The "Bomb Iran" crowd, fresh off their historic blunder in Iraq, is now at it again with Iran. As if the daily drumbeat of articles and op-eds advocating war with Iran was not enough, Republicans in the House of Representatives have introduced a truly dangerous resolution -- explicitly green-lighting the use of force by Israel against Iran.
Any military strike -- whether by the United States or Israel -- is likely to pull the United States into a regional war and cause mass civilian casualties. Such an attack would truly be "calamitous" -- to use the same description as the Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen.
One could use the same word to describe what effect an attack would have on Iran's struggle for democracy. If war breaks out with Iran, Iranians across the political spectrum would rally behind the government, and the emboldened government would be free to unleash the full potential of its terror to ruthlessly seek out and decimate the Green Movement -- America's best hope for a peaceful and democratic partner in Iran.
The recent influx of articles arguing for an Israeli or American-led attack downplays the unintended consequences such a strike would have inside Iran. Proponents of war argue that it would create outrage amongst Iranians against the government who brought the attack upon them, and would even potentially cause Iranians to overthrow their regime. To believe this is to seriously misunderstand nationalism, the Iranian people, and Iranian history.
The constant in Iran's century long quest for democracy has been progress in times of peace and steps back in times of siege. From the time of the Tobacco Revolt in 1891 onward, attempts at democracy have been repeatedly frustrated by acts or threats of foreign intervention.
In the wake of last June's disputed elections in Iran, members of Congress such as Mike Pence, Dan Burton and Kay Granger all sponsored resolutions expressing support for the Iranian people, their human rights, and democratic aspirations. Yet all of them are also sponsors of Gohmert's resolution encouraging an attack on Iran--an attack that would have the exact opposite effect of what they claim to support. This is the height of hypocrisy.
Nine days after the 9/11 attacks, neoconservatives Reuel Marc Gerecht and William Kristol sent a letter to President Bush urging war with Saddam "even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack." It is Déjà vu all over again as Kristol and the crowd over at the Weekly Standard now scream for an even more foolish assault on Iran. Kristol recently berated President Obama for purportedly failing to support Iranian protestors last summer. One cannot claim to support the Iranian people while simultaneously working tirelessly to promote war with Iran. Kristol seems to want to have it both ways.
Reuel March Gerecht on the other hand is just wrong. Gerecht doesn't even pretend to care about the Iranian people, and in his recent 11-page war opus in the Weekly Standard pushes for a war scenario in Iran that he says should "rock the system." Gerecht argues that now is the best time to attack Iran and that an attack would help the Green Movement thrive. But such reckless disregard for Iran's history and internal dynamics is to be expected from someone who claims "Iranians have terrorism in their DNA."
Many Iranians strongly dislike or even despise their government, but Iranians have historically rallied around unpopular governments when faced with an external threat. Eight years of war with Iraq strengthened the nascent Islamic revolution by mobilizing people against Iraq and giving Iran's most ruthless leaders the cover necessary to purge political opponents. While we witness and read seemingly endless reports of human rights abuses being committed on a daily basis in Iran, it is worth remembering that Iran executed as many as thirty-thousand political prisoners under the cover of the Iran-Iraq war.
More recent history proves the same. Iranians took to the streets in 1999 in student protests that posed the most serious challenge to the Islamic system since the 1979 revolution. This occurred at a time when moderates ruled both in Iran and the United States, and tensions with the West were at an all-time low. Under the Bush administration, however, Iranians fearful of an attack were forced to scale back their criticisms and attempts at political liberalization.
In the words of the prominent Iranian dissident Akbar Ganji, "Since Iranians, in particular opposition groups, do not want to see a repeat of Afghanistan or Iraq in Iranthey've actually had to scale back their opposition to the government in order not to encourage an invasion [by the U.S.]"
It was not until 2009 that Iranians were again given the same political space. The Obama administration's less-threatening language toward Iran allowed reform-minded Iranians to challenge the status quo without being labeled enablers of the enemy. "Obama offered a dialogue with Iran and this change in discourse immediately gave rise to that outpouring of sentiment against the Islamic Republic last year," Ganji said.
In short, a war against Iran would be the external influence needed by the regime to extend its shelf life. It will decimate the Green Movement by giving hardliners an excuse to crack down on dissent and ruin any hope for liberalism and democracy for the foreseeable future.
In the words of one Iranian merchant in Tehran's Grand Bazaar who participated in the recent strikes against the Iranian government's proposed tax hikes, "We are a people with a strong sense of national awareness. We have serious disagreements with the government, but if there's war everyone will fight."
Bombing Iran would do nothing short of destroy Iran's chances for democracy. Neoconservatives who argue an attack on Iran would do wonders for the Green Movement are pushing an idea that is not just wrong, but dangerous. The same individuals told us once before that we would be greeted as liberators. We would be wise not to let them fool us twice.
Aaron Glantz: Army Report: AWOLs Up 234%
The invasion of Iraq in March, 2003, took their oil off the market for two years, boosted oil and gasoline-pump prices, and made a quick killing for the oil companies. That's what the goo giants are into, quick kills of as many of the stubborn occupants who sit on top of the oil as possible. If a few thousand young Americans die during the eviction, that's just part of the racket.
And I wonder what sort of strikes the US is thinking about? Is it going to shoot down a passenger airplane like the USS Vincemnes? Or does it have other such radical plans to scare and subdue the Iranians?
Israel is unlikely to pussyfoot around while attacking. Its probably going to go all out, to try and cause as much harm it can in a preemptive strike. It may or may not succeed, but the ultimate gain will not be democracy. The Iranian state will survive, and the world will be at this same situation in another 30 years. The overall temperature of the region will of course rise, and Americans can welcome back 5 $/ gallon gas for starters.
by Ahmed Al-Jarallah - Editor-in-Chief, the Arab Times
"The Iranian administration issues new slogans and threats daily, making us realize that history is repeating itself, but the difference lies in the language used, not the methods.
This was evident in the announcement, made by Iranian Revolution-ary Naval Head Guard Ali Foudi, that the Gulf leadership is in the hands of Iran.
It seems this man is repeating the statement of Saddam Hussein 20 years ago.
Since 1979, the Iranian language has not changed. It only got tougher due to Iran’s arrogance in the last few years, especially after Tehran revived its stupid nuclear program.
What are we going to call the revolution that has brought nothing to its people but hunger, destruction, corruption and war over the last three decades?
The whole world does not give importance to the Iranian noise on its alleged acquisition of advanced weapons, military strategies, or even the mass graves prepared by these reckless people.
Saddam’s example and his rule are like dynamo stones entrenched in our memories.
The Iranian leadership should learn its lesson before it’s too late."
http://www.arabtimesonline.com/NewsDetails/tabid/96/smid/414/ArticleID/158131/reftab/73/t/Dictators-have-similar-hands/Default.aspx
Here's some more of his deathless prose:
MAN OF HISTORY
by Ahmed Al-Jarallah,
Editor-in-Chief, the Arab Times
WE are with President Bush who has said, "I am the man who makes history." Who, other than President Bush, can launch a war against terrorism? Who else will come to the rescue of people suppressed by dictators? Who else was there to build and develop nations? And above all who made democracy the new international system for all the people in this world?
.... there is no doubt Bush is a man who creates history.
.....President Bush has the right to say "I am the man who makes history" because he is fighting aggression against modern civilization.
He is creating countries which enjoy democracy, peace, stability and security. These countries are now able to be a part of the international community sharing their traditions and culture with the rest of humanity. Bush is the President of not only the United States but the whole world for he is making history on this small planet."
http://www.internationalwallofprayer.org/A-298-Man-of-History-George-W-Bush.html
Every American should read Parsi's article in Salon.com.
DUBAI, (RTRS): "The United Arab Emirates is toughening its posture toward Tehran, worried that the risks of a nuclear Iran on its doorstep may outweigh the cost of a conflict between Iran and the West."
http://www.arabtimesonline.com/NewsDetails/tabid/96/smid/414/ArticleID/157221/reftab/36/t/UAE-sides-with-West-over-Iran/Default.aspx
http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/UAE-Says-Iran-Sanctions-Hurt-Business-100899129.html
So please stop thinking that you are the only one who is able to be a DICTATOR, uuuuupppps, excuse me, I ment to say: the only democracy!
