The Trump administration is continuing the US's longstanding policy of hostility toward Iran for standing in the way of the neocons' goal of world hegemony.
The Trump Administration’s rhetoric and actions have alarmed the world. The protests in response to his visa ban have overshadowed and distracted from a darker threat: war with Iran. Is the fear of the threat greater than the threat itself? The answer is not clear.
Certainly Americans and non-Americans who took comfort in the fact that we would have a more peaceful world believing that Trump would not start a nuclear war with Russia must now have reason to pause. The sad and stark reality is that US foreign policy is continuous. An important part of this continuity is a war that has been waged against Iran for the past 38 years–unabated.
The character of this war has changed over time. From a failed coup which attempted to destroy the Islamic Republic in its early days (the Nojeh Coup), to aiding Saddam Hussein with intelligence and weapons of mass destruction to kill Iranians during the 8-year Iran-Iraq war, helping and promoting the terrorist MEK group, the training and recruiting of the Jundallah terrorist group to launch attacks in Iran, putting Special Forces on the ground in Iran, the imposition of sanctioned terrorism, the lethal Stuxnet cyberattack, and the list goes on and on, as does the continuity of it.
While President Jimmy Carter initiated the Rapid Deployment Force and put boots on the Ground in the Persian Gulf, virtually every U.S. president since has threatened Iran with military action. It is hard to remember when the option was not on the table. However, thus far, every U.S. administration has wisely avoided a head on military confrontation with Iran.
To his credit, although George W. Bush was egged on to engage militarily with Iran, , the 2002 Millennium Challenge, exercises which simulated war, demonstrated America’s inability to win a war with Iran. The challenge was too daunting. It is not just Iran‘s formidable defense forces that have to be reckoned with; but the fact that one of Iran’s strengths and deterrents has been its ability to retaliate to any attack by closing down the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow passageway off the coast of Iran. Given that 17 million barrels of oil a day, or 35% of the world’s seaborne oil exports go through the Strait of Hormuz, incidents in the Strait would be fatal for the world economy.
Faced with this reality, over the years, the United States has taken a multi-prong approach to prepare for an eventual/potential military confrontation with Iran. These plans have included promoting the false narrative of an imaginary threat from a non-existent nuclear weapon and the falsehood of Iran being engaged in terrorism (when in fact Iran has been subjected to terrorism for decades as illustrated above). These ‘alternate facts’ have enabled the United States to rally friend and foe against Iran, and to buy itself time to seek alternative routes to the Strait of Hormuz.
Plan B: West Africa and Yemen
In early 2000s, the renowned British think tank Chatham House issued one of the first publications that determined African oil would be a good alternate to Persian Gulf oil in case of oil disruption. This followed an earlier strategy paper for the U.S. to move toward African oil—The African White Paper—that was on the desk May 31, 2000, of then U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, a former CEO of energy giant Halliburton. In 2002, the Israeli-based think tank, IASPS, suggested America push toward African oil. In an interesting coincidence, in the same year, the Nigerian terror group, Boko Haram, was “founded”.
In 2007, the United States African Command (AFRICOM) helped consolidate this push into the region. The 2011, a publication titled: “Globalizing West African Oil: US ‘energy security’ and the global economy” outlined “US positioning itself to use military force to ensure African oil continued to flow to the United States”. This was but one strategy to supply oil in addition to or as an alternate to the passage of oil through the Strait of Hormuz.
Nigeria and Yemen took on new importance.
In 2012, several alternate routes to Strait of Hormuz were identified which at the time of the report were considered to be limited in capacity and more expensive. However, collectively, the West African oil and control of Bab Al-Mandeb would diminish the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz in case of war.
In his article for the Strategic Culture Foundation, “The Geopolitics Behind the War in Yemen: The Start of a New Front against Iran” geo-political researcher Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya correctly states: “[T]he US wants to make sure that it could control the Bab Al-Mandeb, the Gulf of Aden, and the Socotra Islands (Yemen). Bab Al-Mandeb it is an important strategic chokepoint for international maritime trade and energy shipments that connect the Persian Gulf via the Indian Ocean with the Mediterranean Sea via the Red Sea. It is just as important as the Suez Canal for the maritime shipping lanes and trade between Africa, Asia, and Europe.”
War on Iran has never been a first option. The neoconservative think tank, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), argued in its 2004 policy paper “The Challenges of U.S. Preventive Military Action” that the ideal situation was (and continues to be) to have a compliant regime in Tehran. Instead of direct conflict, the policy paper (a must read) called for the assassination of scientists, introducing a malware, covertly provide Iran plans with a design flaw, sabotage, introduce viruses, etc. These suggestions were fully and faithfully executed against Iran.
