A Big Lie Called the Iran War
Published in Al Ahram
(Egypt) on 29 October 2012
by Hani Asal (link to original)
Logic tells us that wars, revolutions, coups and natural disasters are not announced ahead of time. Historical facts confirm that the United States, specifically, is not strong enough to enter a war now and endure its results.
This pattern has been repeated throughout the past two years: America threatens and then backs down and resorts to diplomacy, Europe talks about sanctions and Israel confirms it will be the party that begins the war. Iran replies that any attack on it will be met with a decisive and destructive response. Thus, talk of war does not outweigh any other talk among the countries of the region. The price of oil ($115 per barrel currently) is rising insanely, as we’ve seen, because of the frequency of talks about stopping the Gulf’s petrol supply and closing the Strait of Hormuz. Arms companies race to win billion dollar deals, taking advantage of the regional panic over prospects that the scope of the war will be widened to include other parties. Talks intensify about an American project to establish a missile shield in the region under the pretense of protecting the Gulf states from any Iranian attack. But this attack will probably not occur because of the well-known economic and societal ties between Iran and most of the Gulf states.
Reality confirms that war is very improbable. It is merely that it is profitable to beat the war drums, i.e. just insinuate or threaten war, or discuss its scenarios, time or results. As for an actual war in which Iran is one of the parties, this is unlikely, and the reasons are numerous.
One may say that America is capable of starting a war against Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons. They did not hesitate to launch military operations over the last twenty years in the Balkans, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Somalia in defense of their national security, sometimes according to international pressure from their allies as happened in the Balkan War in the 90s. Perhaps it is also said that Israel has the ability to direct a “disciplinary” air strike at Tehran’s nuclear facilities similar to the way it did with the Iraqi Osirak reactor in the 80s.
Some may also imagine that Iran could resort to retaliation against Western interests in the Gulf region, particularly under the pressure of tough sanctions that increased with the recent European sanctions package.
But these speculations can be refuted by several logical arguments.
The American administration does not seem able now to drag its troops into a new quagmire at a time when it is trying to extract itself from sticky situations in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are doubts in the first place about the U.S. force’s ability to undertake more than one military action at a time, and U.S. taxpayers cannot currently finance a war with harmful consequences against a nation like Iran. Americans by nature – despite their military power – are not able to face a strong enemy, and we recall that the wars that the American forces have fought in the past twenty years were all against weak enemies who were on the edge of military, political and economic collapse, such as Somalia and Afghanistan. Even when they were in the process of entering a war with Iraq, Washington only dared to adopt a resolution of war after ensuring 100 percent that Saddam Hussein did not own any deterrent weapon through the work of international inspectors.
In respect to the Balkan War, it only occurred after the formation of a strong European and international alliance that is now no longer possible after the experiences of Afghanistan and Iraq, and in light of the crushing crisis in the Euro nations.
Israel realizes that war would not be a game this time. Military escalation does not have any support from Washington, and a quick strike on Iran would result in an Iranian response unimaginable in extent, especially since Iran has long-range missiles able to reach not only Tel Aviv, but even Eastern Europe. Others, such as Palestinians, Hezbollah, Syria, Iraq and Turkey, would not stand idly by as spectators in this situation.
As for Netanyahu’s description of himself these days as the man who will lead Israel in its war against Iran, this is mere election propaganda to gain approval of Jewish extremists whose votes usually decide Israeli elections. More importantly, Washington is well aware that Israel’s recklessness in engaging in a unilateral strike would lead to an unprecedented global crisis. It would even offer a lifeline to the Iranian regime, which at that time will be able to rally its people to face the foreign attacks. The Israeli recklessness might even garner unparalleled sympathy and support from the Arab and Muslim world. It is impossible to ignore the stance of the Gulf nations themselves who oppose the very idea of an armed conflict that affects their stability. Merely talking about a war or any problems in the Gulf region exposes the movement of oil tankers in the region to danger. Closing the Strait of Hormuz means stopping oil exports to the rest of the world. This would signify an economic crisis affecting everyone, including the Gulf states, the Iranians themselves, the European and U.S. economies and, of greater consequence, nations like China – the largest importer of Iranian oil – Japan and South Korea, which both import 100 percent of their oil needs from abroad.
Even the effects of the new sanctions imposed a few days ago by the European Union on the Iranian oil and natural gas companies are not felt by Iranians alone. The European economies are also harmed.
The Iranian nuclear program is already moving slowly because of the sanctions, and Iran’s oil exports fell 54 percent. The value of the Iranian rial also in turn has diminished, while inflation continues to grow and may soon reach 50 percent.
All this means that only the foolish or crazy would make the decision to go to war. The only hope is that Ahmadinejad’s regime will be strangled by sanctions quickly, and that protests over fuel and the rial decreasing by 53 percent in just ten days will transform into a Persian Spring inside Iran, with support abroad. This could turn the tables upside down, or at the very least these tensions would greatly increase the likelihood of Ahmadinejad's departure from power. Most likely, with the passing of time, the Iranian-American-Israeli rhetoric will soon change into empty threats, along the lines of the daily chatter – since 1953 – about possible war between North and South Korea. The parties benefiting from this situation are many more than the beneficiaries of an actual war!
This pattern has been repeated throughout the past two years: America threatens and then backs down and resorts to diplomacy, Europe talks about sanctions and Israel confirms it will be the party that begins the war. Iran replies that any attack on it will be met with a decisive and destructive response. Thus, talk of war does not outweigh any other talk among the countries of the region. The price of oil ($115 per barrel currently) is rising insanely, as we’ve seen, because of the frequency of talks about stopping the Gulf’s petrol supply and closing the Strait of Hormuz. Arms companies race to win billion dollar deals, taking advantage of the regional panic over prospects that the scope of the war will be widened to include other parties. Talks intensify about an American project to establish a missile shield in the region under the pretense of protecting the Gulf states from any Iranian attack. But this attack will probably not occur because of the well-known economic and societal ties between Iran and most of the Gulf states.
Reality confirms that war is very improbable. It is merely that it is profitable to beat the war drums, i.e. just insinuate or threaten war, or discuss its scenarios, time or results. As for an actual war in which Iran is one of the parties, this is unlikely, and the reasons are numerous.
One may say that America is capable of starting a war against Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons. They did not hesitate to launch military operations over the last twenty years in the Balkans, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Somalia in defense of their national security, sometimes according to international pressure from their allies as happened in the Balkan War in the 90s. Perhaps it is also said that Israel has the ability to direct a “disciplinary” air strike at Tehran’s nuclear facilities similar to the way it did with the Iraqi Osirak reactor in the 80s.
Some may also imagine that Iran could resort to retaliation against Western interests in the Gulf region, particularly under the pressure of tough sanctions that increased with the recent European sanctions package.
But these speculations can be refuted by several logical arguments.
The American administration does not seem able now to drag its troops into a new quagmire at a time when it is trying to extract itself from sticky situations in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are doubts in the first place about the U.S. force’s ability to undertake more than one military action at a time, and U.S. taxpayers cannot currently finance a war with harmful consequences against a nation like Iran. Americans by nature – despite their military power – are not able to face a strong enemy, and we recall that the wars that the American forces have fought in the past twenty years were all against weak enemies who were on the edge of military, political and economic collapse, such as Somalia and Afghanistan. Even when they were in the process of entering a war with Iraq, Washington only dared to adopt a resolution of war after ensuring 100 percent that Saddam Hussein did not own any deterrent weapon through the work of international inspectors.
In respect to the Balkan War, it only occurred after the formation of a strong European and international alliance that is now no longer possible after the experiences of Afghanistan and Iraq, and in light of the crushing crisis in the Euro nations.
Israel realizes that war would not be a game this time. Military escalation does not have any support from Washington, and a quick strike on Iran would result in an Iranian response unimaginable in extent, especially since Iran has long-range missiles able to reach not only Tel Aviv, but even Eastern Europe. Others, such as Palestinians, Hezbollah, Syria, Iraq and Turkey, would not stand idly by as spectators in this situation.
As for Netanyahu’s description of himself these days as the man who will lead Israel in its war against Iran, this is mere election propaganda to gain approval of Jewish extremists whose votes usually decide Israeli elections. More importantly, Washington is well aware that Israel’s recklessness in engaging in a unilateral strike would lead to an unprecedented global crisis. It would even offer a lifeline to the Iranian regime, which at that time will be able to rally its people to face the foreign attacks. The Israeli recklessness might even garner unparalleled sympathy and support from the Arab and Muslim world. It is impossible to ignore the stance of the Gulf nations themselves who oppose the very idea of an armed conflict that affects their stability. Merely talking about a war or any problems in the Gulf region exposes the movement of oil tankers in the region to danger. Closing the Strait of Hormuz means stopping oil exports to the rest of the world. This would signify an economic crisis affecting everyone, including the Gulf states, the Iranians themselves, the European and U.S. economies and, of greater consequence, nations like China – the largest importer of Iranian oil – Japan and South Korea, which both import 100 percent of their oil needs from abroad.
Even the effects of the new sanctions imposed a few days ago by the European Union on the Iranian oil and natural gas companies are not felt by Iranians alone. The European economies are also harmed.
The Iranian nuclear program is already moving slowly because of the sanctions, and Iran’s oil exports fell 54 percent. The value of the Iranian rial also in turn has diminished, while inflation continues to grow and may soon reach 50 percent.
All this means that only the foolish or crazy would make the decision to go to war. The only hope is that Ahmadinejad’s regime will be strangled by sanctions quickly, and that protests over fuel and the rial decreasing by 53 percent in just ten days will transform into a Persian Spring inside Iran, with support abroad. This could turn the tables upside down, or at the very least these tensions would greatly increase the likelihood of Ahmadinejad's departure from power. Most likely, with the passing of time, the Iranian-American-Israeli rhetoric will soon change into empty threats, along the lines of the daily chatter – since 1953 – about possible war between North and South Korea. The parties benefiting from this situation are many more than the beneficiaries of an actual war!
Previous article![]( "Good Morning, Mr. President Romney!")
