Defense Dept. plans for strike on Iran

US preparations for an air strike against Iran are at an advanced stage, despite repeated public denials by the Bush administration, according to informed sources in Washington. The present military build-up in the Persian Gulf would allow the US to mount an attack by the spring. But the sources said that if there was an attack, it was more likely next year, just before Bush leaves office. Neoconservatives, particularly at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute (AEI), are urging Bush to open a new front against Iran, as is Vice President Dick Cheney. The Bush administration insists the military build-up is not offensive but aimed at containing Iran and forcing it to make diplomatic concessions. The aim, they say, is to persuade Tehran to curb its nuclear power program and abandon what the administration claims are ambitions for weapons and regional expansion. "I don't know how many times the president, Secretary [of State Condoleezza] Rice and I have had to repeat that we have no intention of attacking Iran," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Feb. 9. But Vincent Cannistraro, a Washington-based intelligence analyst, shared the sources' assessment that Pentagon planning was well under way. "Planning is going on, in spite of public disavowals by Gates. Targets have been selected. For a bombing campaign against nuclear sites, it is quite advanced. The military assets to carry this out are being put in place." He added: "We are planning for war. It is incredibly dangerous." Cannistraro, who worked for the CIA and the National Security Council, stressed that no decision had been made. Last month Bush ordered a second battle group led by the aircraft carrier USS Stennis to the Gulf in support of the USS Eisenhower. The USS Stennis is due to arrive within the next 10 days. Extra US Patriot missiles have been sent to the region, as well as more minesweepers, in anticipation of Iranian retaliatory action. In another sign that preparations are under way, Bush has ordered oil reserves to be stockpiled. The danger is that the build-up could spark an accidental war. Iranian officials said on Feb. 8 that they had tested missiles capable of hitting warships in the Gulf. Colonel Sam Gardiner, a former air force officer who has carried out war games with Iran as the target, supported the view that planning for an air strike was under way: "Gates said there is no planning for war. We know this is not true. He possibly meant there is no plan for an immediate strike. It was sloppy wording. "All the moves being made over the last few weeks are consistent with what you would do if you were going to do an air strike. We have to throw away the notion the US could not do it because it is too tied up in Iraq. It is an air operation." One of the main driving forces behind war, apart from the vice president's office, is the AEI, headquarters of the neoconservatives. A member of the AEI coined the slogan "axis of evil" that originally lumped Iran in with Iraq and North Korea. Its influence on the White House appeared to be in decline last year amid endless bad news from Iraq, for which it had been a cheerleader. But Bush opted last month for an AEI plan to send more troops to Iraq. Will he support calls from within the AEI for a strike on Iran? Josh Muravchik, a Middle East specialist at the AEI, is among its most vocal supporters of such a strike. "I do not think anyone in the US is talking about invasion. We have been chastened by the experience of Iraq, even a hawk like myself." But an air strike was another matter. The danger of Iran having a nuclear weapon "is not just that it might use it out of the blue but as a shield to do all sorts of mischief. I do not believe there will be any way to stop this happening other than physical force." Muravchik is intent on holding Bush to his word: "The Bush administration have said they would not allow Iran nuclear weapons. That is either bullshit or they mean it as a clear code: we will do it if we have to. I would rather believe it is not hot air." Other neo-cons elsewhere in Washington are opposed to an air strike but advocate a different form of military action, supporting Iranian armed groups, in particular the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), even though the State Department has branded it a terrorist organization. Raymond Tanter, founder of the Iran Policy Committee, which includes former officials from the White House, State Department and intelligence services, is a leading advocate of support for the MEK. If it comes to an air strike, he favors bunker-busting bombs. "I believe the only way to get at the deeply buried sites at Natanz and Arak is probably to use bunker-buster bombs, some of which are nuclear tipped. I do not believe the US would do that, but it has sold them to Israel." Support for negotiations comes from centrist and liberal thinktanks. Afshin Molavi, a fellow of the New America Foundation, said: "To argue diplomacy has not worked is false because it has not been tried. Post-'90s and through to today, when Iran has been ready to dance, the US refused, and when the US has been ready to dance, Iran has refused. We are at a stage where Iran is ready to walk across the dance floor and the US is looking away." He is worried about "a miscalculation that leads to an accidental war."