Preemptive War on Iran

This week we have covered topics centered around oil as the world's currency. Yesterday, I introduced the reasons why Iran will likely be the next military target of the US. However, this is not something that the US military really wants to take on.

Indeed, there are good reasons for U.S. military commanders to be ‘horrified’ at the prospects of attacking Iran. In the December 2004 issue of the Atlantic Monthly, James Fallows reported that numerous high-level war-gaming sessions had recently been completed by Sam Gardiner, a retired Air Force colonel who has run war games at the National War College for the past two decades. Col. Gardiner summarized the outcome of these war games with this statement, “After all this effort, I am left with two simple sentences for policymakers: You have no military solution for the issues of Iran. And you have to make diplomacy work.”

This report has not deterred the current administration though. In July, 2005, another article in "The American Conservative" was written by Philip Giraldi. This article was titled, "In Case of Emergency, Nuke Iran,” suggested the resurrection of active U.S. military planning against Iran – but with the shocking disclosure that in the event of another 9/11-type terrorist attack on U.S. soil, Vice President Dick Cheney’s office wants the Pentagon to be prepared to launch a potential tactical nuclear attack on Iran – even if the Iranian government was not involved with any such terrorist attack against the U.S.:

The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing – that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack – but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.

Yesterday, I covered a number of reasons why the government and VP Dick Cheney would consider such drastic actions. But this is very interesting - during the same week this “nuke Iran” article appeared, the Washington Post reported that the most recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of Iran’s nuclear program revealed that, “Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years.” This article carefully noted this assessment was a “consensus among U.S. intelligence agencies, [and in] contrast with forceful public statements by the White House.” Thus, the Bush administration seems to be bent on proceeding with military aggression operations for their own reasons.

Again, as I pointed out yesterday, a war or preemptive tactical nuclear strike on Iran will not be about their nuclear program, but about the macroeconomic reasons behind the American hegemony being eroded and the Iranian Oil Bourse trading in oil transactions other than the USD.

When an event does happen, it will likely happen in the Strait of Hormuz, the narrowest point between Iran and Saudi Arabia is 34 miles. Roughly 40% of all oil traded globally pass through this strait on way to global oil ports. Currently, some 16-17 million barrels of oil are carried through the narrow channel on oil tankers every day according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Ninety percent of oil exported from Gulf producers is carried on oil tankers through the Strait. Over 75 percent of Japan's oil passes through the Strait.

Because of the strategic location of the Strait, Iran has installed sophisticated anti-ship missiles on the Island of Abu Musa, and therefore controls the critical Strait of Hormuz – where all of the Persian Gulf bound oil tankers must pass. Iran also has a very robust military capability.

It is also not likely that the US would receive support from the U.N. Members of the U.N. Security Council. China, Russia and E.U. nations such as France and Germany would likely veto any U.S.-sponsored U.N. Security Resolution calling the use of force without solid proof of Iranian culpability regarding a terrorist attack in the U.S. A unilateral military strike on Iran would isolate the U.S. government in the eyes of the world community, and it is conceivable that such an overt action could provoke other industrialized nations to strategically abandon the dollar en masse.

Consider this quote from James Madison, fourth President of the United States.
"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes...known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few…No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." James Madison, 1795

Tomorrow, there will be more on the impact of oil geopolitics. Stay tuned ...

His speech is smooth as butter,
yet war is in his heart;
his words are more soothing than oil,
yet they are drawn swords. Psalm 55:21 (NIV)

If you have comments or questions, please feel free to contact me at the address below.
Email: DeltaInspire@panama-vo.com