The War Against Iran
The war against Iran has already begun with rhetoric from President Bush and Condoleeza Rice. It's all a replay of the run-up to the war against Iraq. First, you identify the target. You paint another country and its leader(s) as evil. Iran is now called the leading state sponsor of terrorism, without any proof offered, as if it were perfectly obvious to anyone alive. What hapened to Bin Laden and Al-Qaida? No, no, don't look over there. Look over here, where we want you to. Iran, remember? Second, you link the supposedly evil state or tyrant with the capacity to use weapons of mass destruction. Iran has a nuclear power program. If Iran has a nuclear power plant, a nuclear weapon or two can't be far off, right? We don't want any terrorists or sponsors of terror (does Iran advertise on terrorist tv?) to get their hands on a nuclear weapon.
So, three, we must stop Iran's leaders. It would be nice if we could use friendly persuasion, so there is Rice's obligatory huggermugger about diplomacy and alternatives to military action. She doesn't mean it, of course. After having been told in no uncertain terms that they are evil and that they should stop their nuclear program, do you think Iran's leaders will be inclined to give up the one possible deterrent to an American attack they might develop? Would you? Bush and Rice know that Iran won't be conciliatory in the face of bellicose rhetoric and our interventionist history, so the failure of any diplomatic gestures is foregone.
After some token efforts to get Iran to discontinue their nuclear program, we will see the same process that preceded the invasion of Iraq. Fear generating rhetoric about smoking guns in the form of mushroom clouds and the need for action this day.
Never mind that Iran has not invaded any neighboring country and that most of the 9/11 assassins were not Iranian but Saudis.
Bush and his crew need the excitement that only the anticipation of another war can deliver. War is the central animating principle of the Bush administration. They're addicted to war and they need another fix right about now.
So, three, we must stop Iran's leaders. It would be nice if we could use friendly persuasion, so there is Rice's obligatory huggermugger about diplomacy and alternatives to military action. She doesn't mean it, of course. After having been told in no uncertain terms that they are evil and that they should stop their nuclear program, do you think Iran's leaders will be inclined to give up the one possible deterrent to an American attack they might develop? Would you? Bush and Rice know that Iran won't be conciliatory in the face of bellicose rhetoric and our interventionist history, so the failure of any diplomatic gestures is foregone.
After some token efforts to get Iran to discontinue their nuclear program, we will see the same process that preceded the invasion of Iraq. Fear generating rhetoric about smoking guns in the form of mushroom clouds and the need for action this day.
Never mind that Iran has not invaded any neighboring country and that most of the 9/11 assassins were not Iranian but Saudis.
Bush and his crew need the excitement that only the anticipation of another war can deliver. War is the central animating principle of the Bush administration. They're addicted to war and they need another fix right about now.
posted by Peter L. Winkler | 5:20 AM
2 Comments:
Peter: Welcome to Blogging. I see you are a neighbor, who lives in Valley Village, CA just like me.
You might be distressed to know that there are several very reliable indicators that Osama Bin Laden has been given safe haven by Iran for most of the time we have been vainly searching for him in Pakistan and portions of Afganistan. This is quite credible, if you look at a detailed map of the area. There are very closely aligned areas where Pakistan, Afganistan and Iran are close to one another.
You should Google on "Osama and Iran" and will find some very interesting stuff when you do. Simply try and keep an open mind. Nothing is proven until it's proven, but remember, Iran has a vast history of hatred toward the west.
I've just recently had a wonderful discussion with a friend of mine who is from Iran. He is an Armenian, by ethnic identity. We enjoy speaking French with each other. . .I learned it in school here and do not get enough practice. He confirms to me that the Mullahs have turned the country backwards in time by centuries. He says that the vast majority of people in Iran are tremendously unhappy with the very, very, very constrained rights that exist currently. They all adopt the stance that they are HIGHLY RELIGIOUS! To do other than that is to guarantee harassment, at the minimum.
You must realize that there are many folks who simply DISLIKE America. And there are others who are seeking to actually fight us, in one way or another. Simply because these ways of conducting operations against us are covert, doesn't mean they are not serious.
Efforts by the Muslim world to achieve weapon-ready nuclear facility is something that should worry everybody in America. The nuclear version of 9-11 will not discriminate between Kerry supporters and Bush supporters.
Wishing you well, as you continue blogging.
Chris Tune
Valley Village, Ca
Dear Chris:
I am delighted to have now received two - count 'em - two comments to my blog this week. I had begun to despair that nobody had ever so much as read one of my posts once.
So thanks for taking the time to comment. However, and you probably knew there was a "however" coming...
I am distressed to know Osama is in Iran, if in fact he is. If that is the case, why isn't this administration telling us?
You may be familiar with Ayn Rand's famous statement or exhortation, "Check your premises."
Are we going to war because 1)Iran is hiding Bin Laden, or 2)Iran is intent on developing nuclear weapons, or 3)Iran is a culturally backward theocracy?
Only premise #2 seems to me to be a plausible reason to rationalize military intervention. However, Iran is far from having nuclear weapons, and if they did develop one, how would they deliver it on a US target? Pretty soon we enter the realm of terrorists with supposed suitcase bombs, etc. which so far seems to me to reside more in the realm of Tom Clancyish fantasies than reality.
If we want to prevent another 9/111 we need to spend the billions we've wasted chasing Bin Laden and invading Iraq on actually making our borders, infrastructure and air travel apparatus secure. Nearly four years after 9/11 airport security is really no better than before. A terrorist can put a bomb into baggage that goes into the cargo hold, since checked baggage isn't inspected. Terrorists could blow up a plane without even being on it and they don't a nuclear weapon, assuming they could ever get one.
So we invade Iran. That doesn't end the problem of nuclear proliferation and terrorists. Russia, China, North Korea, India and Pakistan all have nuclear material and weapons.
Last year, Putin essentially cancelled democracy in Russia. After the US, Russia has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons, material, scientists and technicians. If we were serious about nonproliferation, we would be wise to do more there.
Last year there was an article in Vanity Fair magazine and follow-up stories in the national media about how absurdly insecure nuclear material and weapons were at places like Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore labs.
If you know that the door to your home doesn't have a lock, you go to the hardware store and buy one and install it before doing any thing else. There will always be robbers out there.
Post a Comment
<< Home