For at least the last 2 years, rumors have permeated the airwaves regarding military action by the US against Iran to stop Iran's nuclear proliferation. Officially, such rumors have been routinely denied. There is, however, a growing body of evidence that points to the possibility of military action against Iran before the end of the Bush Administration.
In a report published in the Jerusalem Post, a source identified as a senior Israeli official is reported to have disclosed a conversation with a senior member of President Bush's entourage traveling with the President last week in Israel. The substance of that discussion revealed that Bush had reached the conclusion that military action against Iran was now warranted. The only delay at this point was reported to have been hesitancy expressed by Secretary of State Rice and Secretary of Defense Gates, "for the time being".
Hesitation on Gates' part is not unwarranted, given the situation he inherited in Iraq and Afghanistan. A strike against Iran without stability in Iraq would have presented our troops serving in the Middle East with increased peril. With the success of the surge and with the relative stability of Iraq in plain view, those issues that gave Gates pause are quickly disappearing.
Rice's concerns on the diplomatic front would involve further alienating the US from its Middle Eastern allies. With the passage of time, this concern too appears to be quickly resolving itself. Given Iran's interference with the peace process through their proxy Hamas in Gaza and through their proxy Hezbollah in Lebanon, any hope of a diplomatic solution to the chaos in the Middle East appears to be a fools errand with Iran's unchecked meddling.
What makes the current report of military intervention in Iran different from those of the past is the array of factors that seem to point in that direction. Taken alone, each is relatively innocuous, but taken together they make a convincing case for the possibility.
Given the present US political cycle, a changing of the guard will take place in short order. There is a god possibility that a new administration will be a Democratic one, and both candidates will be loathe to engage in any military action regarding Iran. In addition, even if the new Administration remains Republican, if action against Iran is indeed deemed to be warranted, none of the Presidential candidates would find it comforting to be saddled with such a decision in the early days of a new administration. If action is to be taken, by having that action segregated in a prior administration, any adverse fallout as a consequence of such a move would arguably be the blame of a lame duck President and not that of a President-elect.
Given the political climate in the US and an electorate suffering from "war fatigue", any action of a military nature involving Iran will necessarily be initiated before the seating of a new administration, likely before the Presidential elections in November.
As mentioned previously, there are indications that the Bush Administration is quietly preparing the way for military action against Iran. Those indicators are reviewed below.
DIPLOMATIC ACTIVIY IN THE MIDDLE EAST
Since last summer, there appears to have been a flurry of high level missions from the United States to the Middle East. Robert Gates made trips in August of 2007 to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates and in February of 2008 to Turkey. Condoleezza Rice's trips include one in August of 2007 and one in March of 2008. Vice President Cheney traveled to both Turkey and Saudi Arabia in March of 2008. President Bush made two recent visits to the Middle East, one in January of 2008 and his latest May 2008 trip to Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Such a flurry of diplomatic activity may not be unprecedented, but it is unusual in its frequency and breadth.
While not widely reported in the US media, both Saudi Arabia and Turkey have expressed public concern over Iran's nuclear development.
"Saudi Arabia said on Tuesday Iranian-backed Hezbollah's routing of the Western-backed government's supporters in Lebanon could affect the Islamic Republic's ties with Arab countries.
"Of course, for Iran to back the coup that happened in Lebanon and support it will have an impact on its relations with all Arab countries," Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said at a news conference."
And Saudi concern over Iran's role in Iraq, particularly what a new administration might do to destabilize the situation, seems to argue for action now rather than later.
"But the key battleground is Iraq. The Saudis fear that a failure of the US there would confirm the country's domination by Iran, jeopardise the survival of Iraq's Sunni minority and upset political and religious power balances along the entire western Gulf littoral. "Since America came into Iraq uninvited, it should not leave uninvited," a Saudi government adviser, Nawaf Obaid, told the Washington Post, quoting Prince Turki al-Faisal."
"Anyone wondering whether the threat posed by Iran is "tiny" or substantial should ponder what the Ambassador from Turkey to the U.S. said today at our panel on the Turkey-U.S. relationship. Ambassador Nahi Sensoy said that Iran has run "clandestine (nuclear) programs for more than two decades," and those programs are "a threat to Turkey as well as to the U.S."
If the US were to take action against the Iranians, the cooperation of both Saudi Arabia and Turkey would be indispensable. Not only do those two countries exert significant influence over opinions in the region, they also serve as hosts to US military installations.
Based on the information presented, it would appear that the necessary diplomatic measures have been taken to proceed with a strike against Iran, no doubt bolstered by the high level of diplomatic activity in the region over the last year.
THE US STRATEGIC OIL RESERVE
One has to ask why the US would choose the fill its strategic oil reserve at a time when oil prices were at an all time high. With the US acting as a large buyer in a rising market, its actions would only serve to continue price increases for the foreseeable future, not a particularly popular move with consumers, especially in an election year.
While filling the SPR is not, in itself, an indication of anything more than prudence, buying at the top of a market that coincides with high level diplomatic missions to the Middle East makes the motive to increase capacity from 96% to 100% seem to point in a direction other than housekeeping.
ISRAEL'S NEW NATIONAL EMERGENCY AUTHORITY
In 2007, Israel established the National Emergency Authority. The role of the agency was stated to provide for management and administration of the Israeli "homeland" in the event of a major conflict resulting in mass casualties. On the surface, this would seem to be Israel's version of US Homeland Security. But it seems there may be a bit more to the establishment of the NEA than parroting the US.
