War Without End Starts With Iran

That the United States government, struggling under the weight of the bloody fiasco in Iraq, might be contemplating another war must seem unimaginable to most Americans. But the political class in the United States does not necessarily relate to what is unimaginable for most people, at least not recently. Consider for a moment the evidence that war is coming. There are the words of the Great Decider himself declaring that Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon is no longer the only issue. Per President George W. Bush, "If you're interested in avoiding World War III it seems you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." If there were any confusion on the subject of US resolve, Vice President Dick Cheney reinforced the message in a speech before the neo-con and pro-Israeli Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy (WINEP) in which he called Iran a "growing obstacle to peace in the Middle East," and promised "serious consequences" if the nuclear program is not abandoned. More tellingly, he also said that the United States "will not allow" an Iranian bomb. There have been additional comments from the usual members of the choir, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who has referred to Iran as "a cancer."

More worrying, the president and vice president are not alone. Senator John McCain, the only Republican Presidential hopeful who actually knows something about foreign policy, recently commented that the public has no idea how close the US is to going to war with Iran. Republican Presidential contenders Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney have repeatedly pledged that Iran will not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons and have stressed that they possess the iron resolve required to use America's own nuclear arsenal against Tehran. And the Democrats are all lined up too with the leading candidates agreeing, without any debate, that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) formulation that "all options must remain on the table" with Iran is the appropriate policy. The ever opportunistic Senator Hillary Clinton went one step farther, voting for the Kyl-Lieberman oxymoronic "sense of the Senate" amendment to the defense appropriations bill, which advocated labeling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group. The Bush Administration followed through on the motion last week, declaring the Guards' Quds division a terrorist group and, for good measure, citing the Guards for proliferating weapons of mass destruction. It was the first time that part of the military of any sovereign country has been so labeled. The terrorist designation will permit unilateral military action without any process of seeking congressional approval. Not that Congress would say "no" in any event - a clear majority toes the AIPAC line on Iran. Attacking Iran is the only truly consensus issue in American politics.

The terrorist designation also makes any future negotiations with Iran impossible as the US government will not speak to terrorists and current and former Revolutionary Guard officers occupy key positions in the Iranian government and would have to be part of any serious attempt to resolve differences short of war. Kyl-Lieberman, a declaration of war without actually saying so, would virtually guarantee that talks never take place, which is precisely what the estimable Senators and their seventy-five supportive colleagues intended.

The United States is not now talking with Iran even though the President and Secretary of State insist that a diplomatic solution is being sought. The Administration is not willing to negotiate unless Tehran as a precondition gives up its nuclear enrichment program, something that Washington knows will not happen, so it is a non-starter by design. The new George Bush insistence that Iran should not be allowed to have the knowledge necessary to build a nuclear weapon is linked to Cheney's declared willingness to go to war to stop such a development. It is important to pause and think seriously about the Bush and Cheney comments, as they could have real life consequences. Quite a lot of information on building a nuclear weapon is available from public sources. It is the engineering of a bomb that is complicated. Many countries know how to build a bomb, including Japan, Brazil, South Korea, and just about every nation in Western Europe. Most also have nuclear reactors to provide energy, which Tehran claims is its own intention. Bush is not threatening to bomb Sao Paulo and Brussels. If the White House's real objection is to the fact that Iran is ruled by religious leaders who happen to be Muslims and that the country is hostile to United States and Israeli policies perhaps he should say so, though it is likely that he does not do so as it would not make a compelling case for the launching of a World War. The argument that Iran is interfering in Iraq and Afghanistan is also long on innuendo and light on facts leaving the president with fear mongering about possible global conflict as the only way to go.

War is serious business and it seems implausible for a number of reasons to suggest that the next one might be started by Iran. The threat allegedly posed by the Mullahs must be put in context. Iran is basically a third world country with a classic rentier one-commodity economy derived from its oil revenue. It has little else in the way of a real economy and, even with the oil, there is high unemployment and little future for the young people who make up most of the population. No one is emulating the Iranian political model. Its government led by Mullahs is unpopular and only experiences a surge of support when its leaders are being attacked by the US. A recent opinion poll reveals that most young Iranians actually admire the US, though not Washington's policies. Iran, with an economy only 1.4% as large as that of the US, has a gross national product (GNP) that is smaller than that of Finland and would seem to be an unlikely candidate to threaten the rest of the world. The GNP would actually be shrinking if it weren't for increasing oil prices.

