Never Ending War With Iran
Past predictions of the future
Wars generally have a fixed beginning, an objective, a battlefield, a truce, such as in the Korean War, or a victor who sets the terms for ending the conflict. The “war” in Iran exhibits none of these parameters. Since the day of its establishment, attacks on the Islamic Republic have been constant, taking shapes of direct military confrontations, naval engagements, covert actions, embargoes, economic warfare, sanctions, espionage, ultra-judicial killings, internal terrorism, suppressed insurrections, and verbal attacks. No rest for the Mullahs.
It is difficult to ascertain when the present disjointed conflict started. Israel and the U.S. have been at Iran’s juggler vein for decades; Trump changes the objective to satisfy questions; the battlefield is wherever a drone or missile runs out of fuel; and there is no end to the “truces that are on the way” and “the declared and self-pronounced victors” in the intolerable chaos and mayhem that degrades humanity. Most puzzling is that Israel who started the latest round of mass killings is not a participant in the supposed discussions to end the homicides. The Times of Israel expressed this succinct observation in an editorial:
Netanyahu said the war was meant to halt the Iranian threat and suggested it brought the US and Israel closer than ever. Now Trump has frozen the PM out of talks that may leave that threat intact.
If Trump, who took command of Israel’s war, and whoever is in charge in the Islamic Republic agree to cease hostilities, does that mean the war has ended? Who will stop Israel from continuing its original plans that includes the destruction of the Lebanese community? Let’s review. The present mayhem started on February 28, 2026, when the US and Israel launched surprise airstrikes across Iran. In the initial “sneak attack,” Israel killed several high-level Iranian officials in an attempt to create complete anarchy in the Islamic Republic. Israel made its objectives clear — completely destroy the heirs to the ancient Persian and Safavid Empires and eliminate an obstruction to its expansion into a Greater Israel and dominance of the Middle East region.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, speaking for the U.S. administration, stated the US objectives, “We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties and perhaps even higher those killed.” What happened? The U.S. “preventive attention” spurred Iran to attack American facilities and troops, although it was possible that without the U.S. assisting Israel, Iran might not have struck U.S. facilities and subjected innocent Gulf states to falling missiles.
The Secretary of State’s supervisor, Mr. Donald Trump, contradicted his subordinate. In response to an ABC News question, “Did Israel force his hand to launch strikes?” Trump responded, “No. I might have forced their hand. You see, we were having negotiations with these lunatics, and it was my opinion that they were going to attack first. They were going to attack. If we didn’t do it, they were going to attack first. I felt strongly about that.” Unasked question’ “Attack who first?”
What is discussed and agreed upon at cabinet meetings? It certainly is not foreign policy and military strategy. The U.S. had no reason to enter this war and had reason to halt Israel from waging war. The world has no reason to allow a 21st century Caligula to manipulate all of us into destruction. In the meaningless chaos, an ealier article written for my previous website, Alternative Insight ─ year 2006 to be exact — which proposed arguments to stop the never-ending war with Iran, rattled my mind. I concluded these past predictions of the future are as relevant today as they were back in 2006, before president Obama’s treaty with Iran ─ the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — and before Trump discarded that treaty and introduced his plan —the disjointed incomprehensible plan of military action. Note that the article was written in 2006 and some of Iran’s behavior, due to U.S. behavior, toward the Taliban and Iraq might have changed.
The Fundamentalists Move to War
Creation of the Iranian Nightmare
Is a powerless Iran, similar to the previously powerless Iraq, a threat to the United States and does it have a reason to inflict damage to the U.S. before being attacked? If the U.S. attacks, Iran will be able to gather sufficient force to harm the U.S., militarily in Iraq and economically in the oil market. The latter harm can create a catastrophe for America. The U.S. has more to lose by hostile action against Iran than by quiet negotiations with the Islamic Republic.
The Revolutionary government of Iran has always continued its efforts without regard to consequences. In its war with Iraq, Saddam Hussein made several overtures to end the war; all of which Iran refused unless Hussein stepped down ─ tens of thousands of casualties because of the refusal. Now, Iran is willing to challenge nuclear powers that demand Iran halt its nuclear developments. The challenge poses dangers to the world, but a greater danger is the whetted appetite of the extremist fundamentalist groups that might be eager to use an Iranian conflict to initiate a full-scale fundamentalist war. Who else could be propelling this madness, creating an Iranian nightmare, especially when Iran is technically not in violation of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, couldn’t have a nuclear bomb for many years, and wouldn’t be able to use nuclear weapons for offensive operations?
