Iranians Wary as U.S. Shows Signs of Escalation

TEHRAN, Iran -- It wasn't the news of the raid by the U.S. Army against the Iranian interests section in the northern Iraqi town of Arbil that set off the alarm bells.

Nor the announcement by Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that "twice in the past two or three weeks . . . we've captured Iranians," followed by former Assistant Secretary of State Martin Indyk threatening "serious consequences" as a result of Bush's new strategy of escalation against Iran.

The announcement that a second aircraft carrier, the U.S.S. John C. Stennis, would be moving into the Persian Gulf as a show of force against Iran -- the first time that two U.S. carrier battle groups have entered the Gulf since 2003 -- is significant but could be explained away as further saber-rattling by the Bush Administration.

Ditto the Kuwaiti News Agency's reporting that at least 16 American F-16 jet fighters, joined by AWACS and tanker aircraft, landed at southern Turkey's Incirlik air base last week. A U.S. embassy official was quoted as saying that the airplanes were there in order to conduct exercises with the Turkish military. Nevertheless, the base has been used only for logistical purposes in the three years since the Turks refused to allow the Pentagon to launch a northern front from Turkey during its invasion of Iraq.

No, paradoxically, it is the denials of U.S. officials, rather than the evidence of a military mobilization, that have made an Iran invasion seem more likely of late. Reading that tired, oft-repeated cliché that "unnamed administration officials" like to whisper sotto voce to trusted scribes at the New York Times or the Washington Post is particularly alarming: The Post's Anne Flaherty was the one chosen this time to convey to the public that there is no "immediate plan to strike targets in Iran," a statement inevitably balanced by the disclaimer that military action is not being ruled out.

The powerful sense of deja vu triggered by that statement took me back to the weeks preceding the attack against Iraq, when international diplomatic efforts were ongoing despite the decision having been taken that Saddam Hussein would be deposed.

Then, last Friday, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee that references by Bush to actions against Iran in his Jan. 10 speech referred "strictly to operations inside the territory inside Iraq -- not crossing the border."

President Bush signed an executive order several months ago authorizing American troops to undertake wide-ranging military action against Iranian operatives active inside Iraq, which has only just gone into effect. That discreetly issued directive was the basis for at least two recent raids against Iranian targets there

Meanwhile, Bush administration officials hit the talk-show circuit Sunday to bolster their case.

"The threat that Iran represents is growing," said vice president Dick Cheney, in words reminiscent of how he once built a case against Saddam. "It's multidimensional, and it is, in fact, of concern to everybody in the region."

Finally, there is the news that Patriot missile defense systems will be deployed within the territories of several of Washington's Persian Gulf Arab allies. The last two times that Patriot weapons systems were used in the region were to protect Israel in the run-up to U.S. attacks against Iraq in 1991 and 2003.

Of course, the U.S. military buildup may not indicate a coming invasion. It could be one hell of a region-wide ruse to scare the Iranians into cooperation. After all, isn't military mobilization part of the standard arsenal wielded by any self-respecting superpower when seeking to whip recalcitrant rogue states into order?

Maybe. But there is also compelling evidence to indicate the Bush Administration has decided the right path to follow in Iraq is escalation, rather than withdrawal after almost four years of steady bleeding. Military action against Iran could be part of that escalation.

"The incident with the Iranian consulate, the rhetoric about Iran, the increasing temptation to blame our failure on the Iranians and the Syrians, could push us in that direction," said Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former National Security Adviser for President Carter. "And there are a lot of people still around here, particularly the neocons, who would like us to have a crack at Iran."

In Tehran, soft snow has been covering the Iranian capital's grimy boulevards over the past few days and a fresh wind blowing in from the snow-capped peaks has cleared away the pollution. Despite the rising tension and the worries expressed by ordinary Iranians since the unanimous acceptance of UN Resolution 1737 introduced international sanctions last month, many Iranians flocked to the mountains last Thursday, as they do every Muslim weekend, to walk and relax. Hiking up the ice-glazed mountain-paths, throngs of carefree young people stopped off at coffee shops and restaurants to drink tea, smoke water pipes or eat steaming bowls of lentil soup.