The president of the United States, whose grasp of words and their meaning is admittedly fleeting, is stating that if Washington is not able to use whatever means are necessary to disarm Iran it could mean a world war. This is crazy talk and fear mongering at the highest level. It also is illogical. Tehran does not have a demonstrated military capability to attack anyone and its rulers are fully aware that the end result of an aggressive act would be their complete destruction by nuclear weapons in the hands of the United States and Israel. There is no evidence that the Iranian leadership is suicidal, quite the contrary.

If there is a war originating in the Persian Gulf it will presumably be started by the United States or Israel. If the conflict is not contained it could indeed become global as Iran becomes a symbol for the hundreds of millions of people around the world who have come to hate the US and its policies. More than seventy million people died in the last world war and the technology of death has improved since 1945. Concerned Americans should consequently demand to know what the President is really saying and what his intentions are, particularly since the mainstream media appear to have lost interest in the subject. Does Bush really believe that Iranian knowledge of how to build a nuclear weapon must be stopped by all means necessary because it will otherwise produce a world war? If he thinks that to be true, what is the evidence for such an alarmist conclusion? Or do he and Cheney think that the United States has some kind of carte blanche authority to start a series of preventive wars against selected enemies based on presumptions about intentions and capabilities? Concerned citizens might also ask why the United States is not talking to Iran in an attempt to resolve differences.

Comments

[AntiFascistMajority]

A lot of military personnel comment at Huff Post. I hope those who may have believed the hype that Iran is a "threat" of some kind will study Giraldi's article carefully.

"Iran is basically a third world country with a classic rentier one-commodity economy derived from its oil revenue...Iran, with an economy only 1.4% as large as that of the US, has a gross national product (GNP) that is smaller than Finland..."

Military commenters are often outspoken in their disdain for civilians. You call us "pussies," "cowards," "unwilling to fight," etc. Perhaps we civilians are a little more polite, or less inclined to name-calling, but, if truth be told, some of us reciprocate with a bit of a negative attitude toward militarists--we think you're dumb!

Please disprove this stereotype by taking a look at the facts that Giraldi has plainly presented. The proposed unlawful and profoundly immoral assault on Iran has NOTHING TO DO with defending the USA. Nothing. By no stretch of the imagination is Iran a threat to the people of the USA.

(A Pentagon attack on Iran would be motivated strictly by corporate greed for Iran's oil and natural gas.)
.

[research]

What was the point of the whole "atoms for Peace" bullshit? Here we have Iran, a signer of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty(NPT), unlike say India, Pakistan and Israel. Iran is allowing inspection. Inspectors report Iran has not refined even 6% U235, no where near the 90% needed for a Bomb. The International Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC)reports Iran is in compliance with the NPT. Should Iran Stop inspections and work toward making a bomb, we can stop them before they can get very far.

[gernger]

Israel is the only democratic state in the Middle East. They are a true ally. In 1956, they were instrumental in keeping the Suez canal open, when Egypt tried to close it. In 1981 they bombed Saadams nuclear reactor. Just recently they bombed Syrias nuclear reactor. I am sure they have saved our country from going to war over those occurrences, and many others. The Irani leadership knows they would have to deal with Israel if they built a nuclear reactor, and so does the Bush adminisration. I would hope that Bush and Cheney are just saber rattling.

[MagisterLudi]

Re.Gernger­'s:"Israel is the only democratic state in the Middle East."

Thats why Israel has fairly good relationships with India and Turkey, the other democracies in the region.
Egypt doesn't count, it's a defeated enemy state that chose non-belligerence only after being crushed 4 times in war.

Israel's enemies are all dictatorships like Iran, Iraq (past and future enemy), Syria, Saudi Arabia etc.

Birds of the feather stick together....

[hoopoe]

so israel is america's savior? we need israel to protect us and our interests? and it is a model of democracy? even with all of its censorship, book and film banning, restriction of movement, etc? not to mention racism, ethnic cleansing, apartheid, theocracy, slow-bleed genocide and unchecked aggression. israel is at least as bad -and possibly much worse- than iran. don't let a 'democratic' facade fool you.

and, there is absolutely NO plausible evidence that syria had a nuclear reactor, and no radiation was released into the atmosphere after the bombing, proving no nuclear material was at the site (the site of saddam's reactor is still radioactive, and people in the area suffer from cancer and birth defects due to the careless way in which israel acted - they essentially set off a dirty bomb among the iraqi population.) no, this was an act of war and a piece of propaganda theater to justify more illegitimate attacks on syria, and you bought and continue to perpetuate it without doing your homework.

