According to esteemed American journalist Seymour Hersh, the Bush administration has recently boosted its secret war against Iran. In the latest issue of The New Yorker magazine, Hersh writes that last year Congress approved a presidential request for $400 million to finance covert operations inside Iran aimed at destabilizing the regime and to gather information on its nuclear activities. Hersh adds that cross-border operations against Iran have been going on since last year, but have escalated in a significant way of late giving signals that a pre-emptive strike could be in the works soon.

The Hersh article coincides with recent revelations, by US sources, that Israel has conducted a major aerial exercise over the Mediterranean in what is believed to have been a dress rehearsal for a possible military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. And it was also reported that Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, visited Israel for the second time in six months last June and met with his Israeli counterpart presumably to discuss a possible attack against what is perceived as a growing Iranian threat.

The Hersh article points to increasing worries by US lawmakers, especially Democratic deputies, that the Bush administration may be putting the final touches on a joint US-Israeli military strike against Iran.

Certainly there is a lot of tension in the air. In recent days Israeli and Iranian officials have traded threats after the release of news reports that Israel has conducted a major air force mission involving mock raids and mid-air refueling. So far the United States and its allies have opted for diplomacy with EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana making a trip to Tehran last week with an offer to resolve the standoff which he delivered on behalf of the group of six: The US, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China. Iran has failed to respond so far but said that it was studying the package with “a constructive view.”

THE somber mood over a peaceful resolution to the crisis has added to the spikes that lifted oil prices and played havoc with money markets all over the globe. Last Monday, oil was trading at $143 per barrel, but already experts were in agreement that hitting the $150 per barrel mark was not very far off.

There is no doubt that a military strike against Iran will launch oil prices to extreme levels with destructive effects on local, regional and international economies. The immediate Iranian reaction would be to stop its own oil exports even for a short while. But further reactions could include closing the strategic waterways of the Gulf, launching a retaliatory strike against US bases in Iraq and firing long-range missiles aimed at Israel. How the so-called Iraqi insurgents, especially those backing Iran, might react is open for speculation. Similar sympathetic reaction could come from Hezbollah in Lebanon and even Hamas and other groups in Gaza.

Hitting Iran now would open a Pandora’s box and throw its contents all over the region. The consequences of such an act would be unimaginable. Certainly if the US and Israel carry out a surprise attack on Iran the world will be divided again just as it was on the eve of the US invasion of Iraq five years ago. The group of six might be in agreement over the diplomatic package of incentives but not over the punitive measures, which have been limited to economic sanctions until now.

Ironically, a day after the Hersh article was published, US Army historians issued a report on the Iraq war listing successive blunders and errors committed by the Pentagon’s top military and political leaderships, which led to the chaos and violence that followed the invasion. In contrast one wonders what catastrophic miscalculations will involve a potential strike against Iran.

About a week ago, International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohammad El-Baradei warned that an attack on Iran could turn Middle East to a “ball of fire.” Surely such apocalyptic words from a man who knows only too well the region’s edgy situation must carry weight with the warmongers in Washington and Tel Aviv.

On the other hand, Iran too bears responsibility in the recent heightening of tension. While its efforts to acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes are legitimate, it has to take into account that its neighbors, especially the Arabs, have real concerns over nuclear proliferation in this region. The fact that Israel, which technically is still at war with the Arab world, has at least 150 nuclear warheads in its possession, is a cause for concern for millions who live in this region.

The nuclearization of Israel, a process that was supported by the West over many years, has been a point of contention and a reason for despair by the Arabs. One cannot but echo the complaints of leaders and citizens that the West and the IAEA have been complacent in dealing with Israeli transgressions while adopting tough policies in the case of Iran.

The possibility of a new war breaking out in the Middle East, this time over Iran’s nuclear ambitions, underlines the fact that current and previous policies in dealing with this region’s problems have all been one-sided and wrong. A strike against Iran will be a continuation of the same tilted policy that has only brought death and destruction.

— Osama Al-Sharif is a veteran journalist based in Jordan.