Is the United States going to bomb Iran in an effort to prevent the Iranians from acquiring nuclear weapons? The weakness of the current administration, the unpopularity of an American preemptive strike in Europe and the Middle East, are among the factors arguing against such an event. Those who've shouted loudest about American imperialism and the wickedness of the current administration have nonetheless circulated rumors and scenarios in which an American strike appears imminent. We see the rumors of October 2006 repeated, with new details. Former CIA operatives mumble incoherently about attack plans, French journalists have the inside skinny, and Dick Cheney now plays the Prince of Darkness. The old tired script, with coffee stains and rewritten dialogue, is pushed forward once again. But will a U.S. attack on Iran finally materialize?
The United States is clearly making war preparations against Iran. Does this mean the Bush administration is going to attack? Not necessarily. Building a credible threat is a good negotiating strategy. Unfortunately negotiations have failed. The Iranians aren't budging, and the smart analyst with his finger on the Islamist pulse can say without fear of contradiction that Iran isn't giving up its nuclear ambition. The Iranian leaders are determined to make nuclear weapons. They are determined to become a nuclear threat. Europe and America cannot talk them out of it.
Add to this the fact that George Bush has become a very weak president, a very unpopular leader, and his standing around the globe is lower than it is at home. While people in many countries still admire the United States or like Americans they can be heard to say how much they hate President Bush. In the Middle East, the Iraq adventure has upset important allies like Turkey and Saudi Arabia. European allies have also expressed annoyance. The Iraq invasion introduced fresh problems to a region already flush with problem. Adding yet another straw to the camel's back, a war with Iran would further extend the turmoil. It may not be understood, as yet, the extent to which such a widening may burst open Asia itself. This has to do with the more sinister strategies of China and Russia.
Given the weakness of the Bush presidency, and the many factors constraining the administration from an attack on Iran, the Israelis may take up the cudgel and launch their own preemptive attack. Less capable of doing a thorough job, the Israelis can nonetheless cause serious damage to Iran's nuclear infrastructure. This is the more likely scenario as time advances and negotiations prove futile. The best Iranian strategy, in this event, would be to launch immediate strikes against U.S. ships at sea and ground forces in Iraq. By retaliating against U.S. targets the Iranians would naturally bring Israel and the United States together, on the same side, in a series of connected military engagements. The Israelis and the Americans would be seen as operating together in a nefarious plot against the Islamic Nation. This could have a powerful and electrifying effect on the entire region.
If anti-American sentiment were ignited in this fashion, if the Islamic imagination were sufficiently stirred by mixing Israeli with American forces on the same side against the same Islamic country, key states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia might not remain reliable allies. A further destabilization of the region could be expected. The Iranians might also attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz through which 40 percent of the West's oil flows. As Iran's supreme leader, Seyyed Ali Khamenei has stated: "If the Americans make a wrong move toward Iran, the shipment of energy will definitely face danger, and the Americans would not be able to protect energy supply in the region."
With all the rumors of war with Iran, the question may not boil down to any specific U.S. intent to launch a preemptive strike. A war can break out without any U.S. action. The Iranians could initiate an action on their own account. The Israelis may launch a strike as they have threatened to do so in the past. The consequences are essentially the same for the United States either way. A wider war would begin and U.S. forces would remain fixed in the Middle East.
How is this outcome to be avoided?
Conflict between two different ways of life, between two civilizations, may be inevitable if we accept the notion that Iran represents the Islamic Civilization and America represents Western Civilization. The Iranians argue the case that their civilization deserves the advantage of nuclear weaponry. Why should the West have a veto power over Iranian armaments? The Americans, British, French and Israelis fear a nuclear Iran because they fear the radical nature of Islamic religious thinking. It is evident, at first blush, that neither side can admit the other's argument. The Iranians cannot accept that their religious makes them unfit for holding nuclear weapons. At the same time, the West (especially Israel) fears a nuclear-armed Iran.
Is the West arrogant for seeking to withhold nuclear technology from the Iranians? In the final analysis what matters is the fact of impending conflict. In this matter, even if the Americans are paralyzed and unable to attack Iran, the Israelis look back to Hitler and the Holocaust and see no choice. They must launch a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. The logic of the Israeli side must be obvious to everyone. Therefore, a serious military and economic crisis must follow.
We should not expect a peaceful solution.