[OrvilleHLarson]

There's no "American policy" in the Middle East. There's only the Israeli-approved "American policy" in the Middle East. The "Israel Lobby" controls politicans up to and including candidates for President. Everything America does--or refrains from doing--in the Middle East is for the benefit of Israel. American "leaders" routinely subordinate their country's interests to those of Israel.

There's no reason to attack Iran. They're no threat to America, they don't have nuclear weapons, and they haven't invaded anybody in a long time.

I call on Hillary Clinton and the other candidates to repudiate AIPAC. (Yeah, sure, and the Liar-in-Chief's daughters will be in Iraq, too!)

[MagisterLudi]

You exposed the plot real good, Orville
YES!!!!
America is controlled by Zion Elder named Haim Pypick. His address..pay attention now you slaves:

666 DumbGoy street, Mount Zion, Zionist Entity.

Or else you can send him mail c/o White House, Washington D.C.

Cheney, Bush, Clinton, all Congressmen and governors have to report to him on weekly basis or else they are tortured in dungeons by AIPAC henchmen.
ITS TRUE....
Only one question Orville,
HOW DID YOU FIND OUT???

[Dandy12]

How nihilistic have we become? I always term this pro Iran War thinking as "a leap into the abyss". It is like we are hell bent on destroying our nation and everything we supposedly stand for. I don't think that FDR would have planned a Pearl Harbor incident type of thing in reverse upon Tokyo. In the movies, weren't we supposed to be the good guys? That must mean that we have supported "the enemy within", one that scares me more than all this external threat stuff!

Can we really contain a technology over 60 some years old? I don't believe that this hasd ever been sucessful in the history of mankind. How did we react to Israel, India, Pakistan, and others re acquiring the bomb?

[outnow]

Installing the Shah in 1953 was also someone's "good idea." If a plan is not beneficial for at least three generations into the future, then it is short-sighted per se. I remember that the Soviet Union's grandchildren would "bury our grandchildren." When the Sputnik was launched we had to go to the moon. I learned to hide under my desk at school with my hands over my face so that some defense contractors could "scare" up some money.

President Eisenhower warned of the Military-Industrial (Congressi­onal)-Comp­lex in his farewell speech. He took "congressional" out of the term. I suggest that we put it back in. Let's refer to the "MIC" as the "MICC."

Is HRC the "good" cop? Aren't we playing chicken with Iran or Russian Roulette? This diplomacy is mostly political posturing to keep second-rate men in power. HRC needs to get a life.

We are making the world a much more dangerous place by these ill-advised military invasions and occupations while infrastructure and social services suffer.

Great post! I am so happy that someone is willing to tell the truth - and it isn't our politicians who have sold their souls to the talisman of war.

[SamThornton]

There has always been political division and tension in American politics between those who view preemptive war as a legitimate instrument of foreign policy and those who do not.

It was only skillful maneuvering by then President Samuel Adams that prevented Thomas Jefferson and his War Hawks from taking the nation to war against France in the earliest days of the Republic, for example.

Just as it's probably no coincidence that Adams grew up in the Quaker tradition of cooperation while Jefferson sprang from the warrior tradition of the English chevaliers who settled Virginia and the South, it's probably no coincidence that Bush finds his strongest support in today's South and those who see their roots in those cultural traditions. That includes, apparently, a large number of Democratic politicians.

The possession of nuclear weapons and a superior military capability gives today's War Hawks the ability to provide the Reductio Ad Absurdum of the Warrior philosophy. It appears the rest of us are just along for the ride.

[PepperzMom]

President SAMUEL ADAMS?

Hmm, 1) re-written history (again) or 2) a nod to your own name or 3) one too many Samuel Adams beers/lagers/ales?

I vote for #3...

;)

[SamThornton]

Quite right. My brainfart. I meant cousin John, of course.

[ClevelandTom]

The Bush Administration's propaganda for war with Iran depends on assumptions that they never speak to.
1. Iran is very close to having the capability to build a deployable nuclear weapon.
2. Iranian leadership is irrational, read suicidal. They would use a nuclear weapon as soon as they got it.
3. Iranian leadership would turn over a nuclear weapon to a terrorists.

