The Future of the Global War on Terrorism

by Stephen J. Sniegoski, USA

The following contribution was presented at the XII "Mut zur Ethik" conference, 'Giving Inner Courage - Democracy, Values, Education and Dialogue', which took place in Feldkirch, Austria, from 3-5 September 2004.

What will be next in the war on terror? Although I don't claim to be Nostradamus and I don't have an infallible crystal ball, the current situation points to a wider war in the Middle East. That result has been sought and planned for by the American neoconservatives - what they have referred to as World War IV. It is all in the published record - no conspiracy-theorizing is necessary to see it. Also on the record, but receiving much less attention, is the fact that this drive toward World War IV reflects a long-standing Israeli Likudnik goal to destabilize and fragment Israel's Middle Eastern enemies in order to ultimately facilitate the elimination of the single greatest danger to the Jewish state - its large and ever-growing Palestinian population. There is not space in this short essay to go over the neocon/Likudnik background for the war in the Middle East - how the neocons were the driving force for the war on Iraq and how the war plans were conceived in Israel - and it must suffice for me to say that I have dealt with that issue at length elsewhere.(1)

Iran the next target?

Neoconservatives do not control American policy to the extent that they can directly lead the country into the wider war in the Middle East. Other U.S. elites, especially the financial elite, don't want such a wider war. However, it seems that the momentum from the invasion and occupation of Iraq will thrust the United States into the boiling cauldron of a wider war that will begin with an attack on Iran.

For some time, neoconservatives have been focusing on the danger of Iran and it now appears that some of what they have said about Iran may actually be true. Numerous experts now report that the Islamic Republic of Iran possesses an extensive and intense nuclear program that could develop weapons. Moreover, Iran has also developed substantial ballistic missile capabilities, probably being capable of hitting targets throughout the Middle East, including Israel. An interesting point, however, is that Iran does not seem to be violating any international laws in importing materials for its suspected nuclear weapons program. That program relies upon the same basic technology involved in a civilian nuclear energy program, which Iran is permitted to have under the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty.(2)

Iran's policy of "deterrent defense"

If Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, that would fit in with its declared policy of "deterrent defense," as opposed to constituting an offensive threat to Israel or the United States. Iran wants to be a regional power able to defend itself against Israel and the United States, which it apparently believes are more apt to attack weak countries unable to fight back. As a Middle East news commentator writes: "I have little doubt Iran is pursuing nuclear weapon systems. Its officials privately assert it is so because they view Israel as a real menace to them and the region with its 200 nuclear warheads. . . . The United States completely ignores that double standard, which resonates widely among Arabs and Muslims. Added to that is the suspicion the Bush administration is still bent on, or addicted to, more American-induced regime changes."(3)

However, the very effort of Iran to develop weapons induces Israel and the United States to press for a pre-emptive attack. It might be also argued that while the rulers of Iran certainly want to avoid a destructive American or Israeli attack, at the same time they can use a war atmosphere to unify their country, now divided between religious militants and moderates.

Israel's regional nuclear monopoly

Israel is especially obsessed about Iran developing nuclear weapons because it regards its regional nuclear monopoly as a fundamental pillar of its security. It is to be recalled that Israel bombed Iraq's Osiraq nuclear reactor in 1981 when it feared that Iraq was trying to develop nuclear weapons there. Iran is, of course, an active enemy of Israel, providing support to Hezbollah in Lebanon and to a number of Palestinian resistance groups. In the past couple of years numerous Israeli officials, including the head of the Mossad, have sounded grave warnings about the emerging Iranian nuclear threat. For example, in November 2003 testimony before the Israeli parliament's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Mossad chief Meir Dagan warned that Iran's nuclear program posed "the biggest threat to Israel's existence since its creation" in 1948.(4) Israeli leaders emphasized concern about Iran before the U.S. attack on Iraq. For example, in an interview with the New York Post in November 2002, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said that as soon as Iraq had been dealt with, he would "push for Iran to be at the top of the 'to do' list." Sharon called Iran the "center of world terror" and declared that "Iran makes every effort to possess weapons of mass destruction - and ballistic missiles - That is a danger to the Middle East, and a danger to Europe."(5)

As usual, neoconservatives acted in tandem with Israel. In early 2002, a year before the U.S. attack on Iraq, neoconservatives set up a group to push for "regime change" in Iran. Called the Coalition for Democracy in Iran, it is headed by veteran neoconservative Michael Ledeen. His principal collaborator is Morris Amitay, vice chairman of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), and a former Executive Director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Israel's ultra-powerful lobby in the U.S.

