Is War against Iran Inevitable?

The Obama administration, in apparent concert with British and Canadian authorities, issued a statement yesterday, condemning Iran's nuclear development activities, and announcing a new round of sanctions.  "As long as Iran continues down this dangerous path, the United States will continue to find ways, both in concert with our partners and through our own actions to isolate and increase the pressure upon the Iranian regime," the statement said.

The concert of statements follow a report issued earlier this month by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), that asserts that Iran is developing nuclear weapons--that they are building hi-tech precision detonators essential for a nuclear device, and that they are devloping a uranium core for a nuclear warhead.

None of this is really unexpected, since the west has long suspected Iran of secretly attempting to develop nuclear weapons, but the signs of an escalating conflict grow with each passing day.  Israel has already suggested that "the time has come" to deal with Iran, and has not ruled out the use of its own military forces in the process.  Yesterday, the United Kingdom cut ties with all Iranian banks, and Canada banned the export to Iran of all goods used in the petrochemical, oil and gas industries.  The Russians claim that the IAEA is biased, and had the "set goal to deliver a guilty verdict."  Iran itself claims that the report is politically motivated, and based on false evidence cooked up by American intelligence services.  Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the head of the IAEA a "pawn of the U.S."

The whole affair, so far, bears a remarkable resemblance to the events that led up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, which leads many of us who remember clearly those events to wonder if some kind of war with Iran is inevitable.  We shall see.  In the meantime, we shall keep a close watch.

The Power of the Pretext

When one peruses the history of mankind, it is difficult not to notice certain patterns--how, in the rise and fall of civilizations, as historian Carroll Quigley noted, there are periods of migration, expansion, and decline; how a civilization's expansion is directly proportional to its economy and upward social mobility; and how wars between civilizations begin, and how they are terminated either through conquest or truce.

Those of us who studied those patterns suspected well enough back in 2002, that the persistent claims by both the Bush administration and Tony Blair's Labour government that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction ("WMDs"), whether true or false,  would inevitably lead to military action in Iraq.  Those suspicions were confirmed when the Bush administration mobilized troops the region, while claiming that such mobilization was merely a precautionary measure, should Iraq's government at the time prove resistant to U.N. efforts to search for the WMDs. 

Few seem to remember that no WMDs were found, but most do remember the invasion itself, and in all likelihood consider the justification for that invasion and "regime change" to be simply the removal of Saddam Hussein.  This is because of what we may call the Pattern of the Pretext, especially in regards to empire civilizations going to war--that Iraq was suspected of harboring WMDs was merely the pretext for invading, occupying, and establishing a new government in Iraq.

We note this pattern, because now the Obama administration has a pretext of its own in regards to Iran--on Tuesday last, the administration claimed that an Iranian plot to assassinate Saudi ambassador to the United States Adel Al-Jubier was foiled by FBI and DEA agents.  Assuming that story is indeed true, while we might give credit to the FBI and DEA, the administration went farther, and took sudden steps to ensure not only that the entire world was aware of the plot, but that it should unite in at least isolating Iran through sanctions.  Deja vu--back in 2002, the Bush administration went to the United Natons with supposedly incontrovertible evidence of WMDs in Iraq, determined to convince the world that those WMDs could be used in terrorist plots.

Say and think what you will about Iran.  Believe what you will about Iran and nuclear capablities and terrorism.  We do not write this post to disclaim such.  One may even speculate that banging the war drums provides for a nice diversion from the Occupation protests.  But know this:  the war drums are most certainly being banged, and, as with the war drums that have been banged before, they are being banged with the drumsticks of the pretext.

Let the Oil Flow

February 17, 2011, Al Jazeera:  "Protesters in Libya have defied a security crackdown and taken to the streets in four cities for a "day of rage,"

February 21, 2011, guardian.co.uk: "Libya uprising forces oil price to highest point since 2008"

March 19, 2011, New York Times (World):  "American and European forces began a broad campaign of strikes against the government of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi on Saturday, unleashing warplanes and missiles in a military intervention on a scale not seen in the Arab world since the Iraq war."

March 27, 2011, guardian.co.uk: "Libya:  NATO takes full control of military operation"

June 1, 2011, Al Jezeera:  "NATO has agreed to extend its military campaign in Libya until late September, keeping up pressure on Muammar Gaddafi still in power after 10 weeks of air strikes."

August 22, 2011, Reuters:  "NATO said it won’t curtail its five-month air campaign over Libya and will monitor any remaining threats posed by Muammar Qaddafi's military forces as rebels seeking to topple the 42-year regime swept into Tripoli."

August 22, 2011, New York Times (World):  "Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi's grip on power dissolved with astonishing speed on Monday as rebels marched into the capital"

August 22, 2011, New York Times (Business): "The Scramble for Access to Libya's Oil Wealth Begins"

'Nuff said.