The creation of an Iranian nightmare requires examination.
Negotiation of problems with Iran can preferably be used to lead to world peace rather than world war.
What is Iran’s Relation to the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT)?
According to the NPT, Iran has not legally violated the treaty nor been accused of doing that. The treaty provisions permit signatories to enrich uranium and develop atomic energy. Nor has Iran violated any UN Resolution. The UN only asked Iran, in a non-binding resolution, to halt all nuclear activities, something it voluntarily did once before. Hyperbole and media reports generate hysteria and exaggerate the IAEA challenge to Iran. The NYT headline is accurate, but the text is exaggerated.
ELAINE SCIOLINO, New York Times, April 29, 2006
U.N. Agency Says Iran Falls Short on Nuclear Data
VIENNA, April 28 - Iran has drastically curtailed cooperation with nuclear inspectors over the past month as it has sped forward with its nuclear enrichment, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Friday.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in the latest report by its Director General: Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran, accuses Iran of not providing sufficient information for “full transparency,” which Iran disputes and which the IAEA report admits “goes beyond the measures prescribed in the Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol.” The reports assessment:
B. Current overall assessment|
33. All the nuclear material declared by Iran to the Agency is accounted for. Apart from the small quantities previously reported to the Board, the Agency has found no other undeclared nuclear material in Iran. However, gaps remain in the Agency’s knowledge with respect to the scope and content of Iran’s centrifuge programme. Because of this, and other gaps in the Agency’s knowledge, including the role of the military in Iran’s nuclear programme, the Agency is unable to make progress in its efforts to provide assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran.
Additional understated information:
Iran can leave the NPT at any time.
There is still not the slightest proof that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.
Other nations: North Korea, Pakistan, India, Israel, as examples, continue with their military nuclear developments and aren’t bothered by the UN. Why not Iran?
How Significant is Iran’s Pursuit of a Nuclear Bomb?
Every effort should be made to prevent Iran, and all other nations, from pursuing or increasing nuclear weapon capabilities. Nevertheless, according to observers of Iran’s nuclear developments, the Islamic Republic could not acquire nuclear weapons for many years, will not have delivery systems (long range missiles, submarine marines, aircraft) to attack outside its continent and cannot use nuclear weapons for offensive means without being instantly demolished. Even with nuclear weapons, Iran is powerless in a war with the United States. Development of nuclear weapons is a bargaining chip for Iran; a deterrent against attack and a power play during negotiations.
What Problem is Iran to the United States?
Considering that Iran has always been antagonistic to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, has not been proven to interfere in Iraq’s political situation and has not shown any territorial ambitions, what problem can Iran be to a United States that supported the Shah, armed Iraq against Iran, has attacked Iranian installations and boats in the Straits of Hormuz and shot down an Iranian civilian airliner?
Iran is militarily hapless ─ no warships, mostly antiquated air force, dubious air defenses and some missile systems which can cause limited damage. Nevertheless, if USrael (U.S. or Israel ) attacks Iranian installations, Iran can cause excessive damage to the United States.
Iraq’s cleric, Moqtada al-Sadr, commander of an Iraq militia, declared that he would fight alongside Iran if the United States attacked the Islamic state. Considering the growing hostility to American troops in Iraq, combine the Mahdi militia with weapons from Iran and U.S. forces will be in extreme jeopardy. Iran has paramilitary units that could join with Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Palestinian militants and attack Israel.
Iran has the capability to temporarily interrupt oil flow by reducing its oil exports, closing the straits of Hormuz to oil shipments from the Persian Gulf, soliciting assistance in destroying oil facilities in Iraq, especially at the port of Basra, and using paramilitary forces to destroy other Middle East oil facilities. Paramilitary units and missiles could damage U.S. military facilities in Kuwait.
More militant groups in the Moslem world could react aggressively in the defense of Iran. The Middle East and possibly other regions of the world would be in turmoil. Other third world nations that have gained economic power, such as Venezuela, also support Iran and might join in economic reprisals against USrael (United States and Israel). Washington has no issue with Tehran that cannot be negotiated. The U.S. does not prefer the Islamic government, but why is that a problem for the United States? After all, one of the best friends of the U.S. is Saudi Arabia, a fundamentalist Islamic nation.
Who is Leading the Creation of an Iranian Nightmare?
