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
