Preventing the Impending War on Iran

Rhetoric flowing out of the White House indicates the Bush administration is planning a military attack on Iran. Officials in Saudi Arabia, a close Bush ally, think the handwriting is on the wall. "George Bush's tone makes us think he has decided what he is going to do," according to Rihab Massoud, Prince Bandar ben Sultan's right-hand man. Saudi Social Affairs Minister Abdel Mohsen Hakas told Le Figaro, "We are getting closer and closer to a confrontation."

As Bush and Cheney try to whip us into a frenzy about the dangers Iran poses, their argument comes up short. They say Iran is developing nuclear weapons, but Mohamed ElBaradei, director of the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), says there is "no evidence" of this. They say Iran is sending deadly weapons into Iraq to kill U.S. troops, but those devices can be manufactured in any Iraqi machine shop. Now the New York Times reports most of the foreign fighters in Iraq come, not from Iran, but from two Bush allies - Saudi Arabia and Libya. An estimated 90 percent of suicide bombings are carried out by foreign fighters. And senior U.S. military officials believe the financial support for Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia comes primarily from Saudi Arabia.

Yet the Bush/Cheney polemics about Iran continue to escalate. In light of the lack of evidence Iran is actually developing nukes, Bush equated Iranian "knowledge" to make nuclear weapons with World War III. "If you're interested in avoiding World War III," he said recently, "it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." This substantially lowers the bar for a U.S. attack on Iran.

A few days after Bush warned of World War III, Cheney called Iran "the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism," adding, "The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose serious consequences . . . We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon." These threats are eerily reminiscent of his rants in the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

In an unprecedented move, the Bush administration labeled the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. It appears the administration applied that label in an effort to trigger language in the 2002 Congressional authorization for the use of military force in Iraq. That authorization says, "The President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States."

Like Bush's invasion of Iraq, an attack on Iran would violate international and U.S. law. The U.N. Charter prohibits the use of military force except in self-defense or with the approval of the Security Council. Iran, which has not attacked any country for 2,000 years, hasn't threatened to invade the United States or Israel. Rather than protecting Israel, U.S. or Israeli military force against Iran will endanger Israel, which would invariably suffer a retaliatory attack.

In making its case against Iran, the administration points to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad alleged comment that Israel should be wiped off the map. But this is an erroneous translation of what he said. According to University of Michigan professor Juan Cole and Farsi language analysts, Ahmadinejad was quoting Ayatollah Khomeini, who said the "regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." Cole said this "does not imply military action or killing anyone at all." Journalist Diana Johnstone points out the quote is not aimed at the Israeli people, but at the Zionist "regime" occupying Jerusalem. "Coming from a Muslim religious leader," Johnstone wrote, "this opinion is doubtless based on objection to Jewish monopoly of a city considered holy by all three of the Abramic monotheisms."

It seems significant that support for Ahmadinejad may be waning among the real power brokers in Iran, particularly the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The Jomhouri Eslami daily in Iran, which has close ties to Khamenei, has denounced Ahmadinejad's characterization of those opposed to his nuclear program as traitors.

If the United States attacks Iran, the results would be catastrophic. Three Europeans, including former French Prime Minister Michel Rocard and Yehuda Atai, a member of the Israeli Committee for a Middle East without Weapons of Mass Destruction, wrote in Libération, "We are being warned about it from all sides: The United States is at the brink of war, ready to bombard Iran. The only thing lacking is the presidential order." Drawing parallels with the U.S. war in Iraq, they caution, "An attack against Iran, whatever its targets, its methods and its initial scope, will significantly aggravate the situation, achieving similar results, without even talking about the disastrous impact on the global economy." They add, "It would be still worse if the insane idea of using tactical nuclear weapons - which exist - to prevent Iran from building, in spite of its denials, the nuclear weapons that recent IAEA inspections have found no trace of, were implemented."

The threats against Iran appear to be politically motivated. Seymour Hersh's extensive research has convinced him that Bush/Cheney will invade Iran. They likely think embroiling us in Iran will ensure a GOP victory in 2008. It will certainly make it harder for the next President to withdraw from Iraq once we are mired in Iran.