" These emergency exercises were the largest in the history of Israel. Strategically and as part of the bigger picture, the primary purpose of the emergency exercises were to prepare Israel for - using Condoleezza Rice's often mentioned words - 'the birth pangs of a new Middle East' or a new regional order. ...
The war scenario envisioned and simulated by Israeli planners during the national emergency exercise in Israel foresaw massive damage and casualties through missile and rocket attacks by 'Arab enemies.'"
No doubt the timing of the exercise raises interesting possibilities, especially when noting that countries like Kuwait have conducted scenarios of their own on how to deal with mass refugees in the event of war involving Iran:
"He said the meeting discussed the possibility of an influx of refugees into the country as a result of war and a possible nuclear radiation from neighbouring Iran. Asked if there are solid indications of military moves against Iran that prompted the meeting, Saqer said, "There are three US aircraft carriers in the Gulf. They are here either to strike Iran or act as a deterrence". He said that in some cases, the threat to use force is even stronger than the actual use of force."
Former Kuwaiti Minister Ahmad Al-Rubei, incidentally, has gone on record in recognizing the threat Iran poses to the Middle East:
"Iran has oil and gas reserves that will last it for dozens, if not hundreds, of years. I don't think it's true that this project is for energy purposes.They want to intimidate their neighbors." (Aug. 30, 2006).
THE CHANGING OF THE GUARD AT CENTCOM
CENTCOM (the US Military Central Command) is the military command authority for all operations in the Middle Eastern Theater of Operations. That theater would include any action in Iran.
On March 11, 2008, Admiral William Fallon abruptly resigned as CENTCOM Commander and retired from the military. While the Department of Defense downplayed Admiral Fallon's departure as caused by his opposition on engaging Iran on a military basis, Fallon has never denied that as the reason for his departure.
Fallon's replacement, General David Petraeus, is thoroughly familiar with the theater of operations. With Petraeus and Petraeus' replacement now in place, the command structure that would be required to execute any plan concerning Iran is now intact.
THE ISRAELI ATTACK ON THE SYRIAN NUCLEAR FACILITY
On September 6, 2007, the Israeli military very quietly destroyed a secret military installation inside of Syria. It was only after reports of the attack leaked out to the press that anyone even acknowledged that an attack had taken place. So guarded was the operation, that neither the Israelis nor the Syrians acknowledged that any attack had taken place.
It was only months later that details of the attack finally came to light. The Israelis had taken out a secret Syrian nuclear facility built with the cooperation of North Korea.
The secrecy of the operation was unprecedented in scope, particularly after the attack.
For the US, the Israeli operation presented an intelligence coups of sorts. The Israelis were able to penetrate Syria's most sophisticated detection systems before, during and after the attack. Just how this was accomplished is still unknown, but it is a certainty that the US received that critical intelligence. And since both Iran and Syria share similar if not identical technology regarding their defense systems, the US now has a virtual key to Iranian airspace.
However, the window of opportunity in which to act on that intelligence is time sensitive, and if the US is to use that information in connection with a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, it must do so in short order. The fact that the intelligence does have an expiration date provides additional support for a strike against Iran sooner rather than later.
RECENT NAVAL DEPLOYMENTS IN THE MIDDLE EAST
Based on information in the public domain, the US currently has a strong Naval presence in the Middle East. At last count, two US Carrier Strike Groups and Two Expeditionary Strike Groups. The British also have a Strike Group in the Middle Eastern region. That information is compliments of the "Armchair Admiral". Those assets do not count forces in the Western Pacific or Mediterranean that could be in the region in days if not hours. In addition, it appears that an additional two US Carrier Strike Groups are being deployed to the region. If these reports are accurate, the presence of FOUR US Carrier Strike Groups in the region would be unprecedented. That concentration of air and sea power, particularly when combined with US Air Force Operations in Saudi Arabia and Turkey (and the Air Force's long range assets that can be deployed from bases around the world, similar to their use in the First and Second Gulf Wars) appears to be indicative of positioning that would permit the conduct of offensive operations in Iran while continuing to support the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
ADDITIONAL FACTORS
Additional observations regarding commodity prices and dual-use civilian and military items point to the diversion of resources toward military uses. The price if diesel fuel, which usually drops below the price of regular gasoline after the severe winter months in the US, continues to sell at prices above the most expensive premium gasoline. The price of copper, which has been blamed on China's growth, continues to rise at levels that indicate uses beyond economic expansion. Copper is a military consumable, used in everything from electronic components to bullets. And perhaps strangest of all, the civilian market for cartridge primers for large caliber weapons has all but dried up. Numerous comments appear on shooting and hunting web sites lamenting the lack of any supplies of large caliber primers for civilian use.
While no one of the factors reviewed would in and of themselves be a solid indicator of US intentions toward Iran, when viewed together, one can certainly draw more than a passing conclusion that plans are moving ahead for a military strike on Iran. The US has given diplomacy a chance. The path preferred by our European allies has produced no results and has only enabled Iran to buy precious time in moving its nuclear program further along. The US has had the opportunity to gather evidence of not only the failure of diplomacy but also evidence of Iran's direct involvement in supporting anti US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US has had ample time to piece the evidence together of Iran's involvement in support of both Hamas and Hezbollah. In short, the US has prepared a defense, in advance, to support any action with respect to Iran.
It appears that our allies in the Middle East have signed off on and are prepared for US military action against Iran. It also appears that the necessary command and logistical positioning has been set into place to launch an offensive against Iran. The only missing piece to the puzzle seems to be the hour selected to commence operations.