The Trump Administration’s rhetoric and actions have alarmed
the world. The protests in response to
his visa ban have overshadowed and distracted from a darker threat: war with
Iran. Is the fear of the threat greater
than the threat itself? The answer is
not clear.
Certainly Americans and non-Americans who took comfort in
the fact that we would have a more peaceful world believing that ‘Trump would
not start a nuclear war with Russia must now have reason to pause. The sad and stark reality is that US foreign
policy is continuous. An important
part of this continuity is a war that has been waged against Iran for the past
38 years¾unabated.
The character of this war has changed over time. From a failed coup which attempted to
destroy the Islamic Republic in its
early days (the Nojeh Coup), to aiding Saddam Hossein with intelligence and
weapons of mass destruction to kill Iranians during the 8-year Iran-Iraq war, helping
and promoting the terrorist MEK group, the training
and recruiting of the Jundallah terrorist group to launch attacks in Iran, putting
Special Forces
on the ground in Iran, the imposition of sanctioned
terrorism, the lethal Stuxnet cyberattack, and the list goes on and on, as does
the continuity of it.
While President Jimmy Carter initiated the Rapid Deployment
Force and put boots on the Ground in the Persian Gulf, virtually every U.S.
president since has threatened Iran with military action. It is hard to remember when the option was not on the table. However, thus far, every U.S. administration
has wisely avoided a head on military confrontation with Iran.
To his credit, although George W. Bush was egged on to
engage militarily with Iran, , the 2002 Millennium
Challenge, exercises which simulated war, demonstrated America’s inability to win a war
with Iran. The challenge was too
daunting. It is not just Iran‘s formidable
defense forces that have to be reckoned with; but the fact that one of Iran’s strengths and deterrents has been its
ability to retaliate to any attack by closing down the Strait of Hormuz, the
narrow passageway off the coast of Iran. Given that 17 million
barrels of oil a day, or 35% of the world’s seaborne oil exports go through the
Strait of Hormuz, incidents in the Strait would be fatal for the world
economy.
Faced with this reality, over the years, the United States
has taken a multi-prong approach to prepare for an eventual/potential military
confrontation with Iran. These plans
have included promoting the false narrative of an imaginary threat from a
non-existent nuclear weapon and the falsehood of Iran being engaged in
terrorism (when in fact Iran has been subjected to terrorism for decades as
illustrated above). These ‘alternate
facts’ have enabled the United States to rally friend and foe against Iran, and
to buy itself time to seek alternative routes to the Strait of Hormuz.
Plan B: West Africa and Yemen
In early 2000s, the renowned British think tank Chatham
House issued one of the first publications
that determined African oil would be a good alternate to Persian Gulf oil in
case of oil disruption. This followed an earlier strategy paper for the U.S. to move toward African oil¾The African White Paper¾that
was on the desk May 31, 2000 of then U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, a former CEO
of energy giant Halliburton. In 2002, the
Israeli-based think tank, IASPS, suggested America push toward African oil. In an interesting coincidence, in the same
year, the Nigerian terror group, Boko Haram, was “founded”.
In 2007, the
United States African Command (AFRICOM)
helped consolidate this push into the region.
The 2011, a publication titled: “Globalizing
West African Oil: US ‘energy security’ and the global economy” outlined ‘US positioning itself to use
military force to ensure African oil continued to flow to the United
States’. This was but one strategy to
supply oil in addition to or as an alternate to the passage of oil through the
Strait of Hormuz.
Nigeria
and Yemen took on new importance.
In 2012, several alternate routes
to Strait of Hormuz were identified which at the time of the report were considered to be limited in capacity and more expensive. However, collectively, the West African oil
and control of Bab Al-Mandeb would diminish the strategic importance of the
Strait of Hormuz in case of war.
In his article
for the Strategic Culture Foundation, “The
Geopolitics Behind the War in Yemen: The Start of a New Front against Iran”
geo-political
researcher Mahdi
Darius Nazemroaya correctly states: “[T] he US wants to make sure that it could control the Bab Al-Mandeb, the
Gulf of Aden, and the Socotra Islands (Yemen). Bab Al-Mandeb it is an important
strategic chokepoint for international maritime trade and energy shipments that
connect the Persian Gulf via the Indian Ocean with the Mediterranean Sea via
the Red Sea. It is just as important as the Suez Canal for the maritime
shipping lanes and trade between Africa, Asia, and Europe.”
War on Iran has never been a first option. The neoconservative think
tank, The Washington Institute for Near
East Policy (WINEP), argued in its 2004 policy paper “The Challenges
of U.S. Preventive Military Action” that the ideal situation was (and
continues to be) to have a compliant regime in Tehran. Instead of direct conflict, the policy paper [a must read] called for the assassination
of scientists, introducing a malware, covertly provide Iran plans with a design
flaw, sabotage, introduce viruses, etc. These
suggestions were fully and faithfully executed against Iran.
