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert after his 90-minute meeting with President Bush in the White House.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (L), US President George W. Bush
|
“I left with a lot less questions… regarding the means, the timetable restrictions and American resoluteness to deal with the problem. George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian threat and the need to vanquish it and intends to act on the matter before the end of his term in the White House,” heralded he whose mission had been accomplished.
A member of Olmert’s delegation said the same day that Tel Aviv and Washington had agreed to cooperate in case of an attack by Iran, asserting that “the meetings focused on ‘operational matters’ pertaining to the Iranian threat.”
The annual AIPAC policy conference and Olmert’s trip to the White House had, indeed, gone well. Congress once again capitulated to the humiliation of falling in line with the demands of the Israeli lobby.
As of July 1, House Resolution 362 (and the Senate version Resolution 580), known as the ‘Iran War Resolution’, enjoys 220 co-sponsors in the House and 32 in the Senate and will be put to vote in the coming days.
ISRAEL PAVES THE WAY FOR WAR
In early June, perhaps coinciding with Olmert’s trip to the US, Israel conducted a military maneuver over the eastern Mediterranean and Greece in what Pentagon officials have suggested to be in preparation for a war with Iran.
Israeli jets
|
Over 100 Israeli F-16s and F-15s partook in the exercise, which spanned some 900 miles, roughly the distance between their airfields and a nuclear enrichment facility in the central Iranian city of Natanz.
An Israeli politician familiar with the Air Force initiative said that Iranians should “read the writing on the wall . . . This was a dress rehearsal, and the Iranians should read the script before they continue with their program for nuclear weapons.”
On June 6, reportedly a day after the unpublicized exercise ended, Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz, who hopes to succeed Olmert as the next prime minister, described a war with Iran as “unavoidable” and threatened to wage war on Iran if the country fails to halt its nuclear activities.
His tactless remarks, while tacitly justified by the media as an attempt to win approval for future elections, have sparked a war of words between Tehran and Tel Aviv and have somewhat benefited Israel in its portrayal of Iran as a threat before the docile US Congress to secure the approval of Resolution 362.
Iran almost instantly urged UN Security Council action against Israel, saying the inaction of the United Nations over Israeli atrocities has emboldened Tel Aviv to such an extent that it now publicly threatens Iran in flagrant violation of the UN Charter.
“Iran’s Armed Forces have reached a pinnacle of their military might and if anyone is to take such measures (attacks Iran), the response will be excruciating,” responded Iranian Defense Minister Brigadier General Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar.
Israel later played down the threats but fired back by using a harsher rhetoric suggestive of a nuke attack on Iran. “We must tell them: If you so much as dream of attacking Israel, before you even finish dreaming there won’t be an Iran anymore,” Israeli Infrastructure Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer told the Israeli public radio June 7 without elaborating on why he believed Tehran would ever attack Tel Aviv.
“Iran should know the price it will have to pay when it begins to think concretely about attacking Israel,” he continued in a direct attempt to represent Tehran as the aggressor.
Israel later ramped up its anti-Iran “operational” activities. On June 10, Israeli sources revealed that Tel Aviv had set up an ‘Iran Command’ within its Air Force as part of preparations for a war on the Islamic Republic.
The Command was said to be directed at improving coordination among Israeli ballistic missiles and air and missile brigades that deploy the Arrow and Patriot missile systems. That very day, Congress threw more of its weight behind Israel.
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki commented on the issue. He argued that Israel “lacks legitimacy” and has already been defeated not by “a modernized army” but by “a resistance group” in its 33-day war against Lebanon, suggesting that Tel Aviv should not be taken seriously.
REPAIRING THE BUSH IMAGE
Exposed to fierce criticism because of his feckless attitude before 9/11 as well as his deplorable performance in handling the unconstitutional invasion of Iraq, a frowned-upon George W. Bush admitted to The Times on June 11 that his gun-slinging rhetoric had made the world believe that he was a “guy really anxious for war”.
While defending his decision to invade Iraq, the man infamous for his use of such phrases as “bring them on” and “dead or alive” said, “Look, I think that in retrospect, you know, I could have used a different tone.”
His confession that people saw him as “you know, not a man of peace” signaled a shift in the Bush administration policy on Iran.
Comments were made less often about the option of launching a military strike on Iranian nuclear sites and, when mentioned, the word “diplomacy” was almost always integrated into the same sentence in one form or another.
“All options remain on the table if diplomacy fails to get Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to abandon Iran’s uranium-enrichment program,” said Bush in a June 15 interview with the Observer.
However, the president’s rhetoric grew more intense as he became more inclined to associate Iran to the War on Terror.
“My message would be: Stop fooling around with the Iranians and stop harboring terrorists,” said Bush on June 14.
