Iran’s fate sealed

Iran has regained prominence on the boards of military strategists and the notebooks of occasional international analysts. After three years, the Iranian scenario is put up for discussion again, thus exposing the naiveness of many who predicted a drawback in the Pax Americana with the arrival of Obama at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. After all, Barack had launched a trial balloon to subtly test the response of the military-industrial structures regarding his promise to close Guantanamo. Just to get a categorical "no" for an answer. Closing GITMO would have meant a cause for celebration for Castroism -already defeated and fallen from grace- not to mention that the U.S. would have cast away an outpost of unquestionable strategic value. Amid the sui generis populist-tinted self-propaganda in which Obama regularly indulged himself -within the framework of social reforms successfully passed at the Capitol building- the militarist agenda pokes out once more. Which, eventually, is what really matters, for the economy of the only superpower left remains (almost entirely) supported by military-related industries. Doubts about the authenticity of the document entitled Iron Mountain - which raised the question on whether the United States could restructure their warlike approach-based economy into a “pacific” economy - appear to be anecdotal. The answer is blunt: should a reorganisation of this kind be attempted, bankruptcy would cause havoc. Barack Obama had pledged a quick withdrawal from the swampy theatres of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the announcements were, apparently, "misunderstood" by a shrilling public opinion. Actually, it has recently been confirmed that America would stop wandering around the dusty streets of ancient Babylon, to concentrate on the annoying Taliban enemy. Let’s leave the evaluation of the aftermath of the battle for the Afghan opium to those insanely inquisitive minds of conspiracy theorists who see the hidden hand of the CIA wherever they look. Iran is a much more complex and pithy question, not as regards the aspects strictly coloured by the statistics and the unquestionable military comparisons, but regarding the myriad of variables that come together in the new scenario. The Islamic republic flaunts 10% of the proven reserves of oil and gas, ranking third behind Saudi Arabia (25%) and Iraq (11%). In contrast, the United States of America holds less than 2.8% of all world black gold reserves. American strategic reserves are estimated at less than 20 billion barrels. Naturally, the sharpest minds in the global energy field reckon that the Middle East and Central Asia hold stocks that outperform the U.S. in more than thirty times, accounting for over 60% of the global total available. In view of these figures, we can safely conclude that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s behaviour was, at the least, childish. Contemporary history has always featured populist characters destined to repeat the grossest mistakes of Napoleon, Saddam, Galtieri, Hitler et al. A starving Pentagon would never tolerate the use of a nationalist, anti-Semitic rhetoric (every statement made has its confirmed justification). But the innuendo has nothing to do with the basic precept of "preventing the Israelis from getting angry." The State of Israel is, in more than one way, nothing but a hostage to Washington. The small Jewish state can never launch pre-emptive attacks against its neighbours without consulting with its elder American brother. On the other hand, Israel's military industry is just a branch of its American counterpart: it is true that the Israelites perceive just over $ 5 billion a year from Uncle Sam, on condition the small nation uses that sum to purchase Made in USA military equipment. This way, state-of-the-art Israeli products are left aside due to diplomatic, and sometimes “not so diplomatic”, pressure. Thus, the myth of the alleged control exercised by the Wall Street Semites, Washington, the international military agenda and the international banking, reveals itself as retrograde, racist, obsolete and nonsensical. However, and as far as Iran is concerned, the symbiosis between Americans and Israelis becomes so apparent that none of them is likely to dismantle it. According to some not new available research reports, the first phase Washington considers for execution in Iran consists of systematic blitzkrieg attacks, as seen in previous scenarios. The aim will be to smash into pieces the incipient nuclear infrastructure of the Ahmadinejad regime, although, presumably, the bombing will also reach military and civilian targets, transport and telecommunications systems, factories and public buildings. The "War on Terror” doctrine comprises not only the use of sophisticated conventional weaponry -much of it never seen before- but also theorems which apply to the use of tactical nuclear weapons seeking to destroy underground facilities that may serve as arsenals and war rooms for the top authority in government. The fallout resulting from the bombing of nuclear-powered stations and enrichment plants should not be a major problem, provided it is limited to a bounded radio. The concern attached to the war scenario lies in the fact that the above mentioned theorems could, in practice, bring up simultaneous attacks against neighbouring nations that have repeatedly been accused by Washington of shielding al-Qaeda terrorists and "trendy” fundamentalists. This panorama could cause the conflict to spread into Lebanon and Syria itself. In fact, the initial role of Israel could involve massive air strikes against the Lebanese, fully aware that the latter could benefit from the American preventive attack on Iran to swoop down on Israel. In this fashion, prevention alternatives intersect prevention itself. The Iranian adventure could only mean bad news for Israel if the task were not carried out in full: in the aftermath of the conflict, a wave of terrorist attacks on its land could become impossible to hold up, thus hampering its citizens’ everyday activities. It will then have to be an “all or nothing” enterprise. For the Iranian theatre, a new kind of coalition will emerge, which will involve not only the nations in NATO and Israel, but also the countries which subscribed the NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue and those participating in the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative. Arab nations like Saudi Arabia and Egypt will not play a minor role. Riyadh has already notified the Israeli Air Force that they will open up their airspace to Israel for the execution of missions. Egypt, due to the sovereign control it exercises over part of the Suez Canal, an obligatory route for tankers, has just issued the required permits for the transit of American and Israeli warships. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf allies are going to do their part in their area of shared control in the Strait of Hormuz and the Arabian Sea. It is also worth pointing out at this stage the fears of many analysts and scholars of geopolitics behind the scenes, concerned in advance about the possible Russian and Chinese response. If the leaders of these powers construe the message properly, they will understand that they too are indirect recipients of these dispatches from Washington, in the sense that the war against terrorism will not come to a halt in the vicinity of any frontier. The People’s Republic of China, at the same time, must bear in mind the fact that, in this mess, India is playing for the Americans. There are also those who assume, when faced with the extension of the sight, that the escalation is something already considered by the United States and a geographical amplification of the conflict can be foreseen. Regardless of many of its probable consequences. In any case, neither the Chinese nor the Russians are likely to go beyond the verbal bullying stage. Eventually, if China really intended to interfere with the American plans, it would only need to convert, overnight, all the reserves in the Central Bank of Beijing from dollars to euros. Thus, the military enterprise could turn out to be a spectacular failure, as the collapse of the dollar, in addition to the rapid rise in oil prices, would make the Yankee fleet and equipment run out of petrol in a matter of hours, due to the impossibility of affording the costs of transportation. In many cases, the extent of the bullying should be checked against the numbers on the economy, rather than against the number of tanks, planes or ships... By now it has become evident that the main character in this story is, once again, oil, though its central role seems to be almost hidden behind the discussion around whether Iran and Ahmadinejad have the right to hold nuclear weapons. Similarly, the disagreements between different elements of American intelligence as regards the real development of the Iranian nuclear program seem to have gone unnoticed: while some insist that Ahmadinejad has the capacity to build two full-explosive devices, others point out that this is far from happening and that the Persians have not even managed yet to equip its ballistic missiles with the corresponding atomic charge. Not to mention how far they might be from being sure of reaching their targets, once their vectors have been launched. The fact is that in terms of missile technology many years of research are necessary to, firstly, move from liquid to solid fuel (which would allow a broadening in the range of the missiles); secondly, adequate the guidance systems so the missile impacts precisely against the selected target (a step that requires advanced electronics); thirdly, manage to mount a nuclear warhead on the vehicle, and fourthly, make the atomic charge explode on impact. Finally, only a handful of countries have early warning systems that detect the rockets launched against their territory. This means that a nation which has a dozen vectors ready to be launched, will probably not be able to even detect the origin of an attack and consequently their operators may feel tempted to press the button upon any suspicion or erroneous information. The preceding explanation has stimulated the arguments by many analysts stating that Iran has not had the minimum reasonable time to represent a tangible threat. Moreover, only a few seem to wonder whether it would not be worthwhile to accept Tehran as a member of the exclusive nuclear club and have it regularly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Israelis included. On the contrary, it seems as if it has been hastily decided to punish the “rebel” nation manu militari, endangering the patient’s life while aiming at curing the disease. The decision seems unanimous: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a disturbed individual who should be done away with in a jiffy, before he makes the decision of bombing out the State of Israel “just because" or contaminating with radiation, for thousands of years, the oil deposits on which the Americans blindly depend to nurture their American Way. In peripheral countries such as Argentina, with no international prominence, a sharp rise in oil prices could have an outrageous impact. Crude oil prices would not only rocket mercilessly due to the delay already visible in the end user oil price and the lack of a serious energy policy, but also push index up by virtue of the shortage resulting from the conflict. Riding in a vehicle could well become an extravagance impossible to afford. Irretrievably, and regardless of the outcome of the budding conflict, we arrive at the conclusion that the world will become, in the future, a more dangerous place to live in. The implications could arise in many ways, as in a portentous escalation of a terror that blasts dozens of aircraft daily just to "protest" against the new American/Israeli military campaign in the Middle East or just for the fun of it. As, if there is a variable that the powers cannot control and has never been analysed, that is the way in which global terror multiplies its actions as a consequence of the military ventures unilaterally departing from the First World. As it has already been stated, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. What is certain is that Washington would now end up sending a categorical, blunt message to the untamed nations worldwide which swing around the madness and egos of their unbearable political leaders (North Korea, Yemen, Cuba, Venezuela , Ecuador, Bolivia): Do the right thing or face the consequences. All it takes to call some of them to order is to remove their leaders by means of a systematic nourishment of the political opposition to the government. The rest could well be subject to the Schwarzkopf Doctrine: "Send them back to the Stone Age." By Matías E. Ruiz, Editor, El Ojo Digital. e-Mail: contacto@elojodigital.com. Twitter: http://twitter.com/matiaseruiz Translated into English by Annie Arregui (e-Mail: anniearregui@yahoo.com)