Comment & Analysis: How Bush would gain from war with Iran: The US has the capability and reasons for an assault - and it is hard to see Britain uninvolved
By DAN PLESCH

The Guardian - United Kingdom; Aug 15, 2005

President Bush has reminded us that he is prepared to take military
action to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. On Israeli television
this weekend, he declared that "all options are on the table" if
Tehran doesn't comply with international demands.

In private his officials deride EU and UN diplomacy with Iran. US
officials have been preparing pre-emptive war since Bush marked
Iran out as a member of the "axis of evil" back in 2002. Once again,
this war is likely to have British support.

A plausible spin could be that America and Britain must act where
the international community has failed, and that their action is
the responsible alternative to an Israeli attack. The conventional
wisdom is that, even if diplomacy fails, the US is so bogged down
in Iraq that it could not take on Iran. However, this misunderstands
the capabilities and intentions of the Bush administration.

America's devastating air power is not committed in Iraq. Just
120 B52, B1 and B2 bombers could hit 5,000 targets in a single
mission. Thousands of other warplanes and missiles are available. The
army and marines are heavily committed in Iraq, but enough forces could
be found to secure coastal oilfields and to conduct raids into Iran.

A US attack is unlikely to be confined to the suspected WMD locations
or to involve a ground invasion to occupy the country. The strikes
would probably be intended to destroy military, political and (oil
excepted) economic infrastructure. A disabled Iran could be further
paralysed by civil war. Tehran alleges US support for separatists
in the large Azeri population of the north-west, and fighting is
increasing in Iranian Kurdistan.

The possible negative consequences of an attack on Iran are well
known: an increase in terrorism; a Shia rising in Iraq; Hizbullah and
Iranian attacks on Israel; attacks on oil facilities along the Gulf
and a recession caused by rising oil prices. Advocates of war argue
that if Iran is allowed to go nuclear then each of these threats
to US and Israeli interests becomes far greater. In this logic,
any negative consequence becomes a further reason to attack now -
with Iran disabled all these threats can, it is argued, be reduced.

Iraq is proving an electoral liability. This is a threat to the Bush
team's intention to retain power for the next decade - perhaps, as
the author Bob Woodward says, with President Cheney at the helm. War
with Iran next spring can enable them to win the mid-term elections
and retain control of the Republican party, now in partial rebellion
over Iraq.

The rise in oil prices and subsequent recession are reasons some doubt
that an attack would take place. However, Iran's supplies are destined
for China - perceived as the US's main long-term rival. And the Bush
team are experienced enough to remember that Ronald Reagan rode out the
recession of the early 1980s on a wave of rhetoric about "evil empire".

Even if the US went ahead, runs the argument, Britain would
not be involved as Tony Blair would not want a rerun of the Iraq
controversy. But British forces are already in the area: they border
Iran around Basra, and will soon lead the Nato force on Iran's Afghan
frontier. The British island of Diego Garcia is a critical US base.

It is hard to see Britain uninvolved in US actions. The prime minister
is clearly of a mind to no more counte nance Iran's WMD than he did
Iraq's. In Iran's case the evidence is more substantial. The Iranians
do have a nuclear energy programme and have lied about it. In any
event, Blair is probably aware that the US is unlikely to supply
him with the prized successor to the Trident submarine if Britain
refuses to continue to pay the blood sacrifice of standing with the
US. Tory votes might provide sufficient "national unity" to see off
Labour dissenters.

New approaches are needed to head off such a dismal scenario. The
problem on WMD is that Blair and Bush are doing too little, not
too much. Why pick on Iran rather than India, Pakistan, Israel or
Egypt - not to mention the west's weapons? In the era of Gorbachev
and Reagan, political will created treaties that still successfully
control many types of WMD. Revived, they would provide the basis for
global controls. Iran must not be dealt with in isolation.

As the Iran debate unfolds, we will no doubt again hear about the joint
intelligence committee. We should follow the advice of a former head
of the committee, Sir Paul Lever, to remove US intelligence officials
from around the JIC table, where they normally sit. Only in this way,
argues Lever, can the British take a considered view themselves.

We need to be clear that our MPs have no mandate to support an attack
on Iran. During the election campaign, the government dismissed any
suggestion that Iran might be attacked as ridiculous scaremongering. If
Blair has told Bush that Britain will prevent Iran's nuclear weapons
"come what may", we need to be equally clear that nothing short of
an election would provide the mandate for an attack.

Dan Plesch is the author of The Beauty Queen's Guide to World Peace,
about which he is speaking at the Edinburgh Book Festival

dan@danplesch.net