U.S. justifications for an attack

President George W. Bush identified Iran as part of the "Axis of Evil" in his first "State of the Union Address" in January 2002, and members of his administration have recently stated that the U.S. would not permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons in Iran. As National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice asserted on NBC television's "Meet the Press" program on August 8, 2004: "We cannot allow the Iranians to develop a nuclear weapon."(6) On the next day, while campaigning for re-election, Bush asserted that Iran "must abandon her nuclear ambitions" and vowed to stand with US allies to pressure Tehran to do so.(7) Ominously, a U.S. House of Representatives resolution on May 6, 2004 authorized "all appropriate means" to put an end to Iranian nuclear weapons development, which certainly could be used by the Bush administration as legal justification to launch an attack.(8)

Preemptive self-defense

There are strong rumors that Israel plans to attack Iran's nuclear installations as it attacked Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981. "For Israel it's quite clear, that we're not going to wait for a threat to be realized," says Ephraim Inbar, head of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University. "For self-defense we have to act in a preemptive mode."(9) But some Israeli authorities believe that destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities would be far more difficult than the 1981 attack on Iraq's nuclear site. "I don't think there's an option for a preemptive act because we're talking about a different sort of a nuclear program," maintained Shmuel Bar, a fellow at the Institute for Policy and Strategy at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, Israel. "A hit-and-run preemptive attack can't guarantee much success."(10)

Iran has threatened all-out retaliation to any Israeli strike on its nuclear installations, which would include long-range missile attacks and terror attacks from Lebanon. Iran's claim to be able to wreak great damage on Israel may just be bluster to ward off an attack, but defense experts do report that the latest version of Iran's Shahab-3 medium-range ballistic missile can reach Israel.(11)

Threats of an Israeli attack, which could ignite an all-out Middle East war, might induce the United States to move on Iran. Moreover, American attacks on Iranian missile sites probably would be more effective than anything Israel could do and would make it less likely that Israel would suffer from possible Iranian retaliation. The safety of Israel very likely would motivate those influential Americans who identify with that country to push for an American attack.

In Iran's interest to work against stability

Ironically, by eliminating the hostile regimes bordering Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States provided Tehran with opportunities to greatly expand its power in the region. At the same time, however, the presence of American forces in those bordering countries puts considerable geopolitical pressure on Iran. Should those countries be stabilized under American domination, Iran would be seriously endangered, especially since the United States already controls the Persian Gulf. As historian Juan Cole describes the situation: "The Iranians are very afraid that the United States will find a way to maneuver an anti-Iranian government into power."(12) The current Iraqi government of Iyad Allawi definitely seems anti-Iranian; thus it is in Iran's interest to work against stability.

With American occupation forces in neighboring Iraq, the situation with Iran is a veritable powder keg. Claims have been made by American officials and Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi that Iran is aiding the violent Shi'ite resistance in Iraq, led by the radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.(13) The situation is ripe for incidents leading to all-out conflict. Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani told Al-Jazeera TV on August 18, 2004 that Iran might even launch a preemptive strike against US forces in the region to prevent an attack on its nuclear facilities. "We will not sit (with arms folded) to wait for what others will do to us. Some military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventive operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly." Shamkhani continued: "The US military presence (in Iraq) will not become an element of strength (for Washington) at our expense. The opposite is true, because their forces would turn into a hostage" in the event of an attack.(14)

Considering the American public's disenchantment with the bloody quagmire in Iraq, it is highly unlikely that the Bush administration would dare to attack Iran before the November election. But what could the United States do after the elections? Although the Iranian military is not in any way comparable to that of the U.S., it is larger and better equipped than the Iraqi forces that the U.S. faced in 2003. The Iranians also have the benefit of learning from US military operations in Iraq. And Iran's military power has not been sapped by a decade of bombing of its defenses, as had Iraq's.