With the policy enacted, much of the world sighed with relief when the
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA , or the “Iran Nuclear Deal” which restricts
Iran’s domestic nuclear power in exchange for the lifting of sanctions on Iran) was signed in the naïve belief that a war with
Iran had been alleviated. Obama’s
genius was in his execution of U.S. policies which disarmed
and disbanded the antiwar movements. But
the JCPOA was not about improved relations with Iran, it was about undermining
it. As recently as April 2015, as
the signing of the JCPOA was drawing near, during a speech at
the Army War College Strategy Conference, then Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work elaborated on how the Pentagon
plans to counter the three types of wars supposedly being waged by Iran,
Russia, and China.
As previously planned, the purpose of the JCPOA was to pave the way for a
compliant regime in Tehran faithful to Washington, failing that, Washington
would be better prepared for war for under the JCPOA, Iran would open itself up to
inspections. In other words, the plan
would act as a Trojan horse to provide America with targets and soft spots. Apparently the plan was not moving
forward fast enough to please Obama, or Trump. In direct violation of international law and
concepts of state sovereignty, the Obama
administration slammed sanctions on Iran for testing missiles. Iran’s missile program was and is totally
separate from the JCPOA and Iran is within its sovereign rights and within the
framework of international law to build conventional missiles.
Trump followed suit. Trump ran on a campaign of changing Washington and
his speeches were full of contempt for Obama; ironically, like Obama, candidate
Trump continued the tactic of disarming many by calling himself a deal maker, a
businessman who would create jobs, and for his rhetoric of non-interference. But
few intellectuals paid attention to his fighting words, and fewer still heeded
the advisors he surrounded himself with or they would have noted that Trump
considers Islam as the number one enemy, followed by Iran, China, and
Russia.
The ideology of those he has picked to serve in his
administration reflect the contrarian character of Trump and indicate their
support of this continuity in US foreign policy. Former intelligence chief and Trump’s current
National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, stated that the Obama
administration willfully allowed the rise of ISIS, yet the newly appointed
Pentagon Chief “Mad Dog Mattis” has stated: “I consider ISIS nothing more than an excuse
for Iran to continue its mischief.” So the NSC (National Security Council) believes that Obama helped ISIS
rise and the Pentagon believes that ISIS helps Iran continue its ‘mischief’. Is it any wonder that Trump is both confused
and confusing?
And is it any wonder that when on January 28th
Trump signed an Executive
Order calling for a plan to defeat ISIS in 30 days the US, UK, France and
Australia ran war games drill in the
Persian Gulf that simulated a confrontation with Iran¾ the country that has, itself,
been fighting ISIS. When
Iran exercised its right, by international law, to test a missile, the United
States lied and accused Iran of breaking the JCPOA. Threats and new sanctions
ensued.
Trump, the self-acclaimed dealmaker who took office on the
promise of making new jobs, slammed more sanctions on Iran. Sanctions take jobs
away from Americans by prohibiting business with Iran, and they also compel
Iranians to become fully self-sufficient, breaking the chains of
neo-colonialism. What a deal!
Even though Trump
has lashed out at friend and foe, Team Trump has realized that when it comes to
attacking a formidable enemy, it cannot do it alone. Although both in his book, Time to Get Tough, and on his campaign trails
he has lashed out at Saudi Arabia, in an about face, he has not included Saudis
and other Arab state sponsors of terror on his
travel ban list. It would appear that
someone whispered in Mr. Trump’s ear that Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates
(UAE), and Qatar are fighting America’s dirty war in Yemen (and in Syria) and
killing Yemenis. In fact, the infamous
Erik Prince, founder of the notorious Blackwater who is said to be advising Trump from the shadows, received a $120 million contract from the Obama
Administration, and for the
past several years has been working with Arab countries, UAE in particular, in the
“security” and “training” of militias in the Gulf of Aden, Yemen.
So will there be a
not so distant military confrontation with Iran?
Not if sanity prevails. And with Trump and his generals, that is a
big IF. While for many years the foundation has been
laid and preparations made for a potential military confrontation with Iran, it
has always been a last resort; not because the American political elite did not want war, but because they cannot win THIS
war. For 8 years, Iran fought not just Iraq, but virtually the whole
world. America and its allies funded
Saddam’s war against Iran, gave it intelligence and weaponry, including weapons
of mass destruction. In a period when Iran
was reeling from a revolution, its army was in disarray, its population
virtually one third of the current population, and its supply of US provided weapons halted. Yet Iran prevailed.
Various American administrations have come to the realization that while it may
take a village to fight Iran, attacking Iran would destroy the global
village.
It is time for us
to remind Trump that we don’t want to lose our village.
This article was first submitted to the
print edition of Worldwide
Women Against Military Madness (WAMM) newsletter.
No comments:
Post a Comment