@@ Is Iran being set up? @@

Counter Punch
July 27, 2005


Safe from Attack? or Doomed After Next 9/11?

Is Iran Being Set Up?


Dr. Gary Leupp


A recent article by Dr. Juan Cole depicts Iran as the real victor in the Iraq War. This is
because Iran, which Washington officially designates "evil", has been able to establish
warm relations with the government ushered into power by U.S. occupation forces in
neighboring Iraq.

In his state visit to Iran Prime Minister Jaafari was offered electricity, wheat, pipeline
projects, use of Iranian ports to transship goods to Iraq. Jaafari paid a pilgrimage to
the tomb of Ayatollah Khomeini, one of the most vilified characters in the history of U.S.
foreign relations. He blamed the Iran-Iraq War (in which the U.S. backed Baghdad) on
Saddam Hussein and accepted Iraqi culpability. He promised that Iraq would not allow any
attack on Iran from its soil.

Reports about the recent flurry of Iran-Iraq diplomacy must shock the neocons. Things are
not going at all according to plan. Neocon ally Chalabi should be in power, hosting the
Israeli prime minister's official visit and mapping a common strategy against Iran. Just
30,000 U.S. soldiers should be in Iraq, living on permanent bases. The privatized oil
industry should be paying for the nearly completed reconstruction of the country.

Instead, devout Shias who revere Khomeini are in power, Iraq is far from recognizing
Israel, 130,000 U.S. forces are bogged down in a guerrilla war, the oil industry hasn't
recovered to pre-2001 levels, and the costs of the war and reconstruction fall on the
American taxpayer. No, this is not at all what the neocons expected.

Not anticipating that Iraqi Shias would either turn on their "liberators" or feel sympathy
towards Iran (with which Iraq fought a long very bloody war in the 1980s), the neocons
instead expected (or at least, publicly stated that they expected) a welcoming population
that would submit to something like the U.S. occupation of Japan (1945-52).

Paul Bremer, heading the "Coalition Provisional Authority" in Iraq, said in June 2003 that
while the occupation imposed "no blanket prohibition" against Iraqi self-rule, and he
wasn't personally "opposed to it", it had to occur in "a way that takes care of our
concerns. Elections that are held too early can be destructive. It's got to be done very
carefully" (Washington Post, June 28, 2003).

The January 2005 election was held not because the U.S. came with a plan to quickly
establish an Iraqi democracy, but because Shia demonstrators rallied by Ayatollah Sistani
demanded both an end to the occupation and free elections early on.

Huge demonstrations in early 2004 forced the U.S. to agree to officially "turn over
authority" to an interim Iraqi government that summer and hold elections for a new
administration in January 2005. Chalabi, fallen from favor in May 2004 due to charges of
espionage, was replaced by Iyad Allawi (another CIA operative) as the leader favored by
the U.S.; he was appointed prime minister June 1, 2004. He remained the favorite in
January 2005, and his party apparently got several times his expected vote due after
receiving U.S. funds, advice and maybe stuffed ballot boxes.

But the lion's share of the vote (quite a lot lower than expected, suggesting lots of
fraud) went to the SCIRI (http://www.sciri.org) and DAWA (http://www.daawaparty.com)
religious-based parties. After ages and ages of behind-the-scenes negotiations, the
present administration under Jaafari was finally announced in April. Quite contrary to
U.S. intentions, it has turned out to be markedly pro-Iranian.

Juan Cole concludes with the observation, "The ongoing chaos in Iraq has made it
impossible for Bush administration hawks to carry out their long-held dream of
overthrowing the Iranian regime, or even of forcing it to end its nuclear ambitions". He
implies that both because the U.S. is militarily overextended and because the Iraqi
authorities will not approve an attack from their soil.

I do want to believe all that! I also want to believe that, following the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization's advice, the governments of Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan will
request the removal of U.S. bases from their territory. The local rulers of these former
Soviet republics in Central Asia were willing to help out against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan
but now seem anxious about U.S. use of their soil for an attack on Iran. Russia is heavily
invested in Iran's nuclear industry, while China needs its petroleum.

But the U.S. is applying pressure. General Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, said "It looks to me like two very large countries were trying to bully some
smaller countries". Rumsfeld has echoed that, stressing that the U.S. makes agreements
with nations, not the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

Yesterday Rumsfeld was back in Kyrgyzstan, suddenly, for the second time in four months,
obviously concerned about the issue of Manas Air Base
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/manas.htm). Newly elected president
Kurmanbek S. Bakiyev, who while campaigning for office called for an end to the U.S.
presence, says his government will "do its best to avoid spoiling relations with
Washington".

In any case, the U.S. presence in Azerbaijan (not a SCO nation) may be important for war
making purposes. Scott Ritter wrote last month that in "Azerbaijan, the U.S. military is
preparing a base of operations for a massive military presence that will foretell a major
land-based campaign designed to capture Tehran".

