What's Really Important Iran: Another Iraq?
No one wants Iran to have nuclear arms, possibly with the exception of some in Iran itself, and various ideologues. Yet one can understand why Iran as a nation might wish they had them, if not only to prevent the continual threats towards them by the United States government. President George Bush quickly singled out Iran in his first State of the Union address on January 29, 2002 as one of the “axis of evil” nations. Soon afterward, a concerted effort began to find and/or trump up reasons to justify a preemptive invasion against their neighbor Iraq, another member of the “axis of evil."
Iraq had no nuclear capabilities, so they were invaded. Much of the saber rattling by Bush against North Korea, the third alleged “axis of evil” nation, ended soon after they tested a nuclear device. Relations with Pakistan, though often iffy, never get real pushy, because they also have the bomb. It seems to follow that if you have nuclear weapon’s capabilities you are less likely to be threatened or attacked. Thus, Iran also having been placed on the dartboard by Bush, it might follow they would want nuclear weapons, if not only to protect themselves from him.
I’m certainly not implying that I in anyway want Iran to have the bomb. The irresponsible threats and blathering of the Iranian leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, stating, “we will push Israel into the sea,” and the fact of arming and supporting insurgent groups in Iraq and in other nations, make it rather apparent that we don’t want any WMDs in his hands. I simply don’t want to give any nation a real reason for wanting to obtain them. If nations like Iran had no serious designs on them before the Bush Presidency, they sure might have them now. Just as the quagmire in Iraq has created more, not less terrorists, so will it create the obsession with having weapons that might act as a deterrent against being preemptively attacked. This is certainly a sad state of affairs. It creates the danger of accelerating the possibility of the exact thing you are hoping to prevent.
On August 28 President Bush Addressed the 89th Annual National Convention of the American Legion in Reno, Nevada. The full speech can be viewed at Bush Speech . After pandering to the American legion, their commander, Paul A. Morin, and those “who wear our nation’s uniform,” and once again invoking patriotism and the flag, he finally got to the real focus of his intention, basically the threat in the Middle East as he perceives it.
A large portion of the speech is dedicated to reiterating in detail his view of our military actions in Iraq, as well as the problems presented there, and the dire consequences of not “winning.” It is another attempt to justify his belief that it is necessary that our troops remain there, and finish what he started.
What I find particularly disturbing is a relatively short reference to Iran that is bundled snuggly in the middle of the speech. Bush calls Iran “the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism” (not unexpected considering their axis of evil status), and continues with a list of Iranian connections to terrorism, including backing Hezbollah in Lebanon, funding groups like Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and sending arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan, as well as supporting insurgents in Iraq. No doubt these are all true. I recall the United States backing the Mujadine when the Russians invaded Afghanistan. It's not entirely unexpected a nation might consider that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
What is truly noteworthy in Bush’s address, and more to the point I’m trying to make, is a statement sounding very familiar to those of us who remember the lead up to war in Iraq. “And Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust.” He continues, “Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere. And that is why the United States is rallying friends and allies around the world to isolate the regime, to impose economic sanctions. We will confront this danger before it is too late.”
Is there an implication his intentions might be to actually attack Iran? Ray McGovern seems to think so. If you don’t remember Mr. McGovern, he is the former CIA analyst who successfully confronted Donald Rumsfeld at a press conference in May of 2006, disputing Rumsfeld’s denial of having ever claimed to know where the WMDs in Iraq were. McGovern recited Rumsfeld’s quote back to him verbatim. “We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.” This is a must see if you haven't already viewed it! McGovern vs Rummy .
McGovern believes “President George W. Bush's speech Tuesday lays out the Bush/Cheney plan to attack Iran and how the intelligence is being ‘fixed around the policy,’ as was the case before the attack on Iraq.” I’d highly recommend reading his analysis at Ray McGovern .
Trish Purcell, in a very informative blog entitled What Are They Saying? What Should We Say? gives a brief history of some of the various Bush Administration tactics being employed to possibly justify a build up to war with Iran, a process similar to that preceding the Iraq invasion. Then it was the threat of the “mushroom cloud,” now it’s the threat of “nuclear holocaust.” I agree with Trish the time has come for the American people to weigh in on this issue.
