BY CINDY JAQUITH  
The U.S. government is tightening the imperialist economic squeeze on Iran while increasing threats of military action should Tehran not back down from its nuclear power program.

The Iranian government did not meet an August 31 United Nations Security Council deadline to cease uranium enrichment, a process necessary for production of nuclear fuel for energy purposes. Processed at higher grades, enriched uranium could also be used for fueling atomic bombs. Tehran argues its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, to meet its growing energy needs, and it insists it has a sovereign right to determine its own energy policy.

Washington charges the program is secretly aimed at building nuclear weapons.

U.S. treasury secretary Henry Paulson, meeting on September 16 with World Bank and International Monetary Fund officials in Singapore, urged them to cease all banking transactions with Iran. Paulson alleged Tehran was sending money to “terrorist” organizations through European and other financial institutions. He also proposed severing bank ties with north Korea.

The first week of September, the U.S. Treasury Department cut off access to U.S. financial institutions for Bank Saderat, a major Iranian bank. The move makes it more difficult for Iran to trade oil or other commodities in dollars. According to an article in the September 17 New York Times, “Some European banks have already curtailed their activities with Iran, but many leading banks have refused.” Paris and Berlin, in particular, have extensive investments in Iran.

Meanwhile, the big-business press is becoming filled with reports describing what a U.S. military attack on Iran might look like.

“In his televised 9/11 address, President George Bush said we must not ‘leave our children to face a Middle East overrun by terrorist states and radical dictators armed with nuclear weapons,’” said conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer in an article in the September 15 Investor’s Business Daily. “There’s only one such current candidate: Iran.

“The next day, he responded thus (as reported by Rich Lowry and Kate O’Beirne of National Review) to a question on Iran: ‘It’s very important for the American people to see the president try to solve problems diplomatically before resorting to military force.’

“‘Before’ implies that the one follows the other. The signal is unmistakable. An aerial attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities lies beyond the horizon of diplomacy.”

The September 15 issue of Time magazine ran a cover story headlined, “What War With Iran Would Look Like.” It reported that the U.S. Navy is reviewing options for a blockade of the Arab-Persian Gulf and practicing minesweeper operations in that region, which “would seem to suggest that a much discussed—but until now largely theoretical—prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran.”

Time cited an unnamed Pentagon official who told the magazine there are 1,500 different “aim points” for targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities, “which means the campaign could well require the involvement of almost every type of aircraft in the U.S. arsenal: Stealth bombers and fighters, B-1s and B-2s, as well as F-15s and F-16s operating from land and F-18s from aircraft carriers.

“GPS-guided munitions and laser-targeted bombs—sighted by satellite, spotter aircraft and unmanned vehicles—would do most of the bunker busting. But because many of the targets are hardened under several feet of reinforced concrete, most would have to be hit over and over to ensure that they were destroyed or sufficiently damaged.

“The U.S. would have to mount the usual aerial ballet, refueling tankers as well as search-and-rescue helicopters in case pilots were shot down by Iran’s aging but possibly still effective air defenses. U.S. submarines and ships could launch cruise missiles as well, but their warheads are generally too small to do much damage to reinforced concrete—and might be used for secondary targets. An operation of that size would hardly be surgical. Many sites are in highly populated areas, so civilian casualties would be a certainty.

“U.S. officials believe that a campaign of several days, involving hundreds or even thousands of sorties, could set back Iran’s nuclear program by two to three years.”

At the same time, the Bush administration is trying to give the appearance it is not pushing for a military confrontation.

“In terms of the nuclear issue,” Bush told reporters at the Oval Office September 13, he would tell the people of Iran, “I understand that you believe it is in your interest—your sovereign interest and your sovereign right—to have nuclear power…. But I would also say to the Iranian people, there are deep concerns about the intentions of some in your government who would use knowledge gained from a civilian nuclear power industry to develop a weapon that can then fulfill the stated objectives of some of the leadership (to attack Israel and threaten the U.S.). And I would say to the Iranian people that I would want to work for a solution to meeting your rightful desires to have civilian nuclear power.”

Bush added, “I would tell the Iranian people that we have no desire for conflict.”  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home