Now that it is known that Iran is moving ever closer to obtaining a nuclear weapon, the United States is targeting sanctions against the Iranian Central Bank. Likewise, the European Union is moving in the direction of imposing an effective oil embargo on Iran. These sanctions are apparently having a more dire effect on Iran’s economy as evidenced by their threat to close the Straits of Hormuz. If anything the Iranian government’s animus towards the West and towards the U.S and Israel has grown exponentially as Iran sees these two countries as the principals in trying to thwart their nuclear ambitions.

Thus, in order to inflict harm and better position itself against any possible hostile US action, Iran has been seeking allies in the U.S sphere of influence: namely the Western Hemisphere. President Ahmadinejad has found no better friend or ally than Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

As a result of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s recent visit to the countries of the Bolivarian alliance (Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua and Ecuador), several analysts expressed their views regarding the Iran-Latin American relationship.

Stephen Johnson, a former Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Western Hemisphere and currently a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, made a number of points in a widely quoted article that seems to give some relief to those who fear the worst about this relationship.

Johnson observes that trade and contracts signed between the Latin American countries mentioned above and Iran have been somehow exaggerated and that commerce between them is minuscule. Likewise, Johnson adds that reports of Iranian strategic investment in Latin America are not real because Iran’s promises for hospital funding, technological cooperation and other projects have not really been fulfilled. Even the factories established as joint Iran-Venezuela ventures (like tractors) have not been profitable and did not deliver the goods.

In addition, Johnson states that Iran’s proxy, Hezbollah, was an active terrorist group in Latin America in the 1990’s. However, current Hezbollah interests in the region are limited to fund-raising that support the group’s activities in Lebanon. Nonetheless, he raises concerns about the possibility that “relaxed customs protocols with some Latin American states could facilitate the transfer of materials or technology needed to improve (Iran’s) enrichment program and make nuclear weapons”.

Another expert, Michael Schifter, president of the Inter-American Dialogue also offers a reassuring version of the facts on the ground. In Schifter’s own words:

The concerns about the activities of Hezbollah and Iran in Latin America are certainly legitimate and should be monitored closely…. But there is a great deal of speculation and conjecture about this question, for the most part in the absence of hard evidence, which should meet a high standard before pursuing any policy course. Not much is actually known about the extent of their presence in the region and the nature of any ties to money laundering and drug trafficking. As Iranian president Ahmadinejad begins his five-day Latin American tour, it is highly unlikely that he will find a very hospitable environment, beyond the four countries he is visiting, all affiliated with a considerably weakened Venezuela-led coalition… If Hezbollah and Iran are heavily engaged in illicit activities in the region that would pose a threat to the major countries, which have made economic and political progress that they will want to avoid putting at risk. Both Iran and Venezuela, Iran’s advocate in the region, are today considerably weakened in their respective regions.

The State Department believes that Ahmadinejad is an erratic leader who travels to Latin America desperately “looking for friends”.

Johnson’s observation of facts is thorough and serious but his analysis is also limited by its own factualness. Johnson’s argument makes the impression that actual facts speak for themselves and there is no need for further interpretation. Johnson also relates to actual facts and less to potential situations.

Schifter’s argument is somewhat legalistic as he dismisses the Iranian case based on lack of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Likewise, by defining Iran and its allies in the region as being weak, he underestimates the ability of Iran and the Venezuela-led coalitions’ ability to do harm.

The State Department’s observation is correct but tends to be dismissive of Iran’s significant dangerous potential.

We at the Americas Report have been covering the Iranian -Latin American relationship for more than five years and have concluded that the Iranian presence in Latin America needs to be seen not only as an immediate threat but also as a potential and invisible peril. *

The type of warfare that Iran carries out is not conventional. In fact, Iran has invested considerably more in terrorist tactics, sabotage and nuclear weapons development than on conventional forces. It has carried out deadly terrorist attacks in places like the Middle East, Europe and even South America. The Iranians also have links to Al Qaeda; have supplied arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan; and; given aid to the government of Syria to oppress its own people. Most importantly Iran has successfully influenced events in Iraq by supplying roadside bombs; supporting radical anti-American Shi’ite cleric, Moqtada al Sadr; helping to escalate the Shiite-Sunni cleavage and by directly exercising influence on Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri- al Maliki.

The Iranians never acknowledge direct responsibility for their actions. They often vehemently deny acts of terror, fearful of reprisals. Their public threats are general and often mere bluster as in the recent case of the government’s threat to close the Straits of Hormuz. For Iran to confront the U.S. in a conventional war in the Persian Gulf is highly unlikely given Iran’s military inferiority. Therefore, these kinds of statements are aimed at concealing Iran’s real modus operandi.

Iran’s real war takes place underground, in the realm of never- proven evidence. Iranians are very skilled in creating the impression that their presence or responsibility is mere “speculation” and that lacks sound substantiation.

Iran’s activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, their attempts to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador in the United States, the bombing of the Israeli embassy and the Jewish community headquarters in Buenos Aires, attempts at cybernetic disruption against the White House (for which the Venezuelan consul in Miami Livia Acosta was expelled from the U.S) are all part of an asymmetric and covert war. Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons followed the same logic until Iranian dissidents uncovered it.

Anonymity creates mental chaos not only because it leaves a “reasonable doubt” but also because it manipulates western perception. Confusion is created as to who is the real enemy. Concepts such as “War on Terror” or even the “Iranian threat” have often been interpreted in the West as vague and indefinite.

Iran and/or its proxies are involved with a whole set of asymmetric forces in Latin America. For example, they are connected to the drug cartels and the drug trafficking in Latin America. These are very disruptive forces that attack the very heart of law and order. Likewise, Iran seeks through this cooperation to have access to direct routes to attack the U.S (via terrorist cells) on its own territory. This situation is aggravated by the active presence of Hezbollah in countries that are allies of Iran (which reportedly includes training camps on Venezuelan soil and training of Venezuelans in Hezbollah camps in Lebanon).

By the same token, the fact that business contracts between Iran and Latin American countries have never come to fruition should not be a source of relief because these contracts are almost certainly nothing but facades. They are facades for a deeper political alliance between Iran and Bolivarian countries and, most importantly, perhaps for something even more ominous. Take for example the joint Venezuelan-Iranian tractor factories that Johnson has declared “a failed and unprofitable business”. Some reports coming from former Assistant Secretary of State, Roger Noriega and others, have pointed out that these factories may be serving as camouflage for drug trafficking, weapon or uranium storage.

Likewise, there have been reports about Iranian efforts to extract uranium from Venezuelan soil. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) declared that the Iranian nuclear project as being military in nature. The IAEA also pointed out that Iran sought sources of uranium. It is reasonable to assume that Venezuela is one of these sources.

Last but not least there is a possibility that a nuclear Iran could either use Latin American soil (mainly Venezuelan) to place nuclear missiles and then become a threat to the United States. (See further analysis here )

As Iran and Venezuela view the United States as an enemy, this should be enough to raise concern. Lack of hard evidence should not be a mitigating factor.

It is important to be aware that asymmetric warfare is the war of the weak. Sabotage, terrorism, crime, nuclear warfare and anonymity are instruments of the weak and can cause serious damage. Weakness is not the equivalent of harmless. In fact it could be very much the opposite.

Latin America is a perfect launching pad for Iran’s war. It has all the right allies and Iran does not need too many.

The Bolivarian alliance countries where Ahmadinejad visited and the non-state actors they harbor are key allies in Iran’s concealed war.

The sooner our policy-makers understand this and take appropriate counter-measures, the safer we will be.

Source: TheAmericasReport.com