With the Bush administration clearly pushing for war with Iran, as crazy as that would be, not just for an already over-extended, burned out military, but because of the havoc it would wreak on the global economy, it is time to call attention to a few points that are being ignored.
First of all, even US intelligence experts were saying only last year that Iran was at least 10 years away from having a bomb, so the alarmist claims being made by Bush and his gang, echoing the nonsense we heard in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, about the threat of nuclear holocaust, are simply scare tactics and should fool nobody.
Secondly, we should be asking why Iran would be trying to build a nuclear bomb in the first place, and what kind of threat it would pose if they did build one, or even several. Certainly an Iranian bomb would pose no threat to the U.S., any more than a North Korean bomb poses a threat to the U.S. With tens of thousands of bombs, including huge city-vaporizing H-bombs, in the US arsenal, no country except for Russia has the ability to seriously threaten America. The same goes for U.S. allies, whether in Europe or the Middle East. If Iran were to threaten Kuwait or Israel with nuclear attack it would simply be committing suicide because of US retaliation.
Clearly, the motive for Iran obtaining the bomb is then defensive. Iran is confronted by Israel, which does have a considerable number of nuclear bombs, and the means of delivering them to Iran. This is a real threat to Iran, and just as America and Russia developed a program of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) to prevent nuclear holocaust, just as India and Pakistan, both nuclear powers, have developed a program of MAD, so Iran wants to protect itself from a nuclear Israel by establishing a condition of MAD. The US only adds to the pressure on Iran’s leadership to get themselves into the nuclear club by its repeated bellicose threats to attack that country.
The historical record shows that America does not attack nations that have their own nuclear weapons, and Iran understandably wants to achieve that kind of protected status.
The fevered rhetoric emanating from the White House regarding alleged fears of a nuclear Iran also should be put in historical context. The administration keeps asking why Iran, the second-largest oil-exporting nation in the world, would need nuclear power, implying that the only reason for Iran’s wanting to build nuclear power plants and to develop the capability to refine uranium, would be to develop bombs. In the 1960s however, the US actively encouraged the Shah of Iran (installed in that country courtesy of a CIA-backed coup that overthrew Iran’s elected government) in his campaign to build 20 nuclear reactors, and also supplied him with a research reactor. The Shah was also known to the US to be working aggressively at developing nuclear weapons. At the nuclear research facility, which the US built for the Shah, there was known to be research on nuclear weapons design, on plutonium extraction, and on laser-enrichment processes. Indeed, by 1979, when the shah was overthrown by the Islamic Revolution, Iran was widely known to have the most advanced nuclear program in the Middle East—all accomplished with America’s blessing and assistance. (The Shah even had discussions in the late 1970s with Israel about modifying Israel’s Jericho surface-to-surface missile for Iranian use—a missile that is nuclear capable.)
So clearly, the US has not in the past thought it improper for Iran to be conducting nuclear weapons research, or to be constructing nuclear power plants.
Now let’s just summarize why an attack on Iran, as reportedly being urged by Vice President Dick Cheney, and threatened by President Bush, would be a disaster even worse than the 2003 invasion of Iraq. First of all, attacking Iran, a Shia Muslim nation, would inevitably lead Iran to order retaliation by its Shia allies in Iraq against already strapped US forces in Iraq. Shia militias such as the Badr Brigade, which to date have largely ignored US forces, would be likely to turn out in force against American forces. With American supply lines already vulnerable, US forces could quickly be cut off from all but aerial supply. They would also be heavily outnumbered. Iranian sappers and their Shia allies in Iraq and in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait could be expected to do major damage to Persian Gulf refineries, oil pipelines and loading terminals, effectively shutting down production in most of the region. Iran, once it was at war with the US would also surely make use of the hundreds of anti-ship missiles that it has reportedly set up along the eastern coast of the Persian Gulf, striking both US Navy vessels and vulnerable oil tankers. Oil shipments through the Gulf would cease, even if Iran failed to block the narrow Straits of Hormuz by sinking a couple of ships in the narrow channel, if only because of the soaring cost of insurance that would follow the start of hostilities. That in turn would lead, according to some analysts, to global oil prices of perhaps $200 per barrel—about three times the current price.
