[R-G] Obama advisers discuss preparations for war on Iran

[Anthony Fenton]

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/nov2008/iran-n06.shtml

World Socialist Web Site

Obama advisers discuss preparations for war on Iran
By Peter Symonds
6 November 2008

On the eve of the US elections, the New York Times cautiously pointed  
on Monday to the emergence of a bipartisan consensus in Washington for  
an aggressive new strategy towards Iran. While virtually nothing was  
said in the course of the election campaign, behind-the-scenes top  
advisers from the Obama and McCain camps have been discussing the  
rapid escalation of diplomatic pressure and punitive sanctions against  
Iran, backed by preparations for military strikes.
The article entitled “New Beltway Debate: What to do about Iran” noted  
with a degree of alarm: “It is a frightening notion, but it not just  
the trigger-happy Bush administration discussing—if only theoretically 
— the possibility of military action to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons  
program… [R]easonable people from both parties are examining the so- 
called military option, along with new diplomatic initiatives.”
Behind the backs of American voters, top advisers for President-elect  
Barack Obama have been setting the stage for a dramatic escalation of  
confrontation with Iran as soon as the new administration takes  
office. A report released in September from the Bipartisan Policy  
Center, a Washington-based think tank, argued that a nuclear weapons  
capable Iran was “strategically untenable” and detailed a robust  
approach, “incorporating new diplomatic, economic and military tools  
in an integrated fashion”.
A key member of the Center’s task force was Obama’s top Middle East  
adviser, Dennis Ross, who is well known for his hawkish views. He  
backed the US invasion of Iraq and is closely associated with neo-cons  
such as Paul Wolfowitz. Ross worked under Wolfowitz in the Carter and  
Reagan administrations before becoming the chief Middle East envoy  
under presidents Bush senior and Clinton. After leaving the State  
Department in 2000, he joined the right-wing, pro-Israel think tank— 
the Washington Institute for Near East Policy—and signed up as a  
foreign policy analyst for Fox News.
The Bipartisan Policy Center report insisted that time was short,  
declaring: “Tehran’s progress means that the next administration might  
have little time and fewer options to deal with this threat.” It  
rejected out-of-hand both Tehran’s claims that its nuclear programs  
were for peaceful purposes, and the 2007 National Intelligence  
Estimate by US intelligence agencies which found that Iran had ended  
any nuclear weapons program in 2003.
The report was critical of the Bush administration’ s failure to stop  
Iran’s nuclear programs, but its strategy is essentially the same— 
limited inducements backed by harsher economic sanctions and the  
threat of war. Its plan for consolidating international support is  
likewise premised on preemptive military action against Iran. Russia,  
China and the European powers are all to be warned that their failure  
to accede to tough sanctions, including a provocative blockade on  
Iranian oil exports, will only increase the likelihood of war.
To underscore these warnings, the report proposed that the US would  
need to immediately boost its military presence in the Persian Gulf.  
“This should commence the first day the new president enters office,  
especially as the Islamic Republic and its proxies might seek to test  
the new administration. It would involve pre-positioning US and allied  
forces, deploying additional aircraft carrier battle groups and  
minesweepers, [and] emplacing other war materiel in the region,” it  
stated.
In language that closely parallels Bush’s insistence that “all options  
remain on the table”, the report declared: “We believe a military  
strike is a feasible option and must remain a last resort to retard  
Iran’s nuclear program.” Such a military strike “would have to target  
not only Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but also its conventional  
military infrastructure in order to suppress an Iranian response.”
Significantly, the report was drafted by Michael Rubin, from the neo- 
conservative American Enterprise Institute, which was heavily involved  
in promoting the 2003 invasion of Iraq. A number of Obama’s senior  
Democratic advisers “unanimously approved” the document, including  
Dennis Ross, former senator Charles Robb, who co-chaired the task  
force, and Ashton Carter, who served as assistant secretary for  
defense under Clinton.
Carter and Ross also participated in writing a report for the  
bipartisan Center for a New American Security, published in September,  
which concluded that military action against Iran had to be “an  
element of any true option”. While Ross examined the diplomatic  
options in detail, Carter laid out the “military elements” that had to  
underpin them, including a cost/benefit analysis of a US aerial  
bombardment of Iran.
Other senior Obama foreign policy and defense advisers have been  
closely involved in these discussions. A statement entitled,  
“Strengthening the Partnership: How to deepen US-Israel cooperation on  
the Iranian nuclear challenge”, drafted in June by a Washington  
Institute for Near East Policy task force, recommended the next  
administration hold discussions with Israel over “the entire range of  
policy options”, including “preventative military action”. Ross was a  
taskforce co-convener, and top Obama advisers Anthony Lake, Susan Rice  
and Richard Clarke all put their names to the document.
As the New York Times noted on Monday, Obama defense adviser Richard  
Danzig, former navy secretary under Clinton, attended a conference on  
the Middle East convened in September by the same pro-Israel think  
tank. He told the audience that his candidate believed that a military  
attack on Iran was a “terrible” choice, but “it may be that in some  
terrible world we will have to come to grips with such a terrible  
choice”. Richard Clarke, who was also present, declared that Obama was  
of the view that “Tehran’s growing influence must be curbed and that  
Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon is unacceptable.” While “his  
first inclination is not to pull the trigger,” Clarke stated, “if  
circumstances required the use of military force, Obama would not  
hesitate.”
While the New York Times article was muted and did not examine the  
reports too deeply, writer Carol Giacomo was clearly concerned at the  
parallels with the US invasion of Iraq. After pointing out that “the  
American public is largely unaware of this discussion,” she declared:  
“What makes me nervous is that’s what happened in the run-up to the  
Iraq war.”
Giacomo continued: “Bush administration officials drove the  
discussion, but the cognoscenti were complicit. The question was asked  
and answered in policy circles before most Americans know what was  
happening… As a diplomatic correspondent for Reuters in those days, I  
feel some responsibility for not doing more to ensure that the  
calamitous decision to invade Iraq was more skeptically vetted.”
The emerging consensus on Iran in US foreign policy circles again  
underscores the fact that the differences between Obama and McCain  
were purely tactical. While millions of Americans voted for the  
Democratic candidate believing he would end the war in Iraq and  
address their pressing economic needs, powerful sections of the  
American elite swung behind him as a better vehicle to prosecute US  
economic and strategic interests in the Middle East and Central Asia— 
including the use of military force against Iran.