Bush implies these assumptions every time he speaks about Iran but never speaks of them directly. That would require him to provide evidence he does not have.
1. Can Iran create a bomb soon? They still have not refined uranium to a fissionable level. Even Israeli intelligence figures they are at least five years away from a bomb.
And if they build a bomb, how much longer would it take them to build one small enough to deliver with a missile, since they have no aircraft capable of carrying a large device? (US took about 15 years to do that.)
2. There is no evidence that Iran as a nation or a government is suicidal. Would a "suicide nation" be worrying about how to create employment for its people? Wouldn't a suicide nation long ago have launched an attack on its enemies such as Saddam's Iraq or Israel?
Iranians have the same instinct for survival that all humans share. It follows that if the US created a policy of "mutually assured destruction" with respect to a Iran who might get a weapon in the future it restrain them as well as it did the Soviets and the Chinese.
3. Would Iran turn over a nuclear weapon to a terrorist organization? Item #2 above says that they would not since the result of its detonation in, say, Israel or the US would certainly be a lake of glass where Teheran used to be.
Besides, why would any nation hand over their ultimate security trump card to someone else?

[Norge]

Cleveland Tom,

Very well reasoned post. You think.

Thank you.

[WIpatriot]

Evidence? "We don' need no steenking evidence."

[MagisterLudi]

In August 2005 a person(hint) made news claiming that US is planning an attack on Iran.

All throughout 2006 the same person claimed that the war with Iran is coming real soon.

In 2007 same person claimed loudly and repeatedly that war with Iran is coming soon.

Can't wait until 2008.

Is the war with Iran possible? Yes

Was the tension increased by Cheney administration. Yes

Is the war probable? No

Does it stop anyone from predicting it for years on end? NO

[Plowboy]

Isn't it bothersome that we always have an Evil Empire to .....
But those who oppose more stupid war have taken the wrong tact. It isn't worth while to keep refuting the claims about that Evil Empire when they can be repeated over and over ignoring your facts. Most people do not analyse; they just follow the bandwagon with the most noise.
So instead of this tact which is so easily called siding with the enemy. I propose that those weho waant to stop this war making should start looking very closely at those selling it. Trace the propaganda back to its roots. Analyse those involved. Who are they? What are their interests and allegiances? What else do they advocate so strongly?
Then start openly challenging them to defend their position, rather than defending their victims. Lay it all out and make them the issue.

[MagisterLudi]

Bad cop Ma dog Cheney scares the Supreme leader Khomenei witless.
The good cop Hillary then comes in and negotiates a decent deal with help of uber-suave Bill Plausible? Yes
Ah, but its a lot more fun, and lucrative to yell the sky is falling.
Some bloggers (hint) been doing it for at least a year.

[timm0]

Ah, so you suggest HRC and the administration are actively working on a 2009 transition plan?!?!

[seawolf77]

Like Bill Maher said they can barely get over the monkey bars and we're supposed to be frightened of them. W will go play war agin so we can continue to suck on the oil teat. But like Nostradamus said it will be a fruitless war. Iraq and Iran oil will never make it to America.

[hoopoe]

a brilliantly concise analysis.

perhaps most importantly, the author challenges the widely held and erroneous assumption that iran is run by people who are utterly insane and completely oblivious to the consequences of any aggressive actions they may take:

"its rulers are fully aware that the end result of an aggressive act would be their complete destruction by nuclear weapons in the hands of the United States and Israel. There is no evidence that the Iranian leadership is suicidal, quite the contrary."

if we should have learned anything from the past few months/years of posturing and political chess, it's that the iranians are neither stupid nor insane.

on a separate note, i'd like to repeat my usual reminder that, aside from all of the implications in labeling the IRGC a terrorist organization, it is also wrong. by definition, terrorism is an action that deliberately targets civilians, and doesn't extend to actions against military personnel - that falls under the heading of guerrilla warfare. the accusations made against the IRGC are accusations of supporting guerrillas, not terrorists.

when our leaders and even our generals can't get this definition straight - or choose to blur the distinction - and use the term inappropriately, something is either seriously wrong with us, or something is rotten.

[bookish]

I'm worried that *our* leaders are stupid and insane.

[Merlin7]

The U.S. always needs an Evil Empire. If it weren't Iran, it would be some other nation. The important thing is that there must be an arch-enemy to justify our huge defense budgets and to distract Americans from the massive corruption and unfairness rampant in our own government.

This pattern began in World War II, and the American establishment ran with that lucrative ball all the way. Now, however, Evil Empires are in short supply. Bush & Co. are even having to recycle Russia and China, desperately refurbishing and recasting them to fit into the Evil Empire role.

All this will end badly, of course. Probably in a mushroom cloud.

[PaulMauriceMartin]

Hard to figure, to say the least. Apparently the administration has failed to notice that attacking other countries "preemptively" is a big deal that can set into motion all kinds of unforeseen variables - not to mention, in the case of this particular administration, those unfortunate consequences that have been eminently foreseeable by folks who haven't stuck their heads up their ideologies, so to speak . . .

Paul - originalfaith.com