Will Bush Order An Attack On Iran?

By James Donahue

Aug. 15, 2005

A Reuters News story said President George W. Bush warned on Israeli television Saturday that he would consider force if Iran does not give up its nuclear program.

“All options are on the table,” Bush said during the broadcast from his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

That statement alone is a chilling reminder of what he said only hours before Mr. Bush and the UK’s Tony Blair ordered forces to attack Iraq in the fall of 2002. Troops are still involved in that conflict and dying in the streets daily.

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder remembered that Bush statement Sunday when he warned the US not to consider military action in Iran. “Let’s take the military option off the table,” he told Social Democrats during a rally in Hanover. “We have seen it doesn’t work.”

If there are two things we know about this issue they are these: Iran is not going to give up its development of nuclear power and the Bush Administration is interested in controlling the oil deposits in the Middle East as a national security issue.

Thus it is highly likely that U.S. forces, even though they are understaffed, tired and bogged down in a conflict they cannot resolve in neighboring Iraq, will be ordered to move on Iran before this debate is over.

And that would be an even bigger mistake than Bush made when he decided to order the invasion of Iraq. He should not expect the Iranians to be quaking in their boots because of such a threat. If anything, the fact that we invaded neighboring Iraq, and are still there pitting Christians against Moslems in a modern version of the crusades, has stimulated the Iranian interest in developing weapons for its own self-defense.

Not only are American forces overtaxed and battle worn from facing what has turned out to be fierce guerilla retaliation throughout Iraq, there is a growing sentiment at home against this war that is being fought without just cause. Our reason for going in there was that we were told Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was harboring weapons of mass destruction. We later learned that was not true.

The Iranian development of a nuclear power plant, with the help of Russian specialists, has all of the appearances of being an above board project, except for two factors. Iran is sitting on some of the finest oil fields in the world and has no need for alternative energy at this time, and nuclear power plants product plutonium, a waste product that can be used in the manufacture of nuclear bombs.

This is why the Bush Administration is highly suspicious of Iranian intentions. If any nation in the Middle East is in a position to be harboring weapons of mass destruction, other than Israel, it is probably Iran.

Yet Iran is not openly threatening its neighbors. It is one of a growing number of world powers joining a club of nuclear capabilities, which seems to give them a stronger voice in contemporary world affairs.

Could the fact that Jewish faith Israel, a clear opponent of Moslem faith Iran, harbors nuclear weapons, also be a factor in Iran’s rush to develop nuclear weaponry? Would the purpose of such weaponry be for self-defense purposes rather than military aggression?

The fact that China also has a keen interest in Iranian oil, and that there have been friendly relations existing between Iran and China, also is an important factor in this complex issue.

Should Mr. Bush decide to do the unthinkable and order an attack on Iran, the consequences might ugly. Such a move would quickly deplete our military reserves and put us in a dangerous face-to-face political conflict with not only China but Russia.

Ironically, it isn’t the people of Iran who matter to any of the big powers looking down over that territory. It is the oil under their feet.