Team Bush intends to 'transform the Middle East'

Whatever one may think about the rationale for the invasion of Iraq and the underlying assumptions underpinning policy it is increasingly clear that the invasion has been a disaster.

Generally speaking it is taken to be a fiasco based on the impact that Iraq has had on US regional and global interests. That the invasion has been a disaster for the population, with a high number of deaths as a direct and indirect consequence of the invasion and the large outflow of refugees, is beside the point. Critics intone that they wish the US is able to achieve its objective, creating a stable neo-colonial dependency in the oil rich region, but that reality, unfortunately, intrudes.

It seems that we might be sliding into another fiasco for recent strategic developments in the Middle East can be read as preparation for a two-front war with the United States striking Iran and Israel striking Syria. This would have its ironies given that one of the important factors underpinning the emergence of a strategic partnership between Iran and Syria was US support for Saddam’s aggression against Iran.

Recent months have seen increasing calls in Washington from hard-line “conservatives” for some form of military action against Iran. President Bush has also sharpened the rhetoric against Iran accusing Tehran of laying the Middle East under a “shadow of nuclear holocaust”. His usage of the term is ironic. During the Clinton administration United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM), in a very revealing document on the “essentials of post cold war deterrence”, stated that US nuclear weapons cast a “shadow” over any conflict in which the US is engaged in.

Not much noticed in Bush’s statements is the more ominous declaration that Washington will “confront this danger before it is too late”. This is a clear reference to the doctrine of preventive war that was used to buttress the invasion of Iraq. If the administration is conducting policy with reference to the Bush doctrine then military action is a distinct possibility.

The interesting thing about the ramping up of war-like rhetoric is that it is inversely correlated with what is happening with Iran’s nuclear program.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, in its latest report on the implementation of safeguards in Iran, notes that Iran’s uranium enrichment activities have slowed. The IAEA has revealed that, as of August, Iran has twelve 164 machine gas centrifuge cascades in operation and that the Iranians have fed 690kg of uranium hexafluoride gas (UF6) into these cascades over recent months. That is a very low amount and in fact represents a slowing down in Iran’s program.

Speculation is rife about the reasons for this which range from inherent structural limitations on Iran’s centrifuge technology, the purity of Iranian origin UF6 (which tends to damage the centrifuges), to political considerations in order to forestall further sanctions with a combination of these being most likely.

The same slow down has been observed in construction of the IR-40 heavy water moderated research reactor.

In other words in two of the most sensitive aspects of Iran’s nuclear program Iran has put the brakes on.

Also, Iran has just reached an agreement with the IAEA on a timetable to resolve all the outstanding issues that the agency has with regards to Tehran’s nuclear activities. Initially the fact of the agreement was all that was publicly available and the US was quick to declare it inadequate. Even western diplomats, as quoted by the sober Financial Times, correctly saw this “as an attempt to de-rail the process”. However the IAEA in its safeguards report noted that it represented “significant progress” and greatly increases co-operation between Iran and the agency.

The agreement is not perfect. Although the IAEA has stated that there is no diversion from Iran’s declared nuclear facilities to military programs nonetheless Iran has no Additional Protocols with the Agency, which are directed at uncovering non declared nuclear facilities.

In other words, the United States has moved up a gear on Iran precisely when progress in diplomacy has been made and when the Iranian nuclear program has slowed. This demonstrates that the upsurge in rhetoric is not correlated with Iranian nuclear activity.

But Washington has dispensed more than just rhetoric.

The United States has deployed PAC-3 ballistic missile interceptors in the region (not meant for Iraqi insurgents) along with extra mine sweepers. Washington also has two aircraft carrier battle groups deployed in the Persian Gulf. One aspect that may be Iran focused is work on the “Massive Ordnance Penetrator” (MOP) a massive bomb slated for the B-2 bomber and designed to hit hard targets.

The Natanz enrichment complex is vulnerable to current US penetrator munitions but Iran has just recently constructed a tunnel complex in a mountain near Natanz. Later this year the Pentagon may accelerate development of the MOP for early 2008, in line with reported time lines for a bombing campaign.

Reports have emerged that the US is planning a three-day bombing campaign against 1,200 targets designed to severely degrade Iranian military power in the context of “containment”. Hardliners have used phrases such as “rapid dominance” that suggest we might be in for “shock and awe” part two. Some comments are suggestive that the operation may well be under the direction of Strategic Command, rather than Central Command, as a part of “global strike”. This would be an innovation in strategic planning.