"I don't believe the Americans can do anything against Iran," said Mahmoud Sedighzadeh, one of the hikers. "I may not be a fan of the Islamic Republic of Iran, but our akhund (mullahs) are wilier than any American politician."

Last week, the U.S. Department of the Treasury banned U.S. companies or citizens from doing business with Iran's Bank Sepah and blocked all of its assets that come under American jurisdiction, after naming it a front for Iran's Revolutionary Guard and the country's rocket program.

"Now is the time to begin worrying," said Mansour, a sculptor, as he worked in his atelier last Thursday morning. "The resolution was only the first step and the Americans will try to build upon that to put more pressure upon Iran."

After a furious rhetorical reaction to the imposition of sanctions, when President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed to cut ties with the IAEA and install 3,000 centrifuges in anticipation of beginning industrial enrichment, Iran's leadership has shown signs of stepping back from the brink. At the same time, there is increasing internal criticism of Ahmadinejad's rowdy handling of the nuclear issue, which is negatively affecting Iran's international standing.

Nevertheless, as news of the Arbil raid spread, Iran's press struck a defiant tone. "Americans flee forward," trumpeted one newspaper on its front cover, punning on the U.S. decision to increase troop levels in neighboring Iraq despite the defeats inflicted so far. The conservative newspaper Kayhan mocked the United States in its front-page headline Saturday: "In Iraq, Bush can go neither forward nor back," it read, above a caricature of the U.S. President cutting himself on a double-edged dagger in his hand.

"They're not reporting the Arab unity against Iran, which is pretty strong now," said Leila Tehrani, a producer for Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, referring to Iran's state television. "I think they're still in a state of denial about everything that's going on."

Moderate Iranian politicians also criticized U.S. actions in Iraq, while cautioning their own government against overreaction.

"They intend to infuriate our government by such an act [the Arbil raid]," said Soleiman Jafarzadeh, member of parliament for the Maku district and a member of the parliamentary National Security and Foreign Policy Committee. "Our government should not make emotive reactions and should respond logically and practically to such non-diplomatic and irrational acts."

The country's leadership has decided that there is still time to convince its Arab neighbors not to coalesce into an anti-Iran front. Speaking at his first public appearance since U.S. neoconservative Michael Ledeen claimed he had died, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said last week that the United States' regional policies have failed.

"America's policies have failed in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and Afghanistan. . . . Now America is trying to create discord among Shiites and Sunnis," he said while addressing a group of high-level clerics in Qom. "Regional countries should pay attention and not fall into America's dangerous trap."

Khamenei was referring to the increase in anti-Shiite sentiment in the Arab Middle East over the past few months and especially since the execution of Saddam Hussein on Dec. 30, on the eve of the holiest feast for Sunni Muslims.

Last summer's Lebanon war was seen by many analysts as a proxy war between the United States and Iran, as it pitted regional allies Israel and Hezbollah against each other. Hezbollah's strong showing and stemming of the Israeli advance further frightened the region's conservative Arab leaders.

"Hezbollah are widely reported to have possessed excellent SIGINT [signals intelligence], their own secure radios, anti-shipping missiles, thermal imaging, and anti-tank capability to defeat Explosive Reactive Armour, and to have used them well," said James Spencer, a Middle East expert specializing in defense and security issues. "If Hezbollah is supported by Iran, Iran is likely to have similar capability -- and more."

Furthermore, Saddam's removal marked the collapse of the only anti-Iranian bulwark Arab state and convinced Saudi Arabia, the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, Jordan and Egypt that they must enter into an endgame with Tehran before its regional importance overshadows them all.

On the streets of Tehran, the dominant feeling about Iran's Arab neighbors is one of contempt. Secular, educated, multilingual Iranians turn surprisingly racist when asked about their Arab neighbors, attributing their feelings either to a perception of cultural superiority or to resentment about the way in which Arabs imposed Islam upon Iran and erased its Zoroastrian identity.

"I get bothered when I look at Arab cities like Dubai because all these things that they have managed to do would not have happened if the Revolution hadn't set us back all these years," said Beta Edalat, a university graduate from Tehran.

Iason Athanasiadis is a Tehran-based analyst and writer.