Warmongering

The U.S. imposes draconian sanctions on Iran while preparing the ground for a military attack on the Islamic republic.

THE United States officially announced its much-heralded draconian sanctions on Iran in the last week of October. It has also virtually branded the entire Iranian Army a terrorist force. The raft of tough measures against Iran includes sanctions against the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), the Iranian Defence Ministry and leading Iranian commercial banks. The elite Al Quds force, which is part of the IRGC, has been accused by the U.S. of arming and training Shiite militias in Iraq and the Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The IRGC was formed immediately after the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and had played a crucial role in the eight-year war with Iraq. It owes its allegiance to the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The IRGC today numbers around 130,000 and runs more than a hundred companies involved in a range of activities including building of roads and airports and manufacturing of cars. They have a big stake in the hydrocarbon sector as well.

The most implausible accusation of the White House is that Iran is helping the resurgent Taliban forces in Afghanistan and Sunni militants in Iraq. It is well known that there is no love lost between Teheran and the two groups. Iran has better and more effective cards to play in both Afghanistan and Iraq if hostilities break out with the U.S. Iran had extended unconditional cooperation to Washington during the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The Sunni-fundamentalist Taliban and the secular Baath government in Baghdad were sworn enemies of the Islamic government in Teheran. Iran had provided actionable intelligence to the U.S. on Taliban targets in Afghanistan in 2002. U.S. and Iranian officials were also engaged in behind-the-scenes negotiations at the time.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has made it amply clear that the purpose of the new sanctions is to strangle the Iranian economy. The overall goal is to escalate the strategic and psychological pressure on Iran by pressuring foreign governments and financial institutions to cut off business ties with it. Senior U.S. officials have once again warned India against doing business with Iran. New Delhi seems to have taken the warning seriously and is manoeuvring to keep a safe distance from Teheran. The U.S. has used similar tactics against other countries. Cuba has survived with dignity despite being under severe U.S. sanctions for more than 45 years.

President George W.

Banking institutions that have links with the U.S., as most international banks do, will be discouraged from dealing with Iran. The U.S. government some years ago fined a Swiss bank several millions of dollars for dealing with Cuba. A leading German Bank has already announced plans to leave Iran. A 34-nation group known as the Financial Action Task Force has cautioned its member-banks from doing business with Teheran.

Iran has been doing very little business with the U.S. The bulk of its foreign exchange reserves are in euros and yens; Iran recently converted its remaining dollar reserves into euros. Many European nations are not too keen to isolate Iran. In fact, many of them want access to Iranian oil and gas as they feel they have become too dependent on Russia for their fossil fuel supplies. Turkey is already importing a lot of Iranian gas destined for the European market.

The IRGC is so deeply entrenched in Irans economy and commercial enterprises, it is increasingly likely that if you are doing business with Iran, you are doing business with the IRGC, Paulson told the media in Washington after the sanctions were announced. This is the first time the U.S. has specifically sanctioned the armed forces of another country.

That new sanctions on Iran were imminent had become clear when, a week earlier, President George W. Bush grandiloquently predicted a Third World War if Iran were allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. The Bush administrations eminence grise, Vice-President Dick Cheney, who is an open proponent of war with Iran, warned that the international community is prepared to impose serious consequences if Teheran does not roll back its nuclear programme.

The respected American investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, in his recent New Yorker article, wrote that Bush had told Ryan Crocker, the American Ambassador in Iraq, that he was thinking of hitting Iranian targets and that he had the concurrence of the British government for his plans. Hersh revealed that the size of the Iran Operations Group had grown to the size of the Iraq Operations Group prior to the invasion of that country in March 2003.

The unilateral American move against Iran comes at a time when the United Nations Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are trying to find a negotiated way out of the political impasse with Teheran on the nuclear issue. The Security Council refused to approve tougher sanctions on Iran as proposed by Washington in September. Russia, China and even European countries such as Germany told the U.S. that they preferred diplomacy to sanctions.

The IAEA chief, Mohammed ElBaradei, insists that Iran is many years away from producing nuclear weapons. The conventional wisdom is that Iran is at least five years away from the bomb. It is widely accepted that Iran is only interested in mastering the nuclear fuel cycle and becoming a virtual nuclear power like Japan. What Teheran is looking for is a strategic deterrent against Washington. The situation, however, could change dramatically if the US chose to launch a military attack on Iran.

Secretary of State

Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that the U.S. decision to impose sanctions would only make a bad situation worse. During the European Union-Russia summit in Lisbon in late October, Putin described Bush administration officials as mad people carrying razors. During his visit to Iran in October, the first ever by a Russian President since the end of the Second World War, Putin came out strongly against resorting to military action against Iran (see separate story).

During his visit to Germany in the same month, Putin emphasised that sanctions would only strengthen Irans resolve. Threatening someone, in this case the Iranian leadership and the Iranian people, will lead nowhere. They are not afraid, believe me, Putin said. The Chinese Foreign Ministry in a statement said the new sanctions would only complicate the issue.

Senior Bush administration officials have openly accused Moscow and Beijing of stymying U.S. efforts at isolating Iran. U.S. Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns said recently that the Russian government should stop selling arms to Iran and China should stop investing in that country. But Putin, during his visit to Iran, reiterated that Russia would continue to assist Iran in its peaceful nuclear programme and will complete the construction of the Bushehr atomic power plant on time. The Teheran Declaration released by the Russian and Iranian Presidents in October during Putins visit highlighted Moscows antipathy to any precipitate military action against Iran.

Earlier, U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates had stated that the Pentagon was conducting routine contingency planning for military options against Iran. However, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has emphasised that sanctions should not be seen as a prelude to war.

Many others, though, are sceptical about the actual intentions of the White House. The Iranians and the international community may be justified in concluding that the only thing the Bush administration is interested in is effecting a regime change in Teheran. These suspicions have been heightened by the Bush administrations request for an additional $196 billion for the war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of this, $88 billion will be used to upgrade the B-2 bombers so that they can carry bunker buster bombs. These bombs are used to target nuclear sites and are irrelevant for the counter-insurgency warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan. The logical target can only be Iran.

Iran has threatened to react decisively if it comes under military attack. The head of the IRGC, Mohammad Ali Jaafari, while dismissing talks of a U.S. military attack as psychological warfare, said that Iran was ready to defend itself if attacked. The enemy knows that it cannot afford to make any mistakes, so these words are just exaggeration. We will reply to any strike with an even more decisive strike.

Hans Blix, the former head of the IAEA, has also been sceptical about American motives. He has openly said that the U.S. seems to be more interested in a military solution and that all the accusations about Irans nuclear programme are only a pretext for launching a military strike.