With the policy enacted, much of the world sighed with relief when the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA , or the “Iran Nuclear Deal” which restricts Iran’s domestic nuclear power in exchange for the lifting of sanctions on Iran) was signed in the naïve belief that a war with Iran had been alleviated. Obama’s genius was in his execution of U.S. policies which disarmed and disbanded the antiwar movements. But the JCPOA was not about improved relations with Iran, it was about undermining it. As recently as April 2015, as the signing of the JCPOA was drawing near, during a speech at the Army War College Strategy Conference, then Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work elaborated on how the Pentagon plans to counter the three types of wars supposedly being waged by Iran, Russia, and China.
As previously planned, the purpose of the JCPOA was to pave the way for a compliant regime in Tehran faithful to Washington, failing that, Washington would be better prepared for war for under the JCPOA, Iran would open itself up to inspections beyond the mandate of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In other words, the plan would act as a Trojan horse to provide America with targets and soft spots. Apparently the plan was not moving forward fast enough to please Obama, or Trump. In direct violation of international law and concepts of state sovereignty, the Obama administration slammed sanctions on Iran for testing missiles. Iran’s missile program was and is totally separate from the JCPOA and Iran is within its sovereign rights and within the framework of international law to build conventional missiles.
Trump followed suit. Trump ran on a campaign of changing Washington and his speeches were full of contempt for Obama; ironically, like Obama, candidate Trump continued the tactic of disarming many by calling himself a deal maker, a businessman who would create jobs, and for his rhetoric of non-interference. But few intellectuals paid attention to his fighting words, and fewer still heeded the advisors he surrounded himself with or they would have noted that Trump considers Islam as the number one enemy, followed by Iran, China, and Russia.
The ideology of those he has picked to serve in his administration reflects the contrarian character of Trump and indicates their support of this continuity in US foreign policy. Former intelligence chief and Trump’s current National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, stated that the Obama administration willfully allowed the rise of ISIS, yet the newly appointed Pentagon Chief “Mad Dog Mattis” has stated: “I consider ISIS nothing more than an excuse for Iran to continue its mischief.” So the NSC (National Security Council) believes that Obama helped ISIS rise and the Pentagon believes that ISIS helps Iran continue its ‘mischief’. Is it any wonder that Trump is both confused and confusing?
And is it any wonder that when on January 28th Trump signed an Executive Order calling for a plan to defeat ISIS in 30 days the US, UK, France and Australia ran war games drill in the Persian Gulf that simulated a confrontation with Iran--the country that has, itself, been fighting ISIS. When Iran exercised its right, by international law, to test a missile, the United States lied and accused Iran of breaking the JCPOA. Threats and new sanctions ensued.
Trump, the self-acclaimed dealmaker who took office on the promise of making new jobs, slammed more sanctions on Iran. Sanctions take jobs away from Americans by prohibiting business with Iran, and they also compel Iranians to become fully self-sufficient, breaking the chains of neo-colonialism. What a deal!
Even though Trump has lashed out at friend and foe, Team Trump has realized that when it comes to attacking a formidable enemy, it cannot do it alone. Although both in his book, Time to Get Tough, and on his campaign trails he has lashed out at Saudi Arabia, in an about-face, he has not included Saudis and other Arab state sponsors of terror on his travel ban list. It would appear that someone whispered in Mr. Trump’s ear that Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Qatar are fighting America’s dirty war in Yemen (and in Syria) and killing Yemenis. In fact, the infamous Erik Prince, founder of the notorious Blackwater who is said to be advising Trump from the shadows, received a $120 million contract from the Obama Administration, and for the past several years has been working with Arab countries, UAE in particular, in the “security” and “training” of militias in the Gulf of Aden, Yemen.
So will there be a not so distant military confrontation with Iran?
Not if sanity prevails. And with Trump and his generals, that is a big IF. While for many years the foundation has been laid and preparations made for a potential military confrontation with Iran, it has always been a last resort; not because the American political elite did not want war, but because they cannot win THIS war. For 8 years, Iran fought not just Iraq, but virtually the whole world. America and its allies funded Saddam’s war against Iran, gave it intelligence and weaponry, including weapons of mass destruction. In a period when Iran was reeling from a revolution, its army was in disarray, its population virtually one-third of the current population, and its supply of US provided weapons halted. Yet Iran prevailed. Various American administrations have come to the realization that while it may take a village to fight Iran, attacking Iran would destroy the global village.
