The US public is being prepped for war on Iran in ways that echo to ill-fated war on Iraq, writes Emad Mekay The sabre rattling has started and the players look frighteningly similar to those who beat the drums of the ill- fated Iraq war. On Tuesday, US President George W Bush refused to rule out the use of force against Iran in order to prevent Tehran becoming a nuclear force. "All options are on the table," Bush said, even though earlier he had painted US news reports that Washington was contemplating the use of nuclear weapons against Iran as "wild speculation". Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called on the UN Security Council "to act". Speaking on behalf of "the world community", Rice said Washington's position, now more aligned with long-established demands from Israel, was that Tehran should be denied technological know- how. "The world community does not want them to have that nuclear know-how and that's why nobody wants them to be able to enrich and reprocess on their territory," she said. The statements from US officials came after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced last week that Iran had successfully enriched a small quantity of uranium. The United States, Israel and some other Western nations -- many of them nuclear powers and keen to maintain their military supremacy -- worry that the Islamic Republic will use enriched uranium not to fuel nuclear power plants but to make atomic bombs. Here in the United States, it wasn't only the right-wing Bush administration that was posturing over Iran's announcement. The opposition in the Democrat Party used Iran to portray the Bush administration as weak on policies towards security threats posed by Iran. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid urged Bush to use a visit by Chinese President Hu Jintao to Washington this week to convince the Chinese to join the US in trying to bring Tehran before the UN Security Council for possible sanctions over its nuclear programme. Similar to the run-up to the Iraq invasion, the US media is doing its share too, feverishly showing maps of Iran illustrating the alleged locations of Iranian nuclear facilities. The maps echo those channels like Fox News and CNN displayed on the alleged location of Iraq's fabled weapons of mass destruction. At work, too, are a number of analysts and experts who have been criss-crossing seminars, media outlets and congressional hearings, and who have written numerous editorials urging military action against Iran. They are the same group that padded arguments for the invasion of Iraq. This group includes Patrick Clawson of the pro-IsraelWashington Institute for Near East Policy, Michael A Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute -- often called the "legitimator" of the Iraq war -- and C Hulsman of the conservative Heritage Foundation. A number of influential right-wing publications have been quick to offer a dose of intellectual justifications for a possible strike on Iran. William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, urged "serious preparation for possible military action, including real and urgent operation planning for bombing strikes and for the consequences of such strikes." Mark Helprin, a writer and Israeli military veteran, wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post giving detailed military advice on how to launch the strike. "We would do well to strengthen -- in number and mass as well as quality -- the means with which we fight, to reinforce the fleet train with which to supply fighting lines, and to plan for a land route from the Mediterranean across Israel and Jordan to the Tigris and Euphrates," he wrote. Hardline groups -- chiefly pro-Israel organisations, worried about the dangers a rival military power might pose to Israel -- have called for a tougher stance. Reacting to the Security Council decision in March to issue a demand that Iran halt its nuclear enrichment programme, the American Jewish Congress called for further economic and military action. "What is most likely is that, in the end, economic sanctions, stronger political pressure or perhaps even military action will be needed. The resolution that the UN has passed begins the process of finding just how much pressure will be required for Iran to respond to the international will," the group said in a statement. The American Jewish Committee -- another Israel advocacy group -- has launched a "Stop Iran's Nuclear Arms Drive" campaign, placing advertisements in major newspapers including The New York Times, The Financial Times and The International Herald Tribune describing Iran, like Iraq was described before, an "imminent threat". The ad, which showed a map illustrating the possible range of Iran's missile technology, asked: "Can anyone within range of Iran's missiles feel safe?... Now you can help press the international community to stop this imminent threat." But despite the aggressive tone in neo-conservative circles that prodded the United States to the ill-fated US-led invasion of Iraq, many experts who opposed the Iraq war came out against sabre rattling on Iran. Many argued that a military strike would undermine global security since Iran does not have nuclear weapons and does not represent a direct or imminent threat to the United States. "The Bush administration has explicitly rejected the basic precept that the sole purpose of US nuclear weapons should be to deter the use of nuclear weapons," said Kurt Gottfried, chairman of the Union of Concerned Scientists and emeritus professor of physics at Cornell University. "It has also blurred the line between nuclear and conventional weapons by declaring that nuclear weapons can be used as part of military operations," he said. Other analysts warned that the Bush administration's aim is not only to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear technology but ultimately to force regime change -- a far riskier endeavour. "While the Islamic Republic's hard- nosed posture and military exercises are aimed at forcing the US to the negotiation table, the Bush administration has shown unambiguously that it is not willing to consider any option short of the total capitulation of the Iranian regime and preferably its demise," wrote Kaveh Ehsani, an independent scholar based in Chicago and member of the editorial board of Middle East Report. "This is a dangerous fantasy that could lead to a repeat of the Iraq fiasco, but on a much larger scale," he said. Mohamed Sahimi, another expert on Iran who co-wrote with Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi the op-ed "Defusing Iran with democracy", argues there is no alternative but for the US and Iran to engage in direct and comprehensive negotiations, regarding all issues of mutual concern. Sahimi holds that talk of military strikes on Iran, particularly the use of tactical nuclear weapons, would give rise to "a potent and volatile" mixture of Iranian nationalism and Shia traditions of martyrdom. "In an actual military conflict with Iran, this volatile mixture would respond in a way that might engulf the entire region in fire. There is one and only one solution to Iran's nuclear programme and that is through negotiations," he said.