In fact the recent, highly publicised, accidental B-52 flight carrying six Advanced Cruise Missiles armed with the W80-1 nuclear warhead may well have occurred not because of lax practice but because “global strike” has lowered safety standards. If so, that would be ominous. Leading analysts Ted Postol and Pavel Podvig have pointed out that “global strike” programs increase the risk of accidental nuclear war. Indeed even STRATCOM commanders have conceded that it poses a “manageable” risk of accidental nuclear war. Are we going to set a dangerous precedent?

There have also appeared a number of other concrete steps that the US has taken with respect to Iran. Firstly, President Bush has signed off on a covert action program, ostensibly “non lethal”, against Iran that includes support for Jundallah, a group that has conducted bombings inside Iran. Of course, this would not prevent Washington from declaring Iran to be a front in the “global war on terror” at the appropriate time.

The US has placed quiet pressure on financial institutions to stop doing business with Iran that goes beyond multilateral sanctions. Such actions are hurting Iran’s oil industry and provide added incentive for Iran to pursue its nuclear program.

This is a serious issue. We now know that the financial sanctions that Washington placed on North Korea were based on the false pretence that North Korea was money laundering through a small bank. These sanctions were put in place immediately after a key agreement was reached in six-party talks with North Korea. Clearly this was an “attempt to derail the process”: an attempt that was quite successful given that North Korea went on to test, successfully or not, a nuclear weapon. Some 90 per cent, if not more, of the plutonium that North Korea re-processed for its weapons program occurred after 2003.

The combination of military pressure, covert action and financial sanctions only increases the incentive for Iran to acquire a nuclear weapons capability. This demonstrates that nuclear proliferation is not a very high priority so far as policy is concerned.

In fact even mainstream press reports speak of what has been long known by observers namely that US policy is strengthening the hand of hardliners in Tehran and serving to provide the cover under which reformists can be sidelined.

But what of Syria? It might well be that Syria is in the crosshairs as well.

What is particularly noteworthy in relation to Syria is how certain, highly dubious, intelligence reports have tried to link Damascus with the broader Iranian nuclear crisis. These reports, whose origins are Israeli, suggest that Syria and North Korea are engaging in joint activity to construct a "nuclear installation" to produce "fissile material" for a nuclear weapon. These reports do not focus on plutonium for if they did so they would lack all credibility. Rather it is stated that North Korea is helping Syria to build a uranium enrichment plant. This story relies heavily on allegations about North Korea's own enrichment program however these allegations, though often repeated, are false. The allegations on North Korea are based on questionable extrapolations of aluminum tube orders, as with Iraq.

The real significance of this story is not the content but the clear attempt to link Syria with the regional nuclear crisis.

Last week it was revealed that the Israeli air force dropped munitions over Syrian territory during an incursion, most likely to manoeuvre in the face of Syrian counter measures. The flight path of the aircraft was such that it would have flown to the closest point between Syria and Iran. Speculation was rife with the Israeli press reporting that the aircraft may have been testing Syrian air defences or scouting ballistic missile launch sites.. More details have emerged however. It appears that it was an actual airstrike with speculation now focusing on the likely targets including a joint Syrian-Iranian missile installation, according to Arab reports. All this is consistent with planning for an air campaign.

There has also been interesting developments on the ballistic missile front. Israel has been working on its own Arrow high altitude area defence system that is designed to intercept Iranian medium range missiles. But in recent times Israel has sought PAC-3 interceptors from the United States precisely for Syrian contingencies. Syria’s missiles represent the main deterrent that Damascus has against Israel.

PAC-3 and Arrow BMD systems would match a two-front contingency involving both Syria and Iran. Following the latest Israeli invasion of Lebanon, when Israel failed to secure the region of Lebanon south of the Litani River, the Israeli press reports that Tel Aviv has embarked on a major military upgrade program with Syria very much in mind. There have appeared repeated statements about the possibility of war with Syria although there has been a recent drawback of military exercises on the Golan Heights, the likely front in any land war.

When Bashar Assad succeeded his father there was much talk about liberal reforms but external pressure has seen Assad get a bad case of cold feet. The same dynamic has been observed in Iran, as noted.

Team Bush has repeatedly spoken of transforming the Middle East. The above actions are all consistent with planning centered upon a two-front war against Iran and Syria. That does not mean that such will be the case, or that it will be simultaneous, but it should be readily apparent that we could be sliding into just such an outcome.

Being alive to the possibility would help to prevent us from getting into such a conflict, the likely consequences of which would not be pretty, to say the least.