Online Journal
Front Page 
 Special Reports
 News Media
 Elections & Voting
 Social Security
 Editors' Blog
 Reclaiming America
 The Splendid Failure of Occupation
 The Lighter Side
 The Mailbag
 Online Journal Stores
 Official Merchandise
 Join Mailing List

Commentary Last Updated: Feb 5th, 2010 - 00:51:59

Gulf anti-missile shield
By Linda S. Heard
Online Journal Contributing Writer

Feb 5, 2010, 00:23

Email this article
 Printer friendly page

The news that the US is supplying Patriot anti-missile systems along with state-of-the-art weapons to Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar and is deploying warships in the Arabian Gulf signifies one of two options. Either this provocative move is meant as an anti-Iranian deterrent or Washington is aware that something is afoot and wants to protect its allies.

US President Barack Obama recently used his State of the Union address to warn Iran of �growing consequences� if it refused to discontinue its uranium enrichment program. Likewise, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, now the Quartet�s Middle East envoy, ramped up the Iran threat when giving evidence to Britain�s Iraq Inquiry last Friday, and urged the international community to take �a very, hard, tough line� with Tehran. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has also reportedly told Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri that France has proof that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, which, he warns will not be tolerated by Israel.

The fact that Gulf states view Iran with a certain amount of suspicion is understandable. For one thing, Tehran could well be developing nuclear capability, which would give it military supremacy over the region, although it has always protested that its nuclear program is exclusively civilian while maintaining its right to nuclear power under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

For another, it�s well-known that Iran has been spreading its influence around the area with financial and military support to Lebanon�s powerful political and military organization, Hezbollah, the Palestinian resistance movement Hamas and rebel tribesmen in north Yemen. It is also believed to have trained, armed and funded insurgents in Iraq and is supportive of certain members of the Iraqi government, known to have close ties to Iran.

Moreover, Tehran has on more than one occasion threatened to retaliate against American interests in the Gulf and to close the Straits of Hormuz to shipping were it to be attacked by the US or Israel. In light of that threat, who can blame GCC nations for wishing to protect themselves against Iranian missiles in the event they were caught up in any future conflict not of their own making.

It should be said that Saudi Arabia together with all the Gulf countries have cautioned against any attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, which would destabilize the neighborhood and devastate economies. They would prefer a peaceful resolution to disagreements between Tehran and the West; hopes of which are fading.

However, when seen from the Iranian perspective, deployment of anti-missile systems and US warships is an aggressive step that shuts the door on d�tente, promised by Obama during the early days of his presidency.

Forgotten are his hopes of unconditional face-to-face talks with the Ahmadinejad-led government; abandoned are his plans of reaching out to the Iranians for rapprochement. Admittedly, Iran was lukewarm following Obama�s friendly New Year message to the Iranian people but, on the other hand, the US leader was too easily deterred. Indeed, he has been too easily deterred on a range of topics, including the pursuit of Middle East peace. It�s evident that the Obama administration is now taking a hard-line stance against the Iranian regime and is thought to be backing Iranian opposition groups and insurgents in hopes of toppling the government. It has also been pushing hard for severe United Nations Security Council sanctions to be added to those already in place but is being thwarted in that regard by China which benefits from oil deals worth over $100 billion -- and to a lesser extent by Russia.

Russia, which has strong economic ties with Iran, is reluctant to back sanctions. Last September, Russian Foreign Minister Andrei Nesterenko said: �This language of sanctions, it is not our language . . .� A month later, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin warned that nothing would be gained by trying to intimidate Iran.

As the situation stands now, comparisons can be drawn between attitudes to Iran and the run-up to the 2003 Iraq war, although there are differences. Once again, the US and Britain -- heartily cheered on by Israel -- are talking tough, almost to the point of saber rattling. However, this time they have the full support of France and Germany. And, once again, China and Russia together form a bulwark to their ambitions within the UN Security Council.

The question is would Washington and its EU allies take military action alone and without the cover of an appropriate UN resolution, while they are still haunted by the specter of the Iraq blunder and its potential illegality? After all, it is credible that Tehran is not, in fact, seeking a nuclear weapons� capability, in which case, any attack would be tantamount to yet another war of aggression. Such a course would also be a hard sell among a skeptical Western public sick of seeing their soldiers return from Afghanistan and Iraq in flag-draped coffins.

A far more likely scenario would be an attack by Israel with the tacit approval of the US and other Western powers. The Israeli public would likely throw its weight behind its government as most Israelis see Iran as an existential threat. At the same time, Israel doesn�t worry too much about flouting international law or receiving United Nations censure, as any condemnation will be labeled �anti-Semitic� and ignored. Israel does consider a green light from its benefactor, the US, all-important, however.

Certainly, former US Ambassador to UN John Bolton is convinced that Israel will attack Iran but, thus far, his predictions have failed to manifest, including the last indicating there would be a military confrontation before the end of 2009.

If Bolton is essentially right, even though his timing�s off, it is impossible to imagine the repercussions from such a strike that will be suffered by this region and beyond. It�s unlikely that Israel could knock out all Iran�s nuclear facilities, known to be numerous, spread far and wide and, in some cases, deep underground. There is another unknown factor too. Nobody knows for sure what ready-made weapons Iran has purchased and accumulated over the decades.

If Obama doesn�t want his Nobel Peace Prize to turn into history�s biggest joke, he should stick to his original plan of sitting around a table with Iranian decision-makers and reassure them that the US means Tehran no harm and is prepared to rein in Israel. That�s the only setting in which Iran can be convinced to make its nuclear program transparent. It�s surely worth a try when the alternative is so frighteningly awful!

Linda S. Heard is a British specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback and can be contacted by email at

Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor

Top of Page

Latest Headlines
Christmas Day Crotch Bomber tied to Israel, FBI
Oil, gas, gold, copper, etc., in Haiti equals US occupation
Blood lust and bragging rights
Fixing a bad Supreme Court decision
Time for an American intifada?
Markets fail when humans are unregulated
Walk a mile . . .
Lobbyists retreat but never surrender
Obama seeks $200 million fund for Khalid Sheik Mohammed trial security
Gulf anti-missile shield
The defense industry is pleased with Obama
Capitalist tool
Decency and strength
What do Iraqis want?
Blair has slithered off the hook again
So now what?
Supreme Court-porate opinion blesses corruporate campaign financing
Hijinks or undercover ops?
What�s quaking, what�s shaking?
Last rites for America�s near-death democracy