If Hillary Clinton becomes that next President, she will likely continue Bush's foreign policy. Clinton, who favors leaving a large contingent of U.S. troops in Iraq, says nothing about disbanding the huge U.S. military bases there. Clinton is also rattling the sabers in Iran's direction. She voted to urge Bush to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization and she, too, misquotes Ahmadinejad about Israel.

As we go to the polls in the coming months, it is imperative we scrutinize the candidates' positions on Iraq and Iran. The security of the United States, as well as the Middle East, is hanging in the balance.

Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and the President of the National Lawyers Guild. She is the author of Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law. Her columns are archived at www.marjoriecohn.com.

Comments

[Beaux510]

While I agree with the spirit of this post, there are some conclusions contained within that can only be described as un-informed. For instance, the effort and material being provided by Iran to the Iraqi insurgency:

"They say Iran is sending deadly weapons into Iraq to kill U.S. troops, but those devices can be manufactured in any Iraqi machine shop."

So, an Austrian Steyr HS50,.50 cal, long range sniper rifle that costs $20,707.70 can be machined in an alleyway machine shop in Iraq?
That, I'd like to see.

Iran purchased a larger number of these weapons for their anti-drug smuggling squads and soon after, those same rifles started showing up in Iraq. These are not $300 AKs.

The Telegraph Uk, has the story here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/13/wiran13.xml

And then there's this in reference to Mahmoud's statement that Israel must be wiped from map:

"According to University of Michigan professor Juan Cole and Farsi language analysts, Ahmadinejad was quoting Ayatollah Khomeini, who said the "regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."Cole said this "does not imply military action or killing anyone at all."

Now, I understand the translational differences, but I ask, this is different how? And the regime change will be brought through what? Negotiations? That'll happen...

Don't take this to mean that I am FOR attacking Iran, as I am most certainly against it, against even the discussion of it, what I am saying is the issue is TOO important to buy into spin and political agenda driven news cycles from either side. All points must be taken without prejudice, for the betterment of the common good. IAEA says no weapons program, we go with that, but we also don't obfuscate Iran's history and practice of supporting insurgent's and milititia's in the region.

Of both administrations involved in this potential crisis, I have faith in neither to do the right thing. They are both insane.

[MagisterLudi]

Ironically, many of those who are opposed to the (non-existent preparations for) war with Iran are the ones who are beating the drums of war the loudest and most consistently!
The impending war!" " The war will start this summer!" "The march to war." WAR WAR WAR.
As Hitler famously said:".. the great masses of the people will more easily fall victim to a great lie than to a small one."

It is precisely the irresponsible and hysterical repetitions of this lie leads many Iranians and others to believe that the war may be inevitable: despite strong evidence to the contrary. There are NO military preparations for the war. None. If anyone has any evidence to present about military preparation for invasion please let them step forward. Otherwise calm down.

The belligerent statements by Bush/ Cheney pack are largely meaningless as their rule has been largely defanged.
Equally clueless is the hot air blown by powerless Ahmadinejad.

[MagisterLudi]

"Coming from a Muslim religious leader," Johnstone wrote, "this opinion is doubtless based on objection to Jewish monopoly of a city considered holy by all three of the Abramic monotheisms."

Nonsense.
There's no Jewish monopoly in Jerusalem.
The Waqf, are the sole Islamic custodians of the Temple Mount. A deal made with the Israeli government restricting non-Muslim prayer there.Despite the fact that Temple Mount is a holy sight to Jews as well.
The Holy Sepulcher and Christian sites are in exclusive custody of Christian patriarchs.
East Jerusalem Arab population is controlled by the Arabs under Israeli city-hood authorities.
Besides being untrue, this a "Jewish monopoly" does a great disservice to the cause of peace.
Oh, last time Muslims controlled Jerusalem, Jews were not allowed to pray at the Wailing wall.

Still, Ahmedinejad's inanities mean little in the world of politics, because he's nothing but a puppet of the true ruler of Iran, the Supreme Leader.
And the worlds opinion should pay less attention to powerless clowns like Ahmedinejad and (currently) Bush.

