admin /20 March, 2006
The updated version of the Bush Administration’s 2002 national security
strategy, released in Washington last week, identified Iran as the
country that may pose the biggest danger to the United States,
according to Kenneth Davidson, a senior columnist in The Age (20/3/2006).
Pre-emptive strikes possible: The strategy document, which
reaffirmed pre-emptive military action as a central tenet of US
security policy, raised fears the Bush Administration would resort to
force to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.
Air strikes the most likely option: If force is used, it will
come in the form of air strikes, as US land forces are already
overstretched in the occupation of neighbouring Iraq. Worse, any air
strike against Iran is unlikely to get the support of the United
Nations Security Council, given that China and Russia would likely veto
any resolution put up by the US.
Euro-based oil trade worries US: Why would the Bush
Administration risk widening Gulf War II to include Iran when it still
has the chance to limit its losses to Iraq? The most popular
explanation is that the US wants to pre-empt the Iranian decision to
set up a Tehran oil bourse to facilitate the selling and buying of oil
in euros instead of US dollars.
Threat to military budget: If the US had to find cures (or yuan)
to pay for its oil, it would have to increase taxes, cut consumption
and increase exports. In short, according to this scenario, the US
could no longer afford to be a military superpower and would have to
cut back its global adventures.
US dollar questioned: In the process, the US dollar would
collapse, wiping out the accumulated financial assets of America’s
major creditors and probably causing a depression of 1930s dimensions.
More generally, such a development opens up the question of whether the
reserve status of the $US is supporting US superpower status, or
whether US military power is propping up the reserve currency status of
the $US.
Push for regime change: The cynical explanation for the Bush
Administration’s threats against Iran is that, like the build-up to the
invasion of Iraq, the real objective is “regime change”, which has been
re-enforced by the slump in President Bush’s approval rating to 34 per
cent.
All down to politics: The only thing on the political horizon
that might restore Republican fortunes is a new and credible national
security threat in order to keep control of Congress in the November
elections. If the Republicans lost control of Congress, the way becomes
open for hearings into the constitutionality of the Bush
Administration’s use of wiretaps on Americans without warrants as
required by legislation.
Congress control: The Republican majority in both the Senate and
the Reps has blocked examination of the legality of this and other
actions by the Bush Administration. How far the Bush Administration is
prepared to go in Iran in order to avoid losing control of Congress to
a hostile Democrat majority, which might opt for impeachment, will have
fundamental consequences for the global economy in 2006, Davidson
concluded.
