America is once again drifting toward war. Less than ten years after the U.S. invasion (and subsequent occupation) of Iraq, its myriad lessons seem forgotten. A familiar, toxic mix of sloppy politicians and politicized foreign policy experts is telling the American public that an irrational Iranian regime hell-bent on acquiring and using nuclear weapons poses an imminent threat to its safety -- despite the highest levels of America's national security establishment speaking on the record to the contrary.
The ghosts of America's neoconservative past have successfully shaped the policy around its selling points despite next-to-zero discussion about the consequences of war. Obama administration officials have always been delicate when pushing back against their hawkish counterparts on Iran policy, and election-year considerations have heightened those sensitivities to the point of near-paralysis. Reductionism has focused the debate in America on how the military can stop an Iranian nuclear bomb that is neither in existence nor imminent.
Many Americans who believe this dishonest discourse cannot be blamed for basing their views on the misinformation they receive. A free press that reports with neither passion nor prejudice is part of America's democratic fabric. And yet, we despair about the credulousness of the U.S. media when it comes to this dangerous saber-rattling vis-Ã -vis Iran. Rather than learning from sins previously committed in the run up to the Iraq war, most media outlets are sticking to the same formula on Iran. To avoid a disastrous repeat, their questions need to recalibrate the frame of the debate to put it in its proper context.
To that end, the following are six questions reporters should ask of anyone advocating military action against Iran:
Q. America has not had a diplomatic presence in Iran for three decades. As such, much of our knowledge relies on intelligence. Given the controversy over our intelligence on Iraq, how are we factoring in and addressing the uncertainty of intelligence on Iran's nuclear program?
Q. What are the views of the Iranian people in regards to a potential war and the current sanctions regime? Is this current path helping us win or lose hearts and minds in Iran?
Q. What are the forces behind Iran's nuclear program? Could one factor be a desire for a nuclear deterrence due to a sense of insecurity and threat? If so, how can we affect Iran's sense of need for a nuclear deterrence? Does the increasingly bellicose and confrontational approach of the West actually increase Tehran's desire for nuclear deterrence?
Q. The U.S. has thousands of nuclear weapons. Israel has hundreds. Iran currently has a mighty arsenal of zero nuclear weapons. The U.S. has successfully deterred Iran for more than three decades. Why are we assuming that suddenly, deterrence will not work with Iran anymore?
Q. The U.S. military leadership does not believe Israel has an effective military option when it comes to unilaterally destroying Iran's nuclear sites. A tense exchange is currently playing out in public between the Netanyahu government and the U.S. military, with Israeli officials accusing Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey of having "served Iran's interests." What lies behind the starkly diverging views of the Netanyahu government and the U.S. military on Iran?
Q. According to the Congressional Research Service, total war-related funding for Iraq has exceeded $800 billion -- an average of approximately $100 billion per year. With these numbers in mind -- and at a time of over 8 percent unemployment and unprecedented government bailouts -- how will we pay for a war with Iran?
Looking back at America's recent wars, the American people trusted that their elected leaders accurately assessed the pros and cons of their policies. It didn't take long before protracted quagmires collapsed that trust. With the notable exception of neoconservatives, most Americans eventually realized the sad truth: their leaders didn't have a plan beyond bombing; they knew little if anything about the country in question; and they failed to conduct a realistic cost assessment -- in both blood and treasure -- of the endeavor. By the time Americans realized all of this, the damage had already been done.
Avoiding another war of choice will require a media that digs beyond agenda-driven analysis and prevents the debate from being curtailed. It will require a media that doesn't permit a question of life and death to be framed in a simplistic manner that leaves the U.S. with a false choice of either bombing Iran or accepting an Iranian bomb. It is the responsibility of reporters -- not congressmen, senators, neoconservatives or foreign governments -- to not only get answers to their questions, but also to define the questions properly.
On Iraq, the mainstream media did not ask the right questions until disaster was a reality. On Iran, those questions need to be asked now so that disaster can be avoided.
Reza Marashi is Director of Research at the National Iranian American Council and a former Iran Desk Officer at the U.S. Department of State. Trita Parsi, President of the National Iranian American Council, is the author of the new book A Single Roll of the Dice: Obama's Diplomacy With Iran (Yale University Press, 2012).
Cross-posted from Nieman Watchdog.
Q: Israel could not halt the barrage of 4,000 Hezbollah rockets in 2006. Will Israel be able to stop the 200,000 rockets that have since then built up against it in the region?
What is our goal and does this get us there?
These are big and very major commitments. You don't just go in a war and finish in a week. If we have learned anything from Iraq and Afghanistan this should be it. Going to war is a very big job and may well be passed on to generations to come. We still have troops in Europe; Japan and will probably have them in Middle East for decades to come. I suggest next time we prepay for the next war. How about we decide upfront is the war so important we are willing to pay for it right now? No more "put it on credit and have little Johnny pay for it".
Who has the most to gain and who has the most to lose if the United States were to go to war with Iran?
Wouldn't the ones giving all this totally accurate information (lol) have the most to gain (Israel),
and wouldn't it be the United States people with all the innocent lives lost in another war be the ones with the most to lose?
by: hotflash
Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:48:10 AM CDT
Scott Ritter, speaking at the Ethical Society of St. Louis Friday evening, laid into the Bush administration for its constant lying about Iran. His point was that attacking Iran would be as unnecessary, counterproductive, and crackbrained as attacking Iraq was. Considering that he was the chief weapons inspector in Iraq for seven years and that he argued before the attack there that Iraq had no significant WMDs, he has, at the very least, a 100 percent better track record than President 24 Percent.
Bush's mantra is that Iran poses the single greatest threat in the world for Americans, and that claim balances on two myths he has promulgated: that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons and that Iran is the greatest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. Indeed, if Bush's claims are true, Iran is a terrible threat.
much more: http://www.showmeprogress.com/diary/911/
- Iran is LEGALLY enriching to the levels required for their existing (and planned) reactors.
- Iran is LEGALLY building more centrifuges. There is no law that says how many they can have.
- ALL of Iran's nuclear facilities are FULLY monitored by the IAEA. Iran is NOT preventing full inspection of its nuclear facilities. What Iran is not letting the US and Israel spies do, is wander around on its NON-NUCLEAR military bases. Note that the IAEA is NOT telling you they can not inspect Iran's nuclear facilities but the US and Israel are spreading the propaganda that Iran will not let the US spies into Iran's military bases.
- Iran can never build a bomb with 20% enriched uranium, no one can. To build a bomb Iran would need to take their existing enriched uranium and do a lot more work to enrich it to 95% - a process that is very obvious and the IAEA says is NOT being done.
- As US leaders have pointed out the leaders of Ira are "rational actors," contrary to your delusions.
The bottom line is everything you "know" is a LIE.
Recent assessments by American spy agencies are broadly consistent with a 2007 intelligence finding that concluded that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program years earlier, according to current and former American officials. The officials said that assessment was largely reaffirmed in a 2010 National Intelligence Estimate, and that it remains the consensus view of America’s 16 intelligence agencies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/world/middleeast/us-agencies-see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html?_r=2
I would NEVER let Iran be in the position to make that decision.
All Americans over the age of forty remember a life under the nuclear shadow of the Soviet Union. Never again. An threat from Iraq was enough the last time. We did count the cost.
The most convincing proof of WMD in Iraq was a failure to allow inspections. Must we go through this again?
Iran, permit inspections, accept nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes delivered without condition from neutral parties. Anything else is suspicious, and we would rather not go there.
Senior MP: IAEA Report Indicates Peaceful Nature of Iran's N. Program
TEHRAN (FNA)- A senior Iranian lawmaker underscored that recent report released by (IAEA) on Iran approves peaceful nature and transparency of the country's nuclear activities.
"The (IAEA) report is still ambiguous despite confirming peaceful nature of the nuclear activities of Iran," member of parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Gholamreza Karami said Saturday.
The lawmaker added that report shows the agency is trying to mount pressure on Iran in line with the Western approach because in parts in concedes to the peaceful nature of the Iranian nuclear program and in others it echoes past allegations.
"Therefore, Iran should not be influenced by such pressures and while cooperating with the agency, it should insist on its policy to develop (peaceful) nuclear activities," he added. http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9010176114
Bushehr N. Plant to Add 1,000MW of Electricity to National Grid Soon
TEHRAN (FNA)- Iran's first nuclear power plant in the Southern port city of Bushehr will add 1,000 megawatts of electricity to the national grid in the near future.
Iran (AEOI) Fereidoun Abbasi said 1,000 MW electricity generated from nuclear power plant would join the national grid in coming months.
He said 700MW nuclear power joined the national grid mid February, adding different tests would be made during the process and the country would get access to the full nuclear power after tests are conducted successfully.
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9010176120