[RumiSouth]

Two points need to be made here:

1.) The neocons have no intention of **INVADING** Iran. They want to BOMB Iran. "Invasion" suggests finality, when what the neocons want is permanent warfare.

2.) Here's a talking point consistently missing from all discussions on Iran: Ahmadinejad is NOT the most powerful man in Iran. He's actually weaker than most US state governors; he doesn't control the armed forces, set domestic policy, or have full control of foreign policy. His actual function under the constitution of the Republic of Iran is closer to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi than president.

http://www.osborneink.com

[Rosanneofpgh]

Speaker Pelosi; the evil one and prez fucksupalot MUST be removed from office before they can declare war on Iran!! (I say removed from office since the word impeachment seems to scare you.)

There is NO way we can fight a two-pronged war. To say nothing of the fact that the us would be condemned by every nation in the world for attacking yet another country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and has no WMDs.

The country we should be fighting is Saudi Arabia since most of the 9/11 hijackers came from there and since they are funding alqueda.
But that wont happen because prez fucksupalot is in prince bandar's back pocket. (a position from which he can kiss the prince's ass!!)

[Spookcatcher]

You may be considering the wrong approach. Don't we really want Bush to give an executive order to attack Iran? Think about it. Cheney tells Bush "now is the time"...First: Laura Bush borrows a Hillary Styled pant suit and goes on the Meet the Press asking for help and comes clean about the whole Administration, including how they groomed her into service after they got her Manslaughter mess (that they set up ) cleaned up. 2. The Joint Chiefs grab Bush and send him to Admiral Fallon so he can hang him off of the bridge of his Carrier, and they Rendition Cheney to Iran for some nontorure procedures (to the tune of the Beach Boys Khmer Rouge hit: "let's go waterboarding, everybodies waterboarded, comeon a torture safari with me...)3. Congress wakes up and passes a resolution condeming it, but not to take effect until after the election, but Hillary and McCain, fillibuster till Fox guarantees them there own talk shows after their election defeats, and designating Rudy as there sidekick but only if he wears his spoting blazer with the Swaztika on it and his favorite pink tutu showing underneath.

[freespeach]

As for preventing insane criminals from starting a war with Iran......how about the Dennis Kucinich HR333 idea.

First impeach Cheney, then Bush, to prevent war with Iran.
It makes so much sense, but the groupthink in this crazy country would have us believe that Kucinich is the extreme one.

As for more signs that war with Iran could be coming very very soon.......

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/112407A.shtml

So for those who would tell you that impeachment is impractical or unrealistic......
just stop and think about how much more Hell on earth we would create by waging war on Iran.

This buildup to war is happening now in the media, and as the link indicates, in practical military terms too.

We need to wake up and impeach our lunatics this week.

[23000Days]

I just saw an article about ramping up fuel supplies in the persian gulf.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/112407A.shtml
Looks like we're getting closer...

[timm0]

I agree that we need to look at how the candidates would handle Iran. Of course, a few of them have had the opportunity to rescind the 2002 blank check and to gut funding for the wars and have played games. I expect HRC and Obama to perform poorly if given the opportunity, based on their aversion to dealing with the issue.

Of course, that assumes that there will be an election in 2008. Dubya's set the "foundation" for declaring martial law - canceling elections and controlling Congress - and I've had the feeling that the bombing will happen at a time when he can maximize the disarray needed finish the job he's started 7 years ago: strangling the life out of our nation. I hope I'm wrong. But I'm not misunderestimating that twit.

[gnorrfa]

bush and his band of thugs can invade any country they want to because: the mainstream media aren't interested in foreign things, and the mainstream public is only worried about the price of gas and sales. it's taken the public about three years to notice there is some sort of conflict going on in one of those ayrab countries and george is starting to wear a little thin. don't blame bush, just take a look around you. pretty scary, huh. and...any one of 'em can vote.

[WASanford]

My first impulse was to laugh! Haven’t we already seen this movie? But then I remembered that unimaginative writers often regurgitate the same script. The unanswered question remains, just what in the hell do they think there’re doing?
With the polls showing a large majority of Americans not supporting the Iraq war and the administration’s popularity hovering at 30%, they cannot possibly believe that another war will help them “win?” an election. If that’s the case, then they have truly reduced themselves to the level of that Nickelodeon Cartoon, “Pinky and The Brain,” or at least pinky. Come to think about it, the plot for “Pinky and The Brain” seldom varies.
I’m very concerned that before the end of November 08, Bush will have finally found a bee hive to hit with a bat that will cause us all to be stung. In order to “protect” us, he will call off the election and declare himself to be the mighty protector, or something like that, until “the emergency” is over. That’s why impeachment should NOT be off the table!
“What are we going to do tonight Brain.” “The same thing we do every night Pinky, We’re going to take over the world!”

[Oldchef]

We can only pray that somehow this foolishness can be stopped before the fool-in-chief starts another unnecessary and foolish war. What is it with these bastards; they ducked Vietnam but now they want to send our young people off to another war we have no business in, and, even worse, we're starting them for specious reasons. Is their lust for control of the world's oil supplies so great that they would start WWIII? Can noone stop this madness?

[Zenobius]

As a technical point, the last time the Iranians attacked someone was probably the Russo-Persian war of 1826 From Wikipedia:

The Russo-Persian War of 1826-1828 was the last major military conflict between the Russian Empire and the Persian Empire.

After the Treaty of Gulistan concluded the previous Russo-Persian War in 1813, peace reigned in the Caucasus for thirteen years. However, Fath 'Ali Shah, constantly in need of foreign subsidies, relied on the advice of British agents, who pressed him to reconquer the territories lost to Russia and pledged their support to military action. The matter was decided upon in spring 1826, when a bellicose party of Abbas Mirza prevailed in Tehran and the Russian minister, Aleksandr Sergeyevich Menshikov, was placed under house arrest.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Persian_War_%281826-1828%29

Of course, the last time the US invaded another country was 2003, so Iran looks like much less of a threat to peace than the US using this benchmark. Still, 190 years is much less than 2000.

This is not a big deal, but since it took me about five minutes to find this out, it won't take others long to find this out. It does tend to reduce the credibility of Marjorie's other claims.

[ConnieInCleveland]

It's no wonder they are beating the war drums with Iran. They have not been held accountable for starting a war of aggression with a country that had not killed one American and was not openly threatening America. If Sadam Hussein had been threatening America they would not have needed to use forged documents as evidence.
This administration was able to wire tap Americans without going before the FISA Court, which is against the law. They will most likely get immunity, not accountability.
Scooter Libby was held accountable, then pardoned. I think they should all be held accountable. They should have to be pardoned, they should not get a free pass.
Too many Americans accept the fact, it doesn't matter, they won't be held accountable anyway. That has to change. If the candidates running are unwilling to discuss the failures of this administration and lack of accountability, they don't recognize the need for accountability. They do not deserve the vote of the American people.
I am looking for accountability for today and yesterday, not idle promises for tomorrow. If they are unable to function today, how can they be trusted with the future?
War with Iran should be discussed. If Americans really knew what we have done in Iraq, they would feel shame and demand accountability before they are misled into another war of aggression. Things haven't changed we really have no excuse for what is being done in Iraq. The reason for going in keeps changing and the Iraqi people keep paying the price for our lack of accountability.

[UrgentFury]

If you and your fellow progressives are wrong about the intentions of the Mullahs in Iran, and they develop nuclear weaponry, our remaining influence in the Middle East will be over. Iran will be untouchable and will forcefully envelop the region under an Islamic Caliphate through its terrorist surrogates who will have access to nuclear weapons. What logically follows is World War III after their first terrorist attack on us.

Entrusting our national security concerns to Mr. Elbaradei of the IAEA, which has been denied access to secret Iranian nuclear facilities, is an irresponsible action that will only weaken our ability to make the Iranian nuclear program transparent. If the liberal establishment wants to avert a military strike against the Iranian nuclear facilities they must disprove that Iran is not the real threat that Iran has demonstrated that it now is.

War with Iran is indeed a terrible prospect, but a later nuclear conflict is unimaginable.