Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Pre-war Iran now imitates pre-war Iraq
The same actors, the same excuses and of course the same international appeasement
by Ferdinand III
The US and what is left of Western civilization, could not tolerate a corrupted, wealthy and aggressive Hussein-led Iraq disturbing oil supply and Israel and acting as a nexus of terrorism and terrorist financing. Thus was the first Gulf War of 1991 finally completed with the subjugation of Baghdad in 2003. Now we can witness a restart of the interminable civil wars that have bloodied Iraq since the first Shia-Sunni conflict in 657 AD. Iraq has constantly been a political, ideological, and tribal battle ground. The coming conflict with Iran now imitates that of Iraq. Only a sick, anti-Jew, anti-American or a suicidal European would deign to see Iran with nuclear weapons. An aggressive and irrational Muslim state with such weapons already exists [Pakistan], we cannot risk the creation of another hegemonic evil empire like Iran controlling the Middle East and threatening Israel and even Europe with nuclear weapons. Disarming the nuclear pretensions of this tyrannical state is mandatory.
Though the Persians have a different history then the Sunni’s in Iraq their leadership has the same hegemonic and genocidal tendencies. More ominously Iran is close to having a nuclear capability. Yet unsurprisingly the international ‘community’ has little appetite in confronting Iran’s Muslim inspired intolerance and geo-ambition – much as the second Gulf War was opposed by nations with vital economic and political interests in Iraq. Not only should sanctions against Tehran be immediately enforced, the West, sans les Useless Nations, needs to begin a military buildup. Threats without enforcement are the irrational admonitions of the weak and cowardly. But don’t expect the Euro-jet set elite or the smarmy one-world-model crowd to go along with the obvious. With bases in Iraq and Afghanistan we are as close to as we will ever get in obtaining the logistical and geographical advantage to wage war against the mad Mullahs.
France, Russia, Germany and China opposed the second Iraq Gulf War, [much like they oppose an intervention in Darfur], because of their financial and political interests. Literally billions of dollars were sent each year to French, Russian, Sino and German firms for contracts on everything from oil development, to infrastructure build, to weapons communications systems installation. The UN made approximately [according to Claudia Rosetti and others] $900 million over 10 years from Iraq or about 1/3 of the $2.6 billion budget it controlled in the Oil-for-food program. The UN revenues were deemed ‘administrative expenses’ for monitoring and managing the program. In some programs the UN ‘admin charges’ were more than the actual amount of the monies allocated to the civilian beneficiaries of the program. Iraq was the largest revenue windfall in the history of the UN. It is no surprise that the UN and its allies had little interest in deposing Hussein’s regime [regardless of the 300,000 dead that littered Iraq during that period]. In Iran, no corrupted oil for food scam exists, but the same economic and political interests apply. There will be no sanctions and if the UN with its Franco-Sino-Russo bloc in political dominance, no war either.
Chirac has already famously said that; "There will be no war against Iran…Anything other than negotiations would be resolutely opposed by France." Chirac gave similar pledges to Hussein up to March 2003, just weeks before the US-led coalition invaded Iraq. Buttressed by the French and Russians, Hussein ignored all the UN resolutions and refused to engage in any meaningful reform or cooperation with international inspectors. According to former Iraqi vice president Tareq Aziz, Hussein was convinced that the French and, to a lesser extent, the Russians would save his regime at the last minute. With millions of dollars in payments now traceable to French and Russian politicians from Iraq, and even a direct connection between Chirac and Hussein now obvious [Hussein apparently ran runners with cash to Chirac for years allowing Chirac to build up his own political party], it would be foolhardy to trust the French-German-Sino-Russian bloc on any issue dealing with Iran and its nuclear ambition.
Simply put the French, Russians and Chinese have far too many economic interests and running contracts, which impact domestic jobs, to allow for a regime change in Tehran. In fact last year the French Foreign Ministry declared that Iran was one of its most important trading partners. French exports to Iran have double to about $5 billion in the past two years. Large scale car, infrastructure, oil and industrial investments are proceeding apace. A new $ 2 billion oil joint venture is well underway between Total [partially owned by the French government] and the Iranian state owned oil company. Peugeot is building a huge new facility in Iran. In fact the same French interests that dominated Iraq’s economy under Hussein, now enjoy a growing level of power in Iran. Similar trends are in evidence with Russian and Chinese firms. For the record, US firms are prohibited from dealing with Iran.
The US outsourced its Iran policy to the Europeans and as expected received nothing for such apathy. So what has all the jaw-boning and diplomatic dancing achieved with Iran? Iranian financial assets are now relocated out of Western institutions to friendly Gulf state investment banks. There is a growing stockpiling in Iran of dual-use products likely to be denied to Iranian importers when, and if, sanctions are imposed. Over the past few months Teheran has contacted many Iranian businessmen in Europe and the US to aid in accelerating the flow and creation of non-sanctionable goods [see the National Review for more details]. Nuclear development plans of course are proceeding as are war plans to counter an expected short bombing campaign by US plans. No doubt like Hizbollah, the Iranians would be able to manufacture the deaths of the old, young and sick, if any US bombing campaign were to take place. After staging such deaths the Iranians would declare themselves morally pure, the US would back off, Iran would declare victory, and the Tehran regime would become stronger.
As with Iraq in the 1990s the world lives in a state of denial about Iran. European propaganda about Europe’s ‘morality’ and elevated intentions define the debate over Iran. A nuclear armed Iran is a non-starter. But with the UN and the usual group of France, Russia, China and Germany basically investing in and arming Iran, there will be no sanctions and no war – unless the US wants to go it alone. This is doubtful. If Iraq turns around quickly than a military strike against Iran while Bush is in power is a remote possibility. However in 2008 the Republicans stand a good chance at losing the Presidency and control of both houses. In such a scenario no action against Iran will be taken once the Democrats seize power. The sad truth is that by outsourcing the Iranian issue to the Europeans and not dealing effectively in Iraq to destroy the terrorists and quell the incipient civil-war the US has handcuffed itself in dealing with the larger and more genocidal threat of a nuclear capable Muslim Iran. Once the US experiences a change in political masters, Iran will have the nuclear bomb, and even Europe will be at risk.
Only in the outcome does the Iran of today differ from the Iraq of 2003. Sadly but not unexpectedly.