THE MAX PROGRAMME

After a calm interlude the world is again talking about a possible war against Iran. Following an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department, the White House decided to use military force in Iran before the expiry of George Bush's term in office, according to a report in the British newspaper the Guardian. He has 18 months left in his post. "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo," the Guardian's source in Washington said. The problem is that the US leader does not trust any potential successors in the White House to deal decisively with Iran. This is why the Pentagon allegedly prepared this war scenario back in June.

The US vice-president, Dick Cheney, known for his bellicose plans against the Iranian regime, has an influential role in this. Patrick Cronin, director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said, "Cheney has limited capital left, but if he wanted to use all his capital on this one issue, he could still have an impact."

At the same time the newspaper reported that the key to possible military action lies with Israel, who might attack Iran independently. Then the USA would be forced to take decisive action. Since in any case, the responsibility would lie with Washington, would it not be better for them to take the initiative from the start? In parallel with the recent meeting of the Middle East quartet in Lisbon, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad met his Syrian counterpart Bashar al-Assad in Damascus. In a joint statement they called for dialogue between the Palestinians, Iraqis and Lebanese and also condemned the Zionist Israeli regime's policy of occupation and aggression towards the Palestinian and Lebanese people. For their part, the Iranian side promised to finance Syria's purchase of Russian and North Korean weapons, to build military factories in Syria and give broad political support including on issues concerning Lebanon. In return Bashar al-Assad assured Ahmadinejad that he is not intending to begin peace talks with Israel.

Hardly surprisingly, Israel is very suspicious of this friendship between its enemies. Knesset deputy Arieh Eldad from the National Union party, Mafdad, compared the new agreements between Iran and Syria with the military alliances concluded between the Arab countries on the eve of the Six Day and Yom Kippur wars. "It is incomprehensible that the Israeli government is ignoring both the information provided by intelligence and open threats. Combined attacks on Israel are being prepared from Gaza, Judea and Samaria, Lebanon, Syria and Iran," the deputy said.

The West's complaints against Iran have not changed: the Iranian nuclear programme remains a cause for serious concern. Although Tehran says this is intended for exclusively peaceful purposes, most of the world community suspects that the real intention is to obtain weapons of mass destruction. The EU and especially Washington are extremely concerned at the growing influence of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the Middle East. The White House is convinced that Tehran is helping to train militants in Iraq and Afghanistan. In other words, there is no shortage of reasons to start military action.

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, has said that there are signs of Iran slowing down work on the enrichment plant it is building in Natanz. The IAEA's deputy director general, Olli Heinonen, said two days of talks in Tehran between Iranian officials and IAEA representatives had produced "good results". The IAEA is seeking a full accounting of Iran's nuclear activities before Tehran disclosed its enrichment programme in 2003. However, at the same time there are many signs that Washington has already said given up on diplomatic pressure on Iran. US State Department Under Secretary Nick Burns said that the diplomatic "games" would probably go on for a long time. The question is, are they able to produce a result.

Not only leaks in the press, but real action indicate the White House's bellicose plans. Almost half the American fleet, including two aircraft carrier groups, have been stationed near Iran's borders. The aircraft carrier USS Enterprise left Virginia last week for the Gulf. A Pentagon spokesman said it was to replace the USS Nimitz and there would be no overlap that would mean three carriers in the Gulf at the same time. Nimitz-class aircraft carriers carry up to nine air squadrons, which destroy enemy aircraft, submarines and ships and can also strike land targets and lay mines. 

As for the legal basis for the possible use of force to subdue Tehran, in mid-May the US Congress House of Representatives refused to ban the use of military force against Iran. The Congressmen also rejected an amendment on the ban on using the Pentagon's budget funds to plan military operations against the Islamic Republic. This has practically untied the White House's hands.

Many Middle Eastern publications, as well as the Western press, hint that the USA is preparing to attack Iran. In spring the date appeared in the press of the start of operation Sting, in which American aircraft were to carry out an unexpected attack on Iran in order to destroy all the nuclear installations. However, if the information this time really is accurate, the war will not start before 2008 anyway, as talks between the EU foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, and the secretary of the Iranian Security Council, Ali Larijani, are still going on. It is another matter that few people take these talks seriously.

Several questions arise from the above. Putting the war in Iraq centre stage, does the possible addition of war in Iran mean that White House officials want to sort out everything in one go? What if this war does not become a small, victorious war in a single Middle Eastern country? What if the conflict stirs up the entire, problematic Middle East region at once? It is hard to believe that, in the event of the start of military action, Washington is not calculating all the possible risks, twists and turns in their planned military scenario. But did American experts really make calculations about Iraq? Could this mistake be repeated? What about public opinion in the USA? It is quite likely that Americans could be swamped by revolt long before the start of war in Iran. The former US assistant secretary at the Treasury in Ronald Reagan's administration, Republican Paul Craig Roberts, said earlier that George Bush and Dick Cheney could be preparing the ground to distract public opinion away from the administration's failures in Iraq by striking Iran. Now he has accused the American president of turning the USA into "a dictatorial police state". The president is said to have already prepared the legal basis to introduce a state of emergency in the country. This revelation emerged from a special decree signed by the US president which allows the finance minister, after consulting the secretary of state and Pentagon, to freeze and confiscate the assets of any individuals in the USA who the administration thinks "are threatening stabilization in Iraq".