Iran, following an American attack, would also be free to retaliate against American targets anywhere in the world. It is extremely likely that just as the U.S. reportedly already has special forces in Iraq engaged in acts of sabotage and of incitement of sectarian violence, Iran has its own special forces overseas, and in the U.S., preparing for sabotage. If the US were to bomb Iranian nuclear power plants and government installations, under the international rules of reciprocity in warfare, Iran would be justified in attacking American nuclear power plants and government offices. And this is not even taking into consideration the freelance terrorists who would flock to the cause from all over if the US were to invade yet another major Islamic nation.
There is also the matter of how a US attack on Iraq would affect politics in other Muslim countries. Many analysts believe that a US attack on or war against Iran would lead to an Islamic revolution in Pakistan which could turn that already nuclear nation into an Islamic Republic, solidly aligned against the US and armed with nuclear weapons and missiles to carry them. America’s standing in other Muslim countries like Malaysia, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, already low, would also sink.
War with Iran is then, clearly madness.
It’s high time to demand that the American government explain how any of this is in American interest. War with Iran is also criminal.
Invading a country that poses no immediate threat to the nation initiating hostilities is the gravest of war crimes. It is, under the Nuremburg Charter, a “Crime Against Peace,” and the perpetrators of such crimes are guilty of a capital offense and as such should be tried, convicted, and executed.
The Bush administration already stands guilty of one such crime. It must not be allowed to commit it a second time before it has even been called to account for the first.
___________________ DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based investigative journalist and political columnist. His latest book, co-authored by Barbara Olshansky, is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and now out in a paperback edition). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net
http://www.thiscantbehappening.net
Dave Lindorff, a columnist for Counterpunch, is author of several recent books ("This Can't Be Happening! Resisting the Disintegration of American Democracy" and "Killing Time: An Investigation into the Death Penalty Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal"). His latest book, coauthored with Barbara Olshanshky, is "The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office (St. Martin's Press, May 2006). His writing is available at http://www.thiscantbehappening.net
I wonder how many people are aware that Iraq has a mutual protection pact with Iran: If anyone attacks Iran, Iraq is obliged to attacker; that would mean us if we attack Iran.
Ooops! W. probably already added a signing statement to that agreement rendering it null and void.
by
Sandy Sand (166 articles, 0 quicklinks, 220 diaries, 1490 comments)
on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 at 1:09:37 PM
The Bush administration already stands guilty of one such crime and no matter what guys like you think and write about they could care less. They own the judical system and the court so as long as the Republican's support this fool he'll do whatever he wished.
by
drasile (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 77 comments)
on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 at 2:02:20 PM
Our leaders are madmen. Why should we expect anything less than madness from them?
Our leaders are pathological liars. Why should we expect anything less than lies from them?
Our leaders are short-sighted and greedy. Why should we expect anything less than greed and short-sightedness from them?
The only thing left to determine is not IF we will invade Iran, but WHEN we will do so.
When you see a major political scandal in Washington followed very closely by the capture of Jon Bonet's killer, followed even more closely by a new O.J. revelation or Britney news, expect the bombing to start right after that, probably on a Friday afternoon around 4 p.m. PST. If we could shoehorn in the start-up of AMERICAN IDOL, that would just about lock it up.
by
Charlie L (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 715 comments)
on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 at 2:07:53 PM
Attacking Iran Would be Madness, and a Capital Crime
Mr. Lindorff:
War with Iran would indeed be criminal, but unfortunately until we rid the United States of the criminals currently in charge of our own government, then what more can we do? Calling our representatives doesn't appear to be working? An expeditious impeachment is what's needed!
One of the reasons this Bush cabal would start what would at first be a tