[Mb-civic] Iran: June 2005 by Scott Ritter

[Kevin Walz]

Published on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 by Al Jazeera

Sleepwalking to Disaster in Iran

by Scott Ritter

 


Late last year, in the aftermath of the 2004 Presidential election, I 
was contacted by someone close to the Bush administration about the 
situation in Iraq. There was a growing concern inside the Bush 
administration, this source said, about the direction the occupation 
was going. The Bush administration was keen on achieving some semblance 
of stability in Iraq before June 2005, I was told.

  When I asked why that date, the source dropped the bombshell: because 
that was when the Pentagon was told to be prepared to launch a massive 
aerial attack against Iran, Iraq's neighbour to the east, in order to 
destroy the Iranian nuclear programme.

  Why June 2005?, I asked. 'The Israelis are concerned that if the 
Iranians get their nuclear enrichment programme up and running, then 
there will be no way to stop the Iranians from getting a nuclear 
weapon. June 2005 is seen as the decisive date.'

  To be clear, the source did not say that President Bush had approved 
plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, as has been widely reported. The 
President had reviewed plans being prepared by the Pentagon to have the 
military capability in place by June 2005 for such an attack, if the 
President ordered.

  But when Secretary of State Condi Rice told America's European allies 
in February 2005, in response to press reports about a pending June 
2005 American attack against Iran, she said that 'the question [of a 
military strike] is simply not on the agenda at this point -- we have 
diplomatic means to do this.'

  President Bush himself followed up on Rice's statement by stating that 
'This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is 
simply ridiculous.' He quickly added, 'Having said that, all options 
are on the table.' In short, both the President and the Secretary of 
State were being honest, and disingenuous, at the same time.

  Truth to be told, there is no American military strike on the agenda; 
that is, until June 2005.

  It was curious that no one in the American media took it upon 
themselves to confront the President or his Secretary of State about 
the June 2005 date, or for that matter the October 2004 review by the 
President of military plans to attack Iran in June 2005.

  The American media today is sleepwalking towards an American war with 
Iran with all of the incompetence and lack of integrity that it 
displayed during a similar path trodden during the buildup to our 
current war with Iraq.

  On the surface, there is nothing extraordinary about the news that the 
President of the United States would order the Pentagon to be prepared 
to launch military strikes on Iran in June 2005 . That Iran has been a 
target of the Bush administration's ideologues is no secret: the 
President himself placed Iran in the 'axis of evil' back in 2002, and 
has said that the world would be a better place with the current 
Iranian government relegated to the trash bin of history.

  The Bush administration has also expressed its concern about Iran's 
nuclear programmes - concerns shared by Israel and the European Union, 
although to different degrees.

  In September 2004, Iran rejected the International Atomic Energy 
Agency's call for closing down its nuclear fuel production programme 
(which many in the United States and Israel believe to be linked to a 
covert nuclear weapons programme).

  Iran then test fired a ballistic missile with sufficient range to hit 
targets in Israel as well as US military installations in Iraq and 
throughout the Middle East.

  The Iranian response triggered a serious re-examination of policy by 
both Israel and the United States.

  The Israeli policy review was driven in part by the Iranian actions, 
and in part by Israel's own intelligence assessment regarding the 
Iranian nuclear programme, made in August 2004 .

  This assessment held that Iran was 'less than a year' away from 
completing its uranium enrichment programme. If Iran was allowed to 
reach this benchmark, the assessment went on to say, then it had 
reached the 'point of no return' for a nuclear weapons programme. The 
date set for this 'point of no return' was June 2005.

  Israel's Defense Minister, Shaul Mofaz, declared that 'under no 
circumstances would Israel be able to tolerate nuclear weapons in 
Iranian possession'.

  Since October 2003 Israel had a plan in place for a pre-emptive strike 
against Iran's major nuclear facilities, including the nuclear reactor 
facility in Busher (scheduled to become active in 2005).

  These plans were constantly being updated, something that did not 
escape the attention of the Bush White House.

  The Israeli policy toward Iran, when it comes to stopping the Iranian 
nuclear programme, has always been for the US to lead the way.

  'The way to stop Iran', a senior Israeli official has said, 'is by the 
leadership of the US, supported by European countries and taking this 
issue to the UN, and using the diplomatic channel with sanctions as a 
tool and a very deep inspection regime and full transparency.'

  It seems that Tel Aviv and Washington, DC aren't too far removed on 
their Iranian policy objectives, except that there is always the 
unspoken 'twist': what if the United States does not fully support 
European diplomatic initiatives, has no interest in letting IAEA 
inspections work, and envisions UN sanctions as a permanent means of 
containment until regime change is accomplished in Tehran, as opposed 
to a tool designed to compel Iran to cooperate on eliminating its 
nuclear programme?

  Because the fact is, despite recent warm remarks by President Bush and 
Condi Rice, the US does not fully embrace the EU's Iran diplomacy, 
viewing it as a programme 'doomed to fail'.

  The IAEA has come out with an official report, after extensive 
inspections of declared Iranian nuclear facilities in November 2004, 
that says there is no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons programme; 
the Bush administration responded by trying to oust the IAEA's lead 
inspector, Mohammed al-Baradei.

  And the Bush administration's push for UN sanctions shows every 
intention of making such sanctions deep, painful and long-lasting.

  Curiously, the date for the Bush administration's move to call for UN 
sanctions against Iran is June 2005.

  According to a US position paper circulated in Vienna at the end of 
last month, the US will give the EU-Iran discussions until June 2005 to 
resolve the Iranian standoff.

  'Ultimately only the full cessation and dismantling of Iran's fissile 
material production efforts can give us any confidence that Iran has 
abandoned its nuclear weapons ambitions,' the US draft position paper 
said.

  Iran has called such thinking 'hallucinations' on the part of the Bush 
administration.

  The American media today is sleepwalking towards an American war with 
Iran Economic sanctions and military attacks are not one and the same. 
Unless, of course, the architect of America's Iran policy never intends 
to give sanctions a chance.

  Enter John Bolton, who, as the former US undersecretary of state for 
arms control and international security for the Bush administration, is 
responsible for drafting the current US policy towards Iran.

  In February 2004, Bolton threw down the gauntlet by stating that Iran 
had a 'secret nuclear weapons programme' that was unknown to the IAEA. 
'There is no doubt that Iran has a secret nuclear weapons production 
programme', Bolton said, without providing any source to back up his 
assertions.

  This is the same John Bolton who had in the past accused Cuba of 
having an offensive biological weapons programme, a claim even Bush 
administration hardliners had to distance themselves from.

  John Bolton is the Bush official who declared the European Union's 
engagement with Iran 'doomed to fail'. He is the Bush administration 
official who led the charge to remove Muhammad al-Baradai from the 
IAEA.

  And he is the one who, in drafting the US strategy to get the UN 
Security Council to impose economic sanctions against Iran, asked the 
Pentagon to be prepared to launch 'robust' military attacks against 
Iran should the UN fail to agree on sanctions.

  Bolton understands better than most the slim chances any US-brokered 
sanctions regime against Iran has in getting through the Security 
Council.

  The main obstacle is Russia, a permanent member of the Security 
Council who not only possesses a veto, but also is Iran's main 
supporter (and supplier) when it comes to its nuclear power programme.

  Since October 2003 Israel had a plan in place for a pre-emptive strike 
against Iran's major nuclear facilities

  John Bolton has made a career out of alienating the Russians. Bolton 
was one of the key figures who helped negotiate a May 2002 arms 
reduction treaty signed by Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin 
in Moscow.

  This treaty was designed to reduce the nuclear arsenals of both 
America and Russia by two thirds over a 10 year period.

  But that treaty - to Russia's immense displeasure - now appears to 
have been made mute thanks to a Bolton-inspired legal loophole that the 
Bush administration had built into the treaty language.

  John Bolton knows Russia will not go along with UN sanctions against 
Iran, which makes the military planning being conducted by the Pentagon 
all the more relevant.

  John Bolton's nomination as the next US Ambassador to the United 
Nations is as curious as it is worrying. This is the man who, before a 
panel discussion sponsored by the World Federalist Association in 1994, 
said 'There is no such thing as the United Nations.'

  For the United States to submit to the will of the Security Council, 
Bolton wrote in a 1999 Weekly Standard article, would mean that 'its 
discretion in using force to advance its national interests is likely 
to be inhibited in the future.'

  But John Bolton doesn't let treaty obligations, such as those incurred 
by the United States when it signed and ratified the UN Charter, get in 
the way. 'Treaties are law only for US domestic purposes', he wrote in 
a 17 November 1997 Wall Street Journal Op Ed. 'In their international 
operation, treaties are simply political obligations.'

  John Bolton believes that Iran should be isolated by United Nations 
sanctions and, if Iran will not back down from its nuclear programme, 
confronted with the threat of military action.

  And as the Bush administration has noted in the past, particularly in 
the case of Iraq, such threat must be real and meaningful, and backed 
by the will and determination to use it.

  And the Bush administration's push for UN sanctions shows every 
intention of making such sanctions deep, painful and long-lasting. John 
Bolton and others in the Bush administration contend that, despite the 
lack of proof, Iran's nuclear intentions are obvious.

  In response, the IAEA's Muhammad al-Baradai has pointed out the lack 
of a 'smoking gun' which would prove Iran's involvement in a nuclear 
weapons programme. 'We are not God', he said. 'We cannot read 
intentions.'

  But, based upon history, precedent, and personalities, the intent of 
the United States regarding Iran is crystal clear: the Bush 
administration intends to bomb Iran.

  Whether this attack takes place in June 2005, when the Pentagon has 
been instructed to be ready, or at a later date, once all other 
preparations have been made, is really the only question that remains 
to be answered.

  That, and whether the journalists who populate the mainstream American 
media will continue to sleepwalk on their way to facilitating yet 
another disaster in the Middle East.

  Scott Ritter former UN Chief Weapons inspector in Iraq, 1991-1998 
author of 'Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of America's 
Intelligence Conspiracy'.

© 2005 AlJazeera.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 12172 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20050401/dbbd33b0/attachment.bin