Do we really want to go to war with another nation, one quite a bit larger and much more formidable than Iraq? I believe most Americans are now against the continuation of war in Iraq, and certainly are not looking to expand that conflict to include another country. But it appears George Bush is not concerned with what the majority believes, or wants. He’s on a mission, and we aren’t really sure whose? -- Could be his, Cheney’s, or God according to Bush. What is for certain is this issue is way to big and important to be resolved by the Bush/Cheney Administration alone. It must be debated in the public forum as well as in the halls of Congress, and not simply left to the same people who created the debacle in Iraq, and still assure us they know what they're doing.
It’s time for everyone to seriously think about all this, discuss it with others, and then start writing emails and letters, or making phone calls to their Congressmen and Senators and let them know what they think. Hopefully, it is still “our” nation. We are definitely the ones who will ultimately pay the price for any erroneous decisions made by others because we said nothing.
Comments
Stephen, your points are well taken. It is my hope that reading your blog and mine will encourage people to contact members of congress and the media, to insist on a public debate about Iran. As you said, whatever the truth may be about the danger Iran poses to the U.S. we need to know and not just allow ourselves to go blindly into another war.
Posted by: Trish | September 6, 2007 02:18 PM
I agree with your blog totally. so what to do? bush rushed into Baghdad like jimmy swaggart after a $20 hooker and now the bush/cheney regime is in warlust after Iran. the fact that both Russia & China warned they wouldn't tolerate an attack on Iran as far back as 2005 when they held their first ever joint military exercises didn't phase them in fact they have done everything to begn another "cold war". who or what can stop them?
in this pre-election time what candidatse call them on this insanity - Kucinich, Paul, Gravel - all demeaned as second tier or marginal candidates by the media. the same media that failed the public on the run up to war with Iraq continues to spew propaganda and dismiss those who oppose the repeat performance this time regarding Iran.
we know what's going on from independent media and blogs. there were widely reported stories that many military generals would resign rather than support an attack on Iran - this was followd by a purge of generals who didn't follow the bush/cheney line - they were replaced with political hacks like petraeus.
i think that organizing and massive public demonstrations are good however i have no reason to believe they will stop the war plans. hillary and obama both have made hawkish statements about Iran and we have no reason to think they will apply political pressure to stop any attack - in fact every reason to believe they would suport it. Congress has already rolled over and played dead on Iraq even though the dems won because the people have long been fed up with the war. i am not a defeatist but i see nothing and nobody who can change the course of continued and escalated war. i dearly want to be wrong...
Posted by: heartfood | September 6, 2007 09:05 PM
In another place I am immersed in a discussion about mediocrity. Mediocre people think war is a solution. Mediocre people don't consider any options other than the ones their mediocre minds can conjure up. Bush sees boogeymen everywhere. He is like the playground bully who perceives everyone around him as a threat, not realizing that he is the greatest threat of all. He is like those antagonists in the movies who go around shooting, maiming and killing people with abandon and without conscience, who then scream bloody murder if someone in their gang is shot or killed in retaliation.
Everyone in Congress.... EVERYONE.... should be screaming bloody murder right now about this saber-rattling. They should be on the Sunday talk shows speaking against Bush and Cheney's warmongering. Where are they?
Posted by: Renee | September 9, 2007 08:19 AM
Renee, where are they indeed? Trish Purcell and I are trying to figure out just how to get some interest generated on this issue from people, and from our media. Any ideas? Anyone?
You would think not only the Congress, but the media would be all over this. A friend, who uses the nick Rsittinhere just sent me an article that touches upon this unresponsiveness by just about everyone. One quote says, "As revolting a notion as that is, and as obviously untrue as it is, nevertheless, Congress has systematically passed laws forcing us to lie down and take it, in the name of security."
This entire article can, and should be read at The Stupidest People on Earth .
Are the American people really being shut up under the mantra of "National Security?" I think that indeed they are, and more.
Two quotes come to mind: "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." ~ Albert Einstein, and "When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson. I'd say these sentiments come from two people that are accumulatively smarter than our entire government. Perhaps we should take heed?
But the question remains. How do we get people 1) aware of the danger, 2) unafraid of our own government enough to question it, and 3) get them off their lazy, apathetic butts long enough to do something?
Posted by: Stephen | September 9, 2007 09:46 AM
Heartfood, you have touched on some very pertinent points.
Though Kucinich, Paul and Gravel, are out of the mainstream, especially the latter two, they are able to share more of what's "really" on their minds, and at the same time pander less to the electorate. I'm sick and tired of hearing all the leading candidates speaking out of both sides of their mouths ad nauseum. When did the people of this nation become more infatuated with being told what they want to hear, over the truth? Personally, I"ve developed a bull shit detector in my head, that goes off constantly when most all of the candidates even begin to open their mouths. Okay, it also "sometimes" goes off when I have a thought, but very rarely. lol. Perfect i'm not, but I'm willing to admit to same.
I don't care if politicians/candidates/leaders are perfect, and I don't care if they have faults and weaknesses, just as I and everyone else do. What I really do care about, and what really pisses me off is when I'm blatantly lied to, whether the lie is straight out, or hidden within pandering and condescending rhetoric meant to agree with everyone, offend no one, and basically saying nothing.
Yes, this president sure listens to the generals on the ground. He listens and then fires those that don't agree, and uses those who are more interested in being his political dupes, than actual military leaders. I can't wait to hear the so-called Petraeus Report, written by those blowhards and political harlots in the White House.
I know why our Founding Fathers set the policy that the civilian leadership in the Executive Branch would command the military. For the first time ever, I'm seriously doubting the wisdom of that decision, especially with the present occupants of the White House. You have Cheney with his four or five deferments during Vietnam, and Bush with his comcial version of military service in the Texas Air National Guard, ending with being AWOL for a year, and finally losing his flight certification for failing to take a medical exam. Yeah, these are the two guys I want setting the military policy for the most powerful nation in the world. I also want to meet the Tooth Faery and the Great Pumpkin!
Posted by: Stephen | September 9, 2007 10:18 AM
why are Kucinich, Paul & Gravel "out of the mainstream"? certainly their positions on foreign policy are more in tune with the American people than say mccain or romney (i assume since i haven't checked romney's current position in the last 5 minutes lol). they are "second tier" or "marginal" candidates because the media labels them as such.
fred thompson is labeled a "serious" candidate regardless of how much a joke he is. we are TOLD who is and who isn't a serious candidate repeatedly by the mainstream media in the same way we are TOLD that Hugo Chavez is a dictator without any regard for the fact he has been repeatedly democraticly elected unlike Mushareef who really is a dictator but never labeled as such. This blatant propaganda isn't just from Fox News but every mainstream media source. slowly cable "news" outlets have become tabloids - paris hilton, anna nicole smith, and the missing white girl of the month become major stories receiving more coverage than Iraq. "the most trusted name in news" CNN gives a show to whackjob glenn beck without any balance. drug addicted actresses and criminal sports stars we are TOLD are more important than foreign affairs by the prominence and detail of their coverage. and yet we can take some comfort that despite 24/7 distractions and disinformation almost 70% of Americans turned on bush/cheney's war. 51% question the official version of 911. just because they are not covered doesn't erase the thousands of protests large and small across our nation. it doesn't erase the many towns and cities across America calling for impeachment. independent media and thoughtful blogs like this one are now the real information community. emails, blogs, information websites, chatrooms, all provide a source for little reported stories and fact checks on propaganda. i remember the teach-ins during the Vietnam war - it was so difficult to get truthful information into people's hands. now information can be passed easily and instantly. we have access to alternative views and sources of information.
again we all come back to the question: what can we do? well we can keep on keeping on. everything matters, everyone matters. every action large or small creates our world. we can maintain relationships and support others in the struggle. demonstrations, letters, emails, chat, IT ALL MATTERS. we know about Abu Ghraib because ONE MAN had a conscience, same for illegal wiretaps. Cindy Sheehan is an example of someone who has stood up and spoke truth to power - ONE WOMAN. keep on keeping on... we ARE NOT the minority regardless of what we are TOLD.
Posted by: heartfood | September 9, 2007 10:02 PM