Ground invasion unlikely

The U.S. army is stretched so thin already by the occupation of Iraq that a comparable military occupation of Iran would seem out of the question. A large ground invasion, then, may not occur. But bombing of Iran's nuclear sites and military infrastructure is highly likely. After all, neither the America's Air Force nor its Navy, with its cruise missiles, is mired in Iraq. Since many Iranian facilities are located in urban areas, however, even precision bombing would cause extensive civilian casualties. Furthermore, precision bombing alone might not even knock out Iran's nuclear installations, many of which are said to be built underground.(15)

Neoconservatives would undoubtedly press for the severest attack possible to weaken Iran's military power and economic potential, not simply setting back its nuclear program. This would dramatically set the stage for regime change in Iran. Hence, some type of ground invasion of Iran with air support would not be out of the question. The aim would not be to occupy Iran but to destroy Iranian forces. A ground invasion could have the effect of forcing Iran to position its military forces in defensive positions that American airpower could then destroy.

Anti-Saudi feeling high even among anti-war U.S. left

What would be the impact of such an American attack on Iran? A war on Iran is liable to set off a tidal wave of terror in the rest of the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, already shaken by terror, could fall into chaos. The concomitant danger to the Saudi oil supply would threaten the economy of the world. A call would arise in the United States to militarily occupy the Saudi oil producing regions, a move for which the United States supposedly has had contingency plans for a long time and which has been publicly advocated by the neoconservatives. Since anti-Saudi feeling is high in the United States, such a move might enjoy considerable support there even among those who identify with the anti-war American left (i.e., the moderate left). It is worth noting that Michael Moore's popular anti-war movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" blames the Saudi government for the 9/11 attacks and the war on Iraq.

U.S. military forces could probably manage to occupy the oil fields of Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province, but maintaining the oil supply would not necessarily be easy. The pipelines would also have to be secured, including, presumably, the vitally important pipeline that stretches across the country to the Red Sea. Such an undertaking would further stretch the depleted military and financial resources of the United States.

Any aggression directed against the Muslim holy land of Mecca and Medina would undoubtedly have a galvanizing effect on the peoples of the entire Islamic world. Thousands of self-sacrificing Muslim fighters would not only flood into Saudi Arabia but would attack American and western interests everywhere. In such a situation, the pro-American regimes in Jordan and Egypt would face destabilization. The resulting skyrocketing oil prices would have dire economic consequences throughout the world, likely causing social and political upheavals far beyond the Middle East.

"Events are in the saddle and ride mankind"

Obviously, important American economic interests - oil, international finance - as well as the foreign policy elite would not want that nightmare scenario to develop. But these groups have generally opposed the American war in the Middle East all along, with little success. They are currently pushing for negotiation with Iran - Zbigniew Brzezinski, for example, headed a recent study for the Council on Foreign Relations that recommended a diplomatic approach. But the pro-status quo elites have been overtaken by events; things have simply gone beyond their control - actually, beyond anyone's control. As the American philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson exclaimed during the American Civil War: "Events are in the saddle and ride mankind."

As long as the United States stays in Iraq, the widening of the war is very likely. The Iran powder keg is ready to explode and a couple of crucial actors threaten to light the fuse. The Islamic regime in Iran believes its survival depends on keeping Iraq unstable and in developing a powerful military deterrent, probably including nuclear weapons. Militant Islamic terrorists - Al-Qaida - see an all-out war between the U.S. and Islam as providing them a chance to overthrow the existing Arab regimes and gain power. Sharon and the American neoconservatives realize that destabilizing the Middle East can serve to save the Jewish state by facilitating a final solution to the Palestinian demographic threat, which if left alone will soon overwhelm the Jewish population in the areas controlled by Israel. Consequently, Israel and its influential American supporters push for a U.S. hard line to bring about the neoconservatives' World War IV.

