[NYTr] Deadly Merry-go-Round: Bush Regime Talking Itself Into War with Iran

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

Counterpunch - Nov 3, 2007
http://www.counterpunch.org/fantina11032007.html

The Deadly Merry-Go Round

Is the Bush Administration Talking Itself Into a War With Iran?

By ROBERT FANTINA

The U.S. government appears to be caught in a vicious cycle of its own
making. It can still be stopped, but before long that option will have
disappeared like a city in a cloud of nuclear dust.

A look at the facts is all that is required to see this situation. In
2003, President Bush invaded Iraq, claiming that that country had
weapons of mass destruction, was close to developing nuclear weapons
and therefore presented an 'imminent threat' to the United States.
Against the advice of trusted allies, the United Nation and millions of
Americans, Mr. Bush, from the safety of the White House, sent tens of
thousands of dedicated soldiers to kill and die in Iraq. Apparently,
but not surely, to Mr. Bush's surprise, there were no weapons of mass
destruction, no nuclear devices being prepared and therefore no threat
to the United States. Iraq was left in a state of civil war, its
infrastructure destroyed and its people suffering worse than they ever
did under the now-deposed Saddam Hussein. Terrorist activity in and
from that nation has skyrocketed. And the war continues.

Now Mr. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice and others are all accusing Iran of developing nuclear
weapons. Mr. Bush has even gone so far as to propose defense systems be
installed in eastern European countries, much to the
entirely-justifiable consternation of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Mr. Putin stated that it appears as if Mr. Bush is attempting to
resurrect the Cold War, that nearly fifty-year period during which the
U.S. and the Soviet Union were engaged in fierce competition to outdo
each other in weapons and public relations. It took the courage and
foresight of Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev to take the lead in
ending this dangerous period during and following a summit with
President Ronald Reagan.

Congress, complicit in all of Mr. Bush's crimes to date, seems to once
again be an all-to-willing accomplice. From declaring Iran's Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization to stepping up the
rhetoric on Iran in general, there seems to be little need for
additional evidence that either the members of Congress are incapable
of learning from their past mistakes, or fear appearing 'soft' on
terrorism. So the U.S. marches almost inevitably off to war with Iran.

What must Iran's response be to these actions? After having witnessed
the carnage reaped by the U.S. on their neighbor, Iraq, would one
expect Iran to wait around to experience the same fate? Or might one
reasonably expect that Iran would increase its weapons production,
including either starting or accelerating a nuclear program, in order
to protect its 70,000,000 citizens? As Iran does so, the U.S. points
its self-righteous finger at it and says "See? We told you so!" And
Congress's lemming-like members can all agree. "You see," they may say,
"we were wrong about Iraq, but we were right about Iran. Don't go
calling us soft on terror."

So what is wrong with this picture? One can consider another, far less
likely scenario. Mr. Bush blathers away about Iran (one cannot expect
him to stop), but cooler heads prevail in Congress. There is no
resolution naming the Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist
organization. Talk by Mr. Bush of defense missiles based in Europe are
given scant attention by the Congress that must fund them; they are
dismissed as the simple ramblings of a desperate, lame-duck president.
Mr. Putin, at first alarmed by Mr. Bush's statements, recognizes that
his proposals have no support in Congress, and makes a passing remark
that Mr. Bush should somehow bring himself into the twenty-first
century, and comments no more on the matter.

With the U.S. busy with the civil war in Iraq, and Mr. Bush alone
ranting and raving about Iran with no one of any consequence listening,
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can worry about the economic and
other concerns of his people without needing to worry about being the
next target of violent U.S. imperialism. He has no need to take a
defensive posture against the U.S. because the U.S. is not harassing
him in any way.

So there is no spiral, because there is nothing to give it impetus.
Unfortunately, this scenario is a fairy tale.

In its most basic form, the following appears to be what is happening:

    Iraq is in civil war, its people dying by the hundreds of
thousands, all caused by the U.S. invasion and continually worsened by
U.S. presence.

    Mr. Bush proclaims that Iran is now a threat to the U.S.

    Iran, seeing what happened to Iraq, prepares to defend its people.

    Mr. Bush sees Iran's preparations, and claims he was right all
along, and that Iran is a threat to the U.S., and proposes missile
sites in Eastern Europe.

    Mr. Putin, having watched the increasingly dangerous Mr. Bush for
years, says his lunacy has gone far enough, and opposes the missile
sites.

    Mr. Ahmandinejad watches the increasing tension between his ally,
Russia, and his enemy (and Russia's ally), the U.S., and accelerates
his measures to protect Iran.

    Mr. Bush sees Iran's increased efforts, frequently in the form of
support for Iraq's freedom fighters, and issues sanctions against Iran.

    Iran suffers as a result of these sanctions, and takes additional
steps to prepare for war.

    Mr. Bush can now proclaim that Iran is preparing for war.

    Ms. Rice stated this week that Iran poses "perhaps the single
greatest challenge" to U.S. security. She further stated, if you
please, that the U.S. wanted to resolve this crisis, one of the U.S.'s
making, through diplomatic means. Why she wasn't making such
commitments four and a half years ago is anybody's guess. But she kept
the war-mongering rhetoric high. Said she: "If they (Iran) choose to
continue down a path of confrontation, the U.S. will act with the
international community to resist these threats of the Iranian regime."

It appears that it is the U.S. that is continuing 'down a path of
confrontation,' and one can hardly expect the 'international community'
to provide much more support to Mr. Bush's invasion of Iran than it did
his invasion of Iraq. Indeed, many nations who bought into that earlier
folly may be difficult to persuade to follow the U.S. down that dead
end road again.

But it appears increasingly likely that Congress will not hesitate to
buy the same farm it purchased lock, stock and barrel five years ago.
In order to protect U.S. interests from the next imaginary threat, more
Americans will die, and another country in the Middle East will be
reduced to ashes. If at least 1,000,000 of Iraq's 25,000,000 citizens
have died since Mr. Bush's invasion, how many of the 70,000,000
Iranians will experience horrific deaths long before their time?
Congress can stop this from happening, but there is nothing to suggest
that the members of that august body, elected to end the Iraqi war,
will prevent the next one from occurring. Mr. Bush, when he leaves
office in January of 2009, will leave behind a bloody legacy, and three
disastrous wars. The consequences for the U.S. and the world are beyond
comprehension.

[Robert Fantina is author of 'Desertion and the American Soldier:
1776--2006.']