verging_on_random

Provoking Iran

May 12, 2007 on 4:52 pm | In Uncategorized |

Who knows what the Bush Administration’s intentions are with respect to Iran? Maybe it’s a dumb question because it implies that a body of intentions actually exists. I rather suspect that it doesn’t, but that there’s a sullen intention to keep antagonising Iran in the hope that something might come up that can be grabbed opportunistically as the first step in an escalating conflict.

What’s known is that some members of the Administration regarded the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq as only the first steps in bringing about wholesale regime change in the Middle East. The big prize of course was Iran. Things started promisingly enough: The Taliban melted away, Mission was Accomplished in Iraq and Libya finally did a deal to abandon WMD programs.

The optimists suggested that the Iranian regime was so unpopular with its people they would rise up and overthrow it once they saw freedom on the march on the nation’s borders. Harder heads said it would first be necessary to engage in a bit of shock and awe. One way or another, however, the overall strategy was predicated on the relentless spread of regimes friendly to the US and its allies. It was a kind of domino theory of democracy.

Needless to say this has all gone hopelessly wrong. Afghanistan is a mess and seems to be getting worse, while there’s a growing belief that the US cannot achieve anything in Iraq beyond an indefinite military occupation. The grand vision of the Stars and Stripes flying in Tehran has evaporated - apart from anything else, the American people wouldn’t stand for any overt action against Iran now and there are signs that the American military would subvert (or maybe have already subverted) any attempts to engage in open hostilities on the part of Bush or his unhinged deputy.

Does this mean the dreamers of the New American Century have conceded defeat and gone off to become bitter old men whining about the way the gutless liberals betrayed America? Unlikely. The frustrated vision of an American-dominated Middle East must still burn fitfully in their imaginations. They would not be human if they weren’t looking for a chance to snatch vindication after years of disappointment and increasingly, being the butt of humour on US talk shows.

Consequently American policy towards Iran seems to be intended to foster a climate of bad-tempered hostility in which - who know? - the neo-cons might get lucky and have Iran do something intemperate that forces a turn-around in public opinion back home. If an overt attack on Iran is no longer a practical possibility, acting in self-defence would not be out of the question. So the US in the Middle East seems to be treating Iran as if it’s a rabid dog that’s currently lying in the shade giving an occasional snarl. The intention is to make faces at it and poke it with a stick and otherwise annoy it until it finally jumps up and bites someone, thereby justifying shooting it.

Thus we have had stories from US spokespeople about Iran training terrorists to be let loose in Iraq and stories about Iranian weapons being used by Iraqi insurgents and stories about roadside bombs and attacks on US troops that are ‘too sophisticated’ to be the work of locals and therefore must be the work of the ayotollahs across the border. We’re familiar with the way these kinds of stories get used from the pre-Iraq invasion propaganda of course.

There are other indications that the US is deliberately provoking Iran. For example, in this excellent overview of the USA’s difficulties in Iraq we’re reminded of the incident in January when five Iranian officials were captured and are still being held. It is alleged in the linked article that the real targets of the American mission were two much more high-ranking Iranian officials who were present in Iraq with the full knowledge and support of the Iraqi government.

Now there’s been another incident revealing a planned campaign to keep public opinion in America and Europe firmly anti-Iran. You might have seen this story last Thursday:

VIENNA (AFP) -

Iran blocked UN atomic experts on a first unannounced test inspection of an underground nuclear site where it enriches uranium, despite a pledge to allow such visits, diplomats told AFP Thursday.

The watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency had in March told Iran to allow its inspectors to install surveillance cameras at the site in Natanz but Tehran refused this and in return promised to allow frequent, unannounced visits.

A first test on April 21 of this agreement “was a total failure,” said a diplomat in Vienna, home to the IAEA, who added that a successful unannounced inspection has not yet taken place.

“The Iranians did not let the IAEA inspectors into the halls where the cascades of centrifuges are,” the diplomat said, referring to the production lines of centrifuges which enrich uranium.

“So they couldn’t get details of what is going on there,” the diplomat said.

Problems with inspections were confirmed by two other envoys in Vienna.

Pretty damning, eh? I thought so when I read it. Then I read more carefully and noticed that the source was ‘a diplomat’ …. hmmm. Not terribly precise. Moreover confirmation was supplied by ‘two other [equally anonymous] envoys’, making the whole story slightly dodgy, but still … surely AFP wouldn’t have run it if there were any doubts about its authenticity? So I reasoned, anyway.

I should have been more sceptical. Today it’s reported that the story is bullshit:

The United Nations’ nuclear watchdog has denied a report that Iran blocked its inspectors from visiting a nuclear facility where it is enriching uranium.

“There is no truth to media reports claiming that the IAEA was not able to get access to Natanz,” said International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) spokesman Marc Vidricaire.

“We have not been denied access at any time, including in the past few weeks. Normally we do not comment on such reports but this time we felt we had to clarify the matter,” he said.

I’ve looked in vain for any story revealing who the diplomats were who started the story or if they even existed. The whole affair stinks of a deliberate disinformation campaign designed to defame the Iranians and whip up anti-Iranian feeling amongst ordinary people. I confidently expect the lie to form part of the sins with which Iran is regularly charged from now on regardless of the IAEA’s denials.

The Iranian regime is a puzzle. There’s no doubt they say and do things that would be unacceptable in Australia. Moreover there’s every reason to suspect they’d like to have nuclear weapons - after seeing how Iraq and North Korea have been treated by the US, they’d be mad not to. Nevertheless they have behaved with considerable restraint in the face of American provocation, which suggests they understand the game the Bushistas are playing and they’re not going to fall for it.

For the sake of all the people who would die or have their lives ruined by a war between Iran and the USA, I certainly hope that’s what they’re doing.

UPDATE:

From yesterday’s Washington Post:

The divergent approaches toward Iran reflect the tensions within the administration, particularly between the State Department and the vice president’s office about whether to engage with Iran and, if so, how far to go. The bilateral talks being planned and the scope of discussion will be reviewed after the vice president returns from his tour next week, U.S. officials say.

Some in the administration refer to the divergence as a good-cop, bad-cop strategy, while others say that it reflects a deep policy divide, with Cheney trying to stall or undermine diplomatic outreach efforts.

Analysts say U.S. strategy is instead simply contradictory. “On the one hand, U.S. policy involves a series of coercive steps — U.N. resolutions, financial sanctions, arresting Iran’s operatives in Iraq, trying to mobilize the Gulf states against Iran, giving the kind of speeches with symbolism done today — that is quite comprehensive,” said Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations. “On the other side, it’s an offer to negotiate that is not well laid out. But the conciliatory effort is totally negated by the coercive steps, which is why it’s not working.”

Great. Despite the Cheney/Rumsfeld record of one fuck up after another, Bush seems determined to let anyone except the State Department run US foreign policy.