Meanwhile, my pessimism deepens as I read an online excerpt from an article by former CIA
agent Philip Giraldi, in the "American Conservative" magazine. It indicates that:

(1) the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) has been asked to draw up concrete, short
term contingency plans for an attack on Iran, to involve "a large-scale air assault
employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons" and

(2) that Vice President Cheney's office has specifically told the Pentagon that the
military should be prepared for an attack on Iran in the immediate aftermath of "another
9-11." That's "not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism
directed against the United States," notes Geraldi.


Can it get madder than this? The neocons' plans for a total reorganization of the "Greater
Middle East" have been plain for some time now. Many have been warning against the
prospect of an expansion of the Iraq War into Syria and Iran. You'd think that reality
would smack these guys in the face and they'd call off anything so stupid. But they
apparently think that by using conventional and nuclear weapons (first time any nation
will do that since Nagasaki); by employing the Mujahadeen Khalq, aka MEK/MKO/NCR
(http://www.iran-interlink.org , http://www.irandidban.com), and; by activating agents in
place to organize demonstrations (as the CIA did so successfully in Iran in 1953:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28); by attacking from Azerbaijan they can
actually pull this off.

Do they even realize that southern Iraq and Iran constitute the heartland of historical
Shiism, and that an attack on Iran will negate any goodwill among Shias U.S. forces have
acquired in Iraq?

Maybe, here and there within the military itself, the madmen meet with quiet resistance.
"Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning", writes Philip Giraldi, "are
reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing---that Iran is being set up
for an unprovoked nuclear attack" That's encouraging, surely. Good that senior Air Force
officers should be appalled at their orders. Surely they must ask questions, such as:

What do they mean by "another 9-11"? Could any, even small-time terrorist act in the
U.S. (say, killing 52 in the Boston subway) be the signal for us to start bombing Iran?

Does the Vice President's office anticipate this second 9-11 sometime soon?

Would it be moral to attack Iran in the aftermath of a terrorist attack if Iran had
nothing to do with it?

Actually, why would Iran ever give the U.S. pretext for an attack?

Am I going to be complicit in war crimes if I'm involved in this planned attack? What
will this do for my long-term reputation?

Will our troops in Iraq suffer as a result of the hatred for the U.S. another
unprovoked attack is likely to generate?

Am I going to be a part of a military project which will have no support anywhere in
the world, except maybe in Israel?


But the sentence finishes "---but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any
objections".

That could change quickly, of course, if the Bush administration starts to sink under the
weight of accumulating scandals. But the plan for the Iran attack is for it to come
quickly, while the nation is in a state of shock---apparently in some near-future
scenario---so that all those brewing scandals get placed on the back burners.

The propaganda set-up's already been performed as well as possible. There's a list of
charges against Iran, just like there was against Iraq. If they happen, President Bush
will explain the Iran attacks as strikes reluctantly undertaken, as a last resort, to
protect Americans from terrorist threats emanating out of Iran. The STRATCOM guys will
know that's not true, and have to live with the knowledge.

Or else they can do what some have apparently done so far: speak out, if anonymously, and
just maybe force their commanders to abort this criminal war against Iran.


* Dr. Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and Adjunct Professor of
Comparative Religion. He is also a contributor to CounterPunch's merciless chronicle of
the wars on Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, Imperial Crusades
(http://www.easycarts.net/ecarts/CounterPunch/CP_Books.html).
http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp07272005.html

The Iraq war is over, and the winner is... Iran
By Juan Cole
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/f13d45b97c2df8c6?hl=en

What Is the Plan If There's Another 9/11? In Case of Emergency: Nuke Iran
Philip Giraldi
http://www.justinlogan.com/justinlogancom/2005/07/what_is_the_pla.html

Scott Horton and former CIA officers Philip Giraldi discuss his brief in the American
Conservative, "In Case of Emergency: Nuke Iran".
http://www.weekendinterviewshow.com/InterviewDisplay.aspx?i=118

Cheney's Plan: Nuke Iran - Stand athwart the apocalypse, and shout: "No!"
Justin Raimondo
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/0f6e4a32e83baa05?hl=en

The U.S. war with Iran has already begun
Scott Ritter
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/973b1438bea8923f?hl=en

U.S. Attack on Iran May Be in the Cards
William O. Beeman
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/f0068253397dfa58?hl=en

Is Iran Next?
Alan Bock
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/9708a805d405d000?hl=en

Iran Sits Pretty in World's Hottest Region
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/c04bb7d4e4ca30cf?hl=en

Shanghai Cooperation Organization: U.S. forces should pull out of central Asia
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/c4d9e0bbcf41ed9c?hl=en
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/169ecf41638146da?hl=en


.

Relevant Pages