Unsolicited Advice to the Government of Iran

Presuming that you are not actually ignorant enough to desire war with the United States, you might be well advised to read the history of the sinking of the U.S.S. Maine in Havana harbor in 1898 and the history of the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964.

Having done so, you will surely recognize that Americans are reluctant to go to war unless attacked. Until Pearl Harbor, we were even reluctant to get involved in World War II. For historians of American wars the question is whether we provoke provocations.

Given the unilateral U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, you are obviously thinking the rules have changed. Provocation is no longer required to take America to war. But even in this instance, we were led to believe that the mass murderer of American civilians, Osama bin Laden, was lurking, literally or figuratively, in the vicinity of Baghdad.

Given all this, you would probably be well advised to keep your forces, including clandestine forces, as far away from the Iraqi border as you can. You might even consider bringing in some neighbors to verify that you are not shipping arms next door. Tone down the rhetoric on Zionism. You've established your credentials with those in your world who thrive on that.

If it makes you feel powerful to hurl accusations at the American eagle, have at it. Sticks and stones, etc. But, for the next sixteen months or so, you should not only not take provocative actions, you should not seem to be doing so.

For the vast majority of Americans who seek no wider war, in the Middle East or elsewhere, don't tempt fate. Don't give a certain vice president we know the justification he is seeking to attack your country. That is unless you happen to like having bombs fall on your head.

Comments

[Jonahson]

It won't be good for either country and the rest of the world either if US attacks Iran. To bomb and destroy Iran is easy but think of the aftermath just as in Iraq. Don't forget the majority of Muslims in Pakistan belongs to the Shiite sect as well. Attacking them will alienate a close ally. US interest everywhere will be at risk which will put a further strain on the economy and arm forces. You will make an enemy out of Pakistan and then what? Next bomb Pakistan? Try a hand shake and sit down to talk peace instead of making more enemies out of everyone.

[BARRISTER]

Canada, the way these infantile intellectual derelicts are going, WATCH YOUR ARSE!!!

[malcolm37b]

Do you not think we would rather utilize our natural resourses,namely oil (We supply more than the Saudis) for the benefit of our own people, schools, roads, hospitals, cheap gas for our cars and for heating our houses, you know, like Hugo Chavez does, instead of obscene oil company bonuses and record profits. Now there's a real anti-American. How long do you think we'd get away with that?

[pakiman]

Wtf are you talking about? Pakistan is not a majority Shia country...it's definitely a Sunni country. In fact Iran and Pakistan have been fighting a sort of cold war in Afghanistan since the Soviets left. At most, there is some solidarity between the two countries because of the perception that the US is at war with Muslims, but other than that, a very recent phenomenon, Pakistan and Iran would not be characterized as "friendly" to one another.

[newworldman777]

An unprovoked war of choice always has blowback that might last for generations, and the consequences of America's rather sordid history will attest to that fact. America, under the "leadership" of President Polk, invaded Mexico in 1846, citing one trumped-up reason as being that the Mexican govt refused to recognize the fact that Texas belonged to America. Of course, we had previously forced Santa Anna to relinquish Texas, following his defeat in the Texas War for Independence -- even though he had had no authority from his govt to do so. Many learned American men, including Congressman Abe Lincoln and a young army officer named Ulysses Grant, argued that our invasion was unwarranted, immoral and illegal, but their complaints were ignored. Following our ultimate victory over the Mexicans through our use of superior forces and weaponry, we forced the Mexicans to sign the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848, resulting in our "acquisition" of nearly half of Mexico, which became our entire Southwestern U.S. We had promised that all Mexicans living in that region would be given American citizenship, then we reneged on that promise. In today's world, we refer to such immoral, illegal land-stealing campaigns as "naked aggression": a term coined by President Bush 41, who emphatically proclaimed that "America will not tolerate naked aggression!" when Iraq invaded Kuwait, and we went to war to drive them back out of Kuwait, proving our "holier-than-though" point.

America must now deal with millions of Mexicans illegally crossing what America currently considers to be our border. Many of those people, who now inhabit much of the disputed "American soil" in our Southwest, honestly believe that they have more of a right to be there than Americans. They believe that the land rightfully belongs to Mexico, due to the immoral and illegal action of our having waged a war of naked aggression against Mexico in the 19th century which resulted in our stealing the land from them.

One can consider such blowback as being divine retribution, or maybe poetic justice. I always say that what goes around, comes around.

[timbyrnes]

I don't think there is any question that Americans have always been belligerent. The treatment of the Indian was simply the beginning. White Americans have mistreated black Americans for years. The mixing of a rich variety of immigrants to this country led to a lot of conflict and discrimination. The American response to the 9/11 was a desire for revenge that blinded them to the truth and led them to declare war on Iraq without good evidence of wrong doing or involvement.
The notion that we are ok within the borders of Iraq while there neighbor in Iran must watch their step near the border is just plane arrogant. We have no business in Iraq and little right to order around Iran.
The Maine not blew up due to a boiler explosion and not due to attack.
The gulf of Tonkin was another set up.

The US government is belligerent and looking for any excuse to expand collonialism. Its because our government is run by nut balls that the government of Iran is wise to restrain themselves.

The current leaders will manufacture any excuse to bomb Iran.

It is sad indeed that we have failed to impeach these characters as they take us they continue to endanger the sovereignty of other nations and meddle in their integrity.

[QueenofSheba]

Asking Iran to stand back from the conflagration in Iraq is like asking the U.S. to stand back if a foreign, belligerant power had invaded and occupied Mexico, a country sharing our border and many of whose citizens have emigrated to the U.S. and whose religion is shared by millions of our citizens. This country would be doing everything it could to assist the Mexican people who wanted to evict the invaders, both overtly and covertly. Especially if that foreign power had labeled us as a member of the "Axis of Evil" and made threats against us since their invasion of our neighbor.
Our country really is governed by a group of self-righteous warmongers right now.

[FlowerGirl]

Gary Hart,
It would have helped you get your messaqge across if you had added that, rather than merely influence our government, Israel has now openly taken control of it. The Kyl-Lieberman ammendment-in-lieu-of-an-honest-declaration of war on Iran is serious business. And on the same day that it was approved, the old Israeli plan to (have us) break Iraq into three pieces (for them) was also approved.
There can no longer be any doubt. Any idea of an independent America is now dead.
Iran should be prepared for a bombing biugger that that Terrorist (Shock and Awe) thinng on Baaghdad. (The purpose of all terrorist acts is shock and awe in case some haven't studied it.)
Well, I would like to help more, but I am out of ideass now. My brain isn't functioning at its best. It is suffering from shock and awe from the Senate actions and I am too sad to think. It isn't just ervery day that one's nation dies.
Flo

[nickyboy1]

Flo, my heart is with you. I am so very very sad... a diamond country! Trashed.

[ConcernedAboutRFuture]

I am sad.... AND embarrassed to be an american.

[fatcat too]

Flo, you think the tail wags the dog. Bush may be just about able to read My Pet Goat, but Cheney understands subterfuge. The US base under construction at the Iraq-Iran border has had a personnel infusion of 250 British troops--much to the disgust of the British public. I see the Israeli attack on Syria as a specimen of the same kind. I believe Cheney is doing by proxy what he cannot do directly at the moment because he's not got the troops and might face impeachment if he did: move toward attack on Iran.

[peacehappens]

You have got to be kidding! We don't provoke wars?
Israel has finally admitted having nuclear weapons after having played the, "we're not saying yes and we're not saying no" game for years. It is guessed that they have about 500 nuclear weapons. They have never permitted the IAEA to inspect their nuclear facilities and they are not going to. They refuse to sign an NPT and now they are trying to use an agreement between the US and India to obtain materials they need for WMD - reported by the AP yesterday but not mentioned elsewhere.
The Jerusalem Post printed an article this past summer stating the IDF is receiving indications that the US would be interested in seeing Israel attack Syria.
Israel bombed Syria without provocation in the beginning of September. Fortunately, Syria responded by filing a complaint to the UN.
Israel dropped bombs on Syria again mid-September in another unprovoked attack.

Iran has complied with all inspections and the IAEA has found no proof that they are doing anything other than what they said - trying to build reactors for energy purposes. Iran signed the NPT. Iran has complied with every request until now.

Why are you tying Bin Laden into the US invasion of Iraq? There is no connection! The Saudis on the other hand have a connection. Weren't something like 15 of the 19 hijackers Saudis? 48% of suicide bombers in Iraq now are Saudi. Saudi weapons are being used against Americans in Iraq, how come we don't hear about that? Oh, yeah the Bush-Saudi connection.

We went into Afganistan but remember, Bush said he wasn't really interested in Bin Laden. Yep, and Bush made sure his family got home safe on 9/11.

BTW - a huge number of US weapons went missing and they have turned up all over the region. Turkey is complaining that our weapons have turned up in the hands of their enemies.

There is never a good reason for going to war - not ever. Pre-emptive war is an outrage.

[LightningJoe]

As he thought he was plainly saying, we provoke the other party to do something that "provokes" us to attack.

This is the now-traditional way our presidents foster public opinion for the war they want. It's purely a public relations ploy, to make the public patriotically outraged enough that we'll take the president's word for the supposed necessity of sending our teenage males over to die.

It doesn't ALWAYS work, but they always try it.

As for the Bin Laden/Iraq "connection," Hart is saying exactly what you are saying: that there never was one, but we were told there was, to enable public opinion for the planned war.

He's on OUR side, you dope! :)

[nickyboy1]

And now since the sociopaths own the airwaves and print media - we have their support. Did you see the pictures on the front pages of the NY papers -targeting Ahmadinejad as the evil one-
they are blistering for a fight .. .and so manay of the dopey public sheep buy it. Where are their morals and/or their brains?

[Sundialsvc4]

Well put, sir. Now... how do we get "a certain vice-president," and other relevant civil officers ... impeached from their government positions?

[opines]

We cut our baby teeth for inciting provocations when we violated every treaty with the Native Americans. To justify each new incursion into their teritory, we provoked or made up 'massacres'.

When gold was discovered in the Dakotas, we burned their villages to provoke retaliation.
The same tactic gave us the excuse to start the Mexican war.

False flag (the Maine) and imaginary attacks (Gulf of Tonkin) provided the pretexts for the Spanish-American war and Vietnam.

What is different now is that the world is watching. While the yahoo segment of our nation will buy whatever lie our war criminal militarists offer, it doesn't play overseas.

If we attack Iran it will not be because we were provoked. It will be for the same reasons we attacked Iraq.

Oil and Israel.

[larrybeinhart]

Dear Mr. Hart;
It is astonishing that you think the US was attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin. We were not. It was a dark and stormy night at sea. Some sailors saw ghostly blobs. They fired at them. Then sailors on another ship got excited and they fired too.
They reported that they were under attacked. President Johnson was informed. He launched air strikes on North Vietnam.
Over the next couple of days, as Johnson readied himself to go to Congress for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, a war powers act, the NSA analyzed the signal traffic and checked the evidence and discovered that we had not been attacked. They then cooked the books, made some slight forgeries, and gave Johnson a report that said we were. They did not tell him that they were lying.
A secret NSA report was released in 2000 that documents all this. This was reported in Legacy of Ashes, with footnotes to the original, if you want to check.
If this had been someone else, I would have shrugged and sighed, but you should know better

[unitron]

Did you read a different column from the one I just read, or did Hart read your comment and do some hasty editing? 'Cause what I read was a suggestion that Iran's government read up on "...the history of the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964."

Not the history of the "attack", or of the "incident", but just of the Gulf. Maybe he even meant the very same history with which you have just enlightened us.

[LightningJoe]

Perhaps Hart should have spelled it out more plainly. He's not saying there WAS an attack on our ship in the Gulf of Tonkin, but reminding us that a supposed attack was sold to the public to garner support for a war the Johnson Administration was spoiling to fight.

I wish he had been clearer, because several posters here seem to have taken it wrongly. I think if you read carefully, you'll see what he meant to say.

I didn't know about the NSA subterfuge. I suppose when (if?) Johnson found out about that after the fact, he could have thought that by then our precious national pride was on the line and we couldn't back down...

Pride goeth before the long fall. Mission Accomplished!

[Halsey]

Larry,

READ THE POST!...Sen. Hart clearly states the Tonkin incident was a ruse, used by the Hilary, I mean Johnson administration to accelerate the Viet Nam invasion...as was the Maine for the Spanish/American war... doh!

Hart is correct to caution rhetoric out of Tehran..we have an ideolological madman (cheney..whose ideology is O.I.L.)...who would love nothing more than to have the Middle East clouded in radioactive gas...he'd just send in troops in protective outerwear to extract that ever precious black gold...then...consign them to the same fate as the rescue workers at Ground Zero..a shortened life...with little or no health care. Cheney DOES NOT CARE about humanity...and that makes him the most dangerous man on the planet...capable of much more harm than Osama ever dreamed of.

[researcher]

also listen to your enemies they may know more about you then you know.

how many americans have come to realize we have become an imperialist nation? not many.

how many americans can see that unchecked capitalism is destroying the middle class and putting a burden on their children with our huge national debt? not many.

how many americans still think we have the best health care in the world? most still do in spite of the evidence.

I would still rather live in america than iran with that now being a religous controlled country. but dont kid yourself if the evangels have their way our freedoms will be taken away one by one.

pack the court with war mongers and evangels and see what happens to your freedoms.

[littleblackcat]

researcher, It is pity that those of us who are able to see the truth seem to be in the minority. The once-magnificent United States may still be the best place to live in the world (for the time being anyway) but it is a small, damaged, and mean fraction of what it was just fifty years ago. The dreams of most of us will never be realized in our lifetimes, and there are very few dreams left for future generations for just the reasons you list here. I cannot understand why people just stand by and accept anything our corrupt establishment kicks their way. Sad.

[solarfared]

Fucking A! Stop the provocation! Stop supplying arms to the Shia in Iraq. Stop uranium enrichment, let the germans or the frogs do it. You want peaceful nuclear material, we can provide. You want a smoking hole to replace Teheran? We can provide.

[peterg76]

"Americans are reluctant to go to war unless attacked"

So the plan is to keep the Iranians laughing too hard to provoke a conflict?

[tiggersthotfulspot]

Well they don't get the Daily Show so Gary Hart thought he'd help out.

[leftLibertarian]

Sir,
Don't forget. The US in 1953 aided a coupe against the democratically elected government of Iran.
And what do you suppose the US would do if another nation, without provocation, invaded Canada or Mexico? Sit by and watch?

[init]

My bloodline has serious american Indian lineage. I just heard a very meaningful speech at the UN. The entire country is critizing everyone who comes here; and not facing facts. I do not even know what to say anymore. I will say: we will lose terribly, soon. I believe Seymour Hersh warned us over a year ago. Yes bombs away, but we are speaking of an area we do not even understand. This is just another diversion from major failure, but to the cost of the working people.

[IranianDude]

Mr Hart,

With all due respect, your UNSOLICITED "advice" is uncalled for.

If you want to advise a government or a nation, you better start with a bully you call THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.

An arrogant bully has to be confronted. Repeat after me, The United States will never ever attack Iran. We are not like Iraq. We WILL MAKE SURE, YOUR GOVERNMENT AND ITS PEOPLE PAY A HEFTY PRICE.

TRUST ME ON THIS. Ahmadinejad, Khomeini or Shah, is not an issue, we are proud of our heritage and we won't let a dumbfuck from Texas jeopardize that.

[apduncan1]

Ahem... he is from Connecticut.

Otherwise you are on the money.

[pakiman]

here! here! same goes for pakistan...it's just weird that in the US right now the Republicans want to bomb Iran and the Democrats want to bomb Pakistan

[TheIndependenceParty]

Reportedly we have 169,000 troops in Iraq, and perhaps as many as 180,000 contractors. They are facing Syria to the West, Iran to the East and Shia Iraqis in the Southern part of Iraq. They have no direct link to the sea, and no iron-clad route of escape. And there is no redeployment planned, ... sit tight and wait until Iraq grows up.
~
If we provoke Iran into a new war, ... Shock and Awe them with 2000 sites bombed, ... some perhaps nuclear, ... There will be no safe haven in Iraq. Any armaments not reduced to powder will be aimed immediately upon our troops.
~
Why would our president over-extend our forces, leaving them surrounded in Iraq, at risk of assault from three sides?

One has to wonder if Bush won't use their predicament as the excuse for unleashing Hell on Iran, ... to safeguard the very troops the President has placed in harm's way!

[Stevelagain]

The President of Iran thanks you for attacking George Bush and hopes you will continue to do so.

Yeah, you were sure tough on Iran. I'll bet they will stop building nuclear bombs, stop killing gays, stop supporting all those terrorists organizations....just because you bashed Bush.

The lefts big threat to Iran? The government we are trying to destroy will hurt you unless you behave yourself.

This looks pretty weak to me if intended as anything beyond an attack on Bush I think it went well wide of the mark.

[rmreddicks]

You are just silly. I'll have to live with the embarrassment of having replied to you.

[dadw5boys]

This will be a 30 years war at least. C I A ESTIMATE.
Bush will go into Iran before leaving office so he
can leave the U.S. near bankruptize, legal system corrupted and the economy shot.

DISASTER CAPITALISM! SCHOCK AND AWE.

[UNCLEJOE]

excellent point for avoiding any confrontation with Iran.

[PADDYWHACK]

Excellent post Mr.Hart,but shrub wants to wear the flight suit with the bulges again.They'll get away with it in the short run and unfortunately without an opposition there will never be any investigation.In the long run the ruined shell of the economy may be the the sting in the tail.It's a real slap when Israel wants it's aid in Euros

[CVilleDem]

I agree with your sentiments, but considering that we Americans, with a majority Democratic Congress, feel like we are at the mercy of Dick Cheney and his band of war-mongers; why address your essay to Iranian citizens?

Think about it. I personally, am worried sick that our current regime will figure out a way (as in the legislation that was promoted today, or Cheney's plan to have Israel attack Iraq and thereby get Iran to retaliate) to start another undeclared war.

Why do you think that Iranians (to whom you address your essay) could stop their leader from getting into a war with us? I mean, we (the so-called GREATEST democracy) have no say in what goes on; we're all afraid that the Bush/Cheney regime will launch us into a new war and we will have no way to stop them.

Your essays are always thoughtful and full of information; how about some advice for us; how to keep this bunch of war-mongers from starting the next one?