Maritime Morning - Andrew Krystal

The recent assessment by U.S. intelligence agencies released Monday indicates that Iran has halted its nuclear weapons program, and did so in 2003. This contradicts a previous assessment two years go which said Iran was going full tilt towards nuclear enrichment for the purpose of creating nuclear arms.

This throws a monkey wrench into Bush’s plan to attack Iran before his time runs out – but it may not be enough.

Presently the Canadian Navy has the HMCS Charlottetown deployed in the Persian Gulf as part of an American-led task force.

The concern is that Canada will be drawn, sleep-walking again, into a war with Iran in the same fashion as it has been drawn into a combat role in Afghanistan as a result of a weak Prime Minister, Paul Martin, and a vacuum in terms of both military policy and civilian leadership.

All of the alarm bells have been ringing, for a while now, regarding the U.S. and Israel gearing up for a war with Iran. The administration has been open in its discussion of war; with Bush even saying you will have World War III if Iran isn’t thwarted in its nuclear ambitions. Israel, an America client state, has been pretty much hysterical in this regard.

What is the truth? Iran does need nuclear power domestically. While it has huge oil reserves, it has a very inefficient economy and could use nuclear power to free up more oil exports. Does it want nuclear weapons? Sure. But there was a time, during the early stages of the Iraq invasion, when Iran was showing compliance. America ignored her. America, under Bush, didn’t believe in diplomacy then, and doesn’t so much now.

There is the thinking in the current Bush administration that American prestige can be regained, and that Iran’s ascendancy, in the wake of the demise of Iraq (a traditional enemy which balanced Iran’s influence), can be thwarted, by military means. Israel, as well, is nervous that Iran’s influence in the region will also empower the Shiite Hezbollah and Sunni Hamas — organizations Iran supports. A nuclear bomb in the hands of terrorists is a non-starter for the Israelis. However, Iran is unlikely to relinquish such power to another party – especially when such things have a return address.

An air strike on Iran would be fraught with a variety of problems, and would not, in all probability, be bloodless for America and her allies (hopefully not Canada).

Iran has lots of current generation Russian sea-skimming anti-ship missiles, plus Chinese Silkworms. Capital ships are highly vulnerable to having their defenses overwhelmed by such weapons. Think of the Sheffield, hit by a French made Exocet in the Falklands in 1982 — only much worse.

Western Navies have a false sense of security when it comes to an actual shooting war.

Should America ever lose a capital ship, there is no telling what kind of retaliation would occur: tactical nukes, unconventional weapons, massive civilian religious leadership targeting. It would be a mess. Perhaps even strategic weapons; involving others too, that may decide to get involved.

What Canadian policy makers have to be aware of is that Stephen Harper would, unquestionably, like the Canadian navy to be involved in an American-led war on Iran.

This is wrong on a number of levels.

Canada must be vigilant about the course direction here politically. There must be an open declaration by the opposition parties that Canada, under no circumstances, will be involved in a war on Iran. Moreover, our ships should be removed from the Persian Gulf. With two U.S. carrier strike groups in the Gulf, it is easy for an “incident” to occur.

There is simply no reason why this country should be sleep-walking again into armed conflict. We already know that Bush only has a hammer in the tool box. It has never been enough, but he doesn’t know how to use anything else; and, after failing in Iraq, Bush wants to go double or nothing on Iran.

I was contradicted by Maclean’s writer Michael Petrou when I declared that Canada is a peace-keeping nation. But that contradiction was incorrect; while Canada has acquitted itself well on the battle field during the Boer war, two world wars, (and where America was a Johnny-come-lately) and Korea, Canada was never involved in wars of choice like Vietnam or Iraq. A war against Iran would be a war of choice.

There is a case to be made that America’s (Rumsfeld’s) “leaning forward” strategy, and a militarized foreign policy, caused Iran to involve itself in a security competition and a nuclear approach. North Korea, in fact, began its nuclear program, again, following America’s reckless adventure in Iraq.

Canadian Frigates should not be brought into harms way as diplomatic cover for a country, and an administration, that has power, but little moral authority left.

American isolationism and American unilateralism are cut from the same cloth — and it is not Canada’s way.

It is time to wag the dog.