The Islamic Republic of Iran is guilty of creating its own nightmare. Iran has led itself into a trap by reacting in a non-diplomatic, confrontational, and paranoid manner to hostile words against it. Iran is driven by fear. This fear arises from an examination of what motivates the United States. War is usually driven by contests for resources or markets, by territorial expansion or defense, or as a solution to economic problems. What is motivating the belligerent attitude of the United States toward a defenseless Iran? If it’s the new phrase pre-emptive war, what is the reason for the future war, which is being pre-empted? After exhausting all possibilities, we are left with a reaction to the fear that Iran is experiencing, which is that its fundamentalist vision of unifying the state with the Moslem religion is being singled out as threatening to the West, and Islam is being readied for attack by western fundamentalists, both Christian and Jewish.
Islamic fundamentalists believe they follow the final words of their God. The Christian fundamentalists believe it is their duty to convey the “true words” of their God and have a messianic mission to convert non-Christians to their beliefs. The Jewish fundamentalists believe they are the “chosen of God” and deserve to occupy the lands given to them by their God. They fear the western world will accept an Iran that is willing to exchange its development of nuclear weapons for measures that roll Israel back to its 1967 borders, derailing their mandate with God. This thesis that extreme fundamentalists worldwide are propelling an eventual war in Iran is speculative and conspiratorial. That is true. Nevertheless,
Leading western political theorist Samuel P. Huntington has predicted a “Clash of Civilizations.”
American neocon Norman Podhoretz has asked that “the U.S. overthrow the regimes of six or seven Muslim countries.”
Osama bin Laden has called for a “war against the Crusaders.”
Benjamin Netanyahu, former Prime Minister of Israel has said: “Islamic fundamentalism, like communism... is bent on the expansion of its dominion to as many corners of the world as possible.”
Dr. Robert Morey of Faith Defenders Christian Ministry has said: “If the U.S. wants to be the policeman of the world and invade Kuwait, Haiti, Bosnia, Somalia, and other places, then it is about time to take on the Muslims in Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan.”
Evangelist Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham, wrote in the Wall Street Journal that the Koran “provides ample evidence that Islam encourages violence in order to win converts and to reach the ultimate goal of an Islamic world.”
Some of this smoke is bound to lead to fire and Iran is smoldering.
A Preferred Solution
If past actions by the United States, such as those concerning North Korea, Pakistan, and India are indicative, then the U.S. will assuredly impel Iran to become a nuclear power. The international community can take advantage of the smoldering situation by realizing and addressing its consequences. Iran might be bluffing about the advances of its nuclear developments, but if forced to fight, the Islamic Republic will receive support from all sectors of the radical fundamentalists in the Muslim world. If this becomes a reality, the world will be headed towards an unwarranted and unnecessary catastrophe. So, what can be done? A preferred approach is to remove the reasons that Iran might have for pursuing nuclear weapons.
Iran and the United States should cooperate in the resolution of the Iraq crisis. The U.S. fears Iran will determine Iraq’s future. Iran fears the U.S. will use Iraq to control the Middle East. Therefore, isn’t it mandatory that Iran and the United States resolve the Iraq crisis together? The recognition that both nations are willing to work together to combat the insurgency and achieve a mutually acceptable solution to the dilemma will immediately improve the situation.
Iran and other Middle East nations should sign agreements not to support international terrorism and not provide a haven for any terrorists. Despite specious media reports that consider Iran a supporter of terrorism, the facts indicate that Iran, similar to the United States, has been an enemy of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The two nations share the conviction that militant Islam is not to be supported. They differ in who they consider are the terrorists and who they define as the freedom fighters in the Israel/Palestine conflict. If the U.S. pressed Iran, it might learn that Iran and other Middle East nations are close to U.S. principles in the war against international terrorism.
The Palestinian issue should be justly resolved. The UN has decided several times that Israel has acted illegally. Unless Israel dismantles its separation barrier, removes West Bank settlements, retreats to its 1967 borders and permits international arbitration concerning the obligations of all parties to Palestinian refugees, peace will not be readily attainable and Iran will not cooperate.
Iran will have a different attitude after its reasons for pursuing nuclear armaments (if it is doing that) are removed. Iran will undoubtedly sign an accord to halt any nuclear activities after Israel retreats to the UN defined borders.
Naive and unworkable? Undoubtedly, but that only tells us where political incompetence, guidance by falsehoods and attendance to false prophets have brought the western world. Does anyone have a better solution that doesn’t involve mass destruction?
Alternativeinsight
May, 2006