It is perhaps understandable that the Bush administration could not pull out of Iraq, given the influence of the neoconservatives and the fact that its prestige is on the line. In fact, its justification for attacking Iraq would be even more appropriate for attacking Iran, as many have pointed out. For the Bush administration to abandon Iraq would be to admit that its whole policy had been a failure.

Kerry doesn't even promise much change

Although John Kerry, the Democratic candidate for president, has the support of most of the substantial anti-war vote, he is likely to pursue a policy in the Middle East similar to Bush's. Kerry, in fact, doesn't even promise much change - "an echo not a choice" as some of his critics have styled his Middle East program.(16) Kerry has said he would retain American troops in the Middle East. He has never even disavowed the attack on Iraq, even saying that he would have voted in the U.S. Senate to give the president the power to wage war on Iraq even if he had known that the weapons-of-mass-destruction danger was non-existent. Kerry differs with Bush only in respect to his much-touted internationalism, though it is doubtful that Kerry could attract much international support to occupy Iraq.

It should be added that Kerry's major backers - the Democratic Leadership Council and its Progressive Policy Institute think tank - are made up of liberals who supported the war on Iraq. Moreover, like the neoconservatives, they closely identify with Israel. Kerry himself has said that the "cause of Israel must be the cause of America" - at a time when the actual cause of the Sharon government is to destabilize the Middle East in the interests of Israel.(17) It also should be noted, however, that Kerry, under the guise of progressive internationalism, could more effectively intensify and widen the war in the Middle East than could the Bush administration, whose credibility is much-tarnished by lies, torture, and corruption.

The fact is that, even if the neoconservatives themselves lose their grip on the reins of government power, the war policy that they initiated in the Middle East has now taken on a life of its own. And that holds true despite the influence of Establishment figures who, unlike Kerry, had opposed the American attack on Iraq. In large measure, the neoconservatives have placed their Establishment adversaries in a position where they cannot undo what the neoconservatives have done. That is because the American foreign policy elite firmly believes that withdrawal from Iraq would destroy America's image as a world superpower. As columnist Paul Krugman writes: "Even among harsh critics of the administration's Iraq policy, the usual view is that we have to finish the job. You've heard the arguments: We broke it; we bought it. We can't cut and run. We have to stay the course."(18) According to this line of thinking, if the United States looked like a paper tiger in Iraq, it would not have the credibility to exercise its necessary role of world leadership.

For the United States to pull out of Iraq would put it on the defensive in the rest of the world. The demonstration of weakness would invite attacks on other parts of the American empire. Elite opinion on this issue is supported by much of the general populace who would see American honor at stake in staying the course and not giving in.

In stipulating that the U.S. must not retreat, the foreign policy elite inadvertently reveals the genius of neoconservative foreign policy on Iraq. The neoconservatives have driven American policy into a position that their foreign policy adversaries - insofar as they support the American global empire - must now accept. The neoconservatives essentially tied the interests of the American empire to those of Israel, which the non-neoconservative foreign policy elite believes it cannot now abandon without undermining its own globalist agenda.

A global disaster in the making

Why can't the United States jettison its empire? Some would say American wealth depends on its military empire - an economic view I reject. Arnaud de Borchgrave, a critic of the attack on Iraq, illustrates the non-economic rationale for global militarism: "Not to see this mission [the Iraq occupation] through to a successful conclusion would relegate the United States to the role of Sweden or Switzerland in a world increasingly populated by pariah states. A new world disorder would be well nigh inevitable."(19)

Sweden and Switzerland obviously do quite well economically without a military empire. And it seems unlikely that the United States could be the indispensable country upon which the prosperity of the entire world depends. All producers have a vital self-interest in trade, as opposed to self-sacrificing embargoes. If there were some terrible threat to cut off vital resources to the industrial world, other countries would undoubtedly intervene in some manner - even bribing dictators, as the allegedly dastardly French are supposed to do on occasion.(20) So, in essence, the standard of living in the United States does not depend on its global military empire. Unfortunately, the necessity of such an empire is ingrained in the thinking of the foreign policy elite and of most educated Americans. Therefore, it is hardly likely that the United States would pull out of Iraq. Hence, there is a global disaster in the making.