“I would like to say one thing about the Iranian demand for civilian nuclear power, it is a justifiable demand… Iranians must understand all options are on the table however,” said Bush on June 16 in London in clarification of the price of “civilian nuclear power”.
Israel and the White House have even lent a helping hand in improving the Bush image. A June 13 report published by DEBKAfile, a website believed to have links with the Israeli military and intelligence agency, stated that Bush is clearly bidding farewell to the option of a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.
“They can either face isolation or they can have better relations with us all. No third option, of a punishing military strike, was mentioned,” the website reported.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino also touched on the issue.
“President Bush believes that we can solve this issue (Iran’s nuclear program) diplomatically, and that everyone’s preference is to solve it diplomatically, not just here in the United States but with our allies and certainly with Israel,” she claimed June 25.
But why would an outgoing neocon president with nothing to lose suddenly shift policy and claim to push for diplomacy with Iran? Is there any other way to make an Iranian retaliation against the peace-loving American forces blockading the Persian Gulf look more innocent? Could it be that an apparently unknowing Bush will one day justify a possible provocation by saying we tried diplomacy but to no avail?
Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgriff
|
ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE
“We will not allow Iran to close it,” threatens Vice-Admiral Kevin J. Cosgriff of the 5th Fleet. “The US Navy has been in the region for 60 years and will be here for decades to come.”
He was responding to remarks made by commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), Major General Mohammad-Ali Jafari, who was asked whether Tehran would consider closing the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz waterway if it were attacked.
Top IRGC commander, Mohammad-Ali Jafari
|
“When a country comes under attack, it naturally uses all its capacities to confront the enemy,” said the Iranian commander.
It does seem silly, however, and somewhat insane that despite the cavernous archives of Washington acts of aggression against sovereign nations, their countless years of meddling in Iran, their coup d’état against Mossadeq, their support for the oppressive Shah, their unapologetic downing of passenger flight 655, their long-time support for and funding of terrorist groups such as the Mojaheddin Khalq Organization (MKO) and Jundullah in hopes of destabilizing the country and their cruel efforts to arm late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction to use against Iranian and Iraqi civilians, an American Vice Admiral even has the gall to say that an Iranian attempt to protect their sovereignty against a gang of aggressor countries attacking them in violation of the UN Charter would be considered by the world as an act of holding 40 percent of world oil “hostage” by “a single country”.
Yes, indeed, America does have a 60-year history of brazen imperialism in the Middle East and “will be here for decades to come”. That must be why Bush says the Iranian threat must be dealt with.
A military strike on Iran will not be the easy hit-and-run job Americans expect it to be, though. According to US Vice-Admiral Cosgriff, it will be “pretty disastrous,” with “echoes and aftershocks” reverberating throughout the region.
As waves of US and Israeli fighter jets scream over the country, Iranian missile defense systems will load the skies, downing an overwhelming number of high-tech aircraft. According to Western media outlets, while the violators will be able to accomplish parts of their mission, there is the prospect of retaliatory attacks on US military bases and American forces stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. If correct, scores of US soldiers may be vanquished in a relatively short time.
Sharp-shooting pilots will dice with death to repel US warships and kamikaze missions may commence against US naval forces in the Persian Gulf. The military will respond to Israeli airstrikes with missile attacks never seen before in Israel.
Harking back to the eight-year war imposed upon Iran by a US-backed Saddam (1980-88), the spirit of the sovereign nation that has never accepted foreign domination will be revitalized. The American strategists will be thoroughly bewildered by the courageous missions carried out by those who love Iran despite its hardships.
As with the US-led siege on Iraq and Afghanistan, demonstrators will take to the streets all around the world; Washington will be the scene of violence as the White House justifies the move under the guise of the War on Terror.
Opposition to the war will be evident in Arab countries throughout the already volatile Middle East and some nations may intervene, wreaking further havoc. The ensuing battles could easily close the 21-mile Strait of Hormuz chokepoint, cutting crude exports from the oil-rich Persian Gulf.
As the war of attrition continues, it has been suggested by international analysts that Latin American countries that have long suffered because of US interference may halt oil exports to the US in condemnation of the aggression, thus triggering massive oil spikes.
According to predictions by Rice University economists, oil prices may surge to $200 a barrel in the next year which would mean Americans will have to pay $6.64 per gallon for gasoline. Pundits, however, say a war on Iran will double or triple crude prices.
The already weak US economy could, if the war persists, assume the burden of $10-a-gallon gasoline and could plunge into an unprecedented depression. The fuel shortage will prompt an increase in biofuel farming. Hundreds of millions worldwide could have nothing to eat; high fuel prices would lead to a surge in farming costs and may further deepen the food crisis. Riots could ensue. The world will never be the same.
www.insight-info.com
Abufazl 