It is time for us to remind Trump that we don’t want to lose our village.
This article will be published in the print edition of Worldwide Women Against Military Madness (WAMM) newsletter.
Iran is publicly challenging President Trump and his administration. Iranian leaders are sending a signal that Trump’s presidency is not going to alter Tehran’s core pillars of foreign and revolutionary policies towards the US. Iranian authorities are also testing the water to examine what Washington’s reaction would be and whether the White House would react the same way that it did under Obama administration. Instead of being thankful to the United States for these agreements, Iran is now feeling emboldened…. the Obama administration failed to respond adequately to Tehran’s malign actions – including weapons transfers, support for terrorism and other violations of international norms. Continuing to take the lead in adequately addressing Iran’s destabilizing behavior and violations will be extremely critical at this point because it will define Iran’s behavior, whether Tehran will be taking Trump administration seriously afterwards, ensure US allies’ security, and it will restore US global image and leadership.
I`m not sure who you mean when you say “US Allies” I.F.
Britain, France and Germany are all satisfied with Iran, and all are desperate to trade with Iran, none see Iran as a threat to their security.
The USA is the worlds largest arms exporter, why complain when Iran does the same on a tiny scale in comparison?
Iran, China and Russia, do not regard Hezbollah as a “terrorist” group, Hezbollah holds the balance of power in the Lebanon Parliament and are aiding the fight against terrorist military organisations (Paid, armed and trained by the USA) alongside Russia and the Syrian Government forces (which are trained by China).
Iran has thousands of years of rich culture and understanding of diplomacy, the emergence of the USA is a tiny blip in Iran`s existence- perhaps you just don`t like Muslims?
Surely you mean vassal states. The US has no allies and in the case of an idiot war against Iran the US empire will be on its own. It is hard to see what the US could possibly achieve except death, destruction and global economic collapse. An invasion of Iran would be a really big mistake. China is growing its military ties with Iran as has Russia.
The Iranian revolution took place in 1979, it`s a moot point that the 1980 Iraq invasion of Iran, approved of and supported by the USA, had the effect of unifying Iranians support for the Khomeini Government. Undoubtedly after 8 years of war with Iraq, and millions dead, The Islamic Republic of Iran was as secure as it could have hoped to be.
The following years of “show trials” of any dissenters were conducted with little public opposition and by 1990 Iran began a policy of removing any residual Western (USA) influence, overt and covert, on Iranian development.
It`s again a moot point that Iranian suspicion of Western (USA) intentions is justified, that said Iran is highly distrustful of whatever the West (USA) intentions are.
Iran has historic trading and diplomatic links with China and India that go back over 1,500 years, it was perfectly natural that Iran should look to the East to expand it`s existing diverse economy, in 1991 the dissolution of the USSR produced uncertainty in The Russian Federations ability to be an effective trading partner, so China was the obvious choice.
Since that time China has quietly upgraded the Iranian transportation infrastructure and modernised the Tehran Metro System. 80 million Iranians have seen progressive improvements to all aspects of their daily life, now the Middle Easts largest motor vehicle manufacturer, an exporter of wheat and electricity and the worlds third largest known deposits of oil make Iran a very important, and super rich, country in the world today, and with a balance of trade surplus.
Long standing USA anti-Iran posturing has made things very very easy for China – and a resurgent Russia, plus a rapidly growing India (Forecast to exceed USA production by 2050), those countries will protect their own self interest in Iran trade, even at the risk of offending the USA.
Years of talks with regard to supposed Iranian Nuclear weapons programs, resulted in the USA, China, Russia, Britain, France (all with United Nations vetoes) plus Germany being satisfied that no nuclear threat existed which resulted in the lifting of 17 years of UN approved sanctions. Since the lifting of UN sanctions the world has beaten a path to Iran, all desperate to trade all desperate to profit.
Only the USA is maintaining sanctions, and the USA has no chance at all of persuading the UN to reimpose those sanctions, China, Russia, Britain and France will undoubtedly veto any such UN resolution.
To-day the USA stands in isolation with regard to Iranian trade (Airbus can`t believe their luck!). As for a USA “war” with Iran, that also is wishful thinking by Donald, China and Russia won`t stand idly by and let that happen as perhaps would have been the case as recently as, possibly, 5 years ago.
USA intransigence towards Iran has very effectively slammed shut the door to what could otherwise have been a lucrative market for American goods, it will be a long time before the USA can open that door.
Donald`s truculence is not the way to find the key.
best news updates portal