There is a "NAKED DICTATORSHIP" in Iran which has absolutely no respects for HUMAN BEINGS as a whole. This CREATURE comes out of the most BACKWARDED LAYERS of that society. Just like the ONES who are also in other countries, the US for example. There are such neocons in every society and every political system, no matter where you look! They all need CRISIS in order to live longer. They do not mind destorying every singel thing for thier own INTERES!
What we stupidly call “Democracy” is nothing more than a sham and shell game. The outcomes of political elections in every G8 Western Nation are now being rigged, either indirectly by the Mass Media, or directly by covert voting fraud.
we are not yet a democracy.
we are approaching democracy.
it's that ''experiment'' thing.
"If war breaks out with Iran, Iranians across the political spectrum would rally behind the government, and the emboldened government would be free to unleash the full potential of its terror to ruthlessly seek out and decimate the Green Movement -- America's best hope for a peaceful and democratic partner in Iran."
I believe the Green movement in Iran is as good & powerless as dead. Otherwise it and its leaders were already had been crushed and killed long time ago. I'm afraid we have to accept this harsh and sad truth that the Iranian regime will not be over-thrown by any way but force, whether it is internally like the Shah regime was, over 30 years ago, or externally.
The current regime and its army of well-paid, loyal Rev guards & Basiji goons are way too powerful and ruthless, much more than Shah's regime was. This is not about Islam or religion, this is all about power. They are not willing to relent it at any price, even it means killing, torturing, raping, and suffocating their own citizens.
One thing is for sure, the Mullahs are in a DEPARATE NEED for an ATTACK. If these WARMONGERS want to keep the Mullahs in thier "SEATS"; SAFE AND SOUND, they have to attack the IRANIAN PEOPLE. Any other Argument is pointless. The WAR against the Iranian People would give the CRIMINAL MULLAHS exactly the TOOL which they need to kill and torture more people more than ever. They did that in the 8-year-war with Iraq. They have a long EXPERIENCE in this regard.
KEEP THE MULLAHS IN POWER!
GIVE THE MULLAHS THE WAR!
THEY WOULD BE THANKFULL FOR YOUR SUPPORT!
Western imposition of its own hopes for the green movement will not amount to a westernizing revolution, and will only lead to disappointment.
BTW, compared to Ahmadinejad, some Iranians were of the opinion that Mousavi would be a better president, on domestic issues such as the economy, civil rights, it's all relative to the point of comparison.
It is a mad and unstable person who sees the whole world as mad & unstable people while relying on his ignorance.
Like so many others, she ignores the PNAC position papers.
The neo-con agenda is no secret.
Neither are the names of the signers.
Of course this is not about spreading Democracy or peace.
Why ignore their stated, well documentated, half-completed plans ?
1- forbidding an Israel attack and firmly ending all Israeli/Neocon-generated threats
2- rapidly forcing final status resolution on the Palestinian Israel conflict - and exerting the massive and overwhelming pressure on Israel necessary to do that
3- welcoming Iran into the family of nations
4- supporting Iran in it's peaceful electric/medical applications of IAEA-inspected nuclear energy,
5- encouraging Iran to be the first signatory of the Middle East Nuclear Free Zone
6- supporting free and open democracy in Iran, as we would wish to do for all other countries
7- overthrowning the Neocon/Israel Lobby coup in America trying to warmonger us into a war in Iran, and support a free and open American democracy necessary to overthrow Israeli control of our foreign policy, warmaking, media, politics, and Congress
8- stopping all covert Israeli/American military action in Kurdistan
However, the premise that these consequences are unwanted or unknown by the proponents of war is completely false. These people and the people they represent don't want peace and democracy in the Middle East. They want perpetual, unending conflict and misery. War, conflict, human suffering, and fear are the sources of their wealth and power. Why would they want to do anything to diminish these?
Stop arguing with them based on the facts of the situation; they don't care about the facts. Instead of pointing out the obvious falsehood and hypocrisy of their statements, try talking about their real motives.
I would have thought it obvious after they started two wars in countries that had almost nothing to do with the attacks on the world trade center that 'spreading democracy' and 'protecting freedom' are just lies that they tell to start wars. They know they're lies, they know that war will just bring suffering, death, and radicalism. That's their whole plan, and the sooner pundits like you wake up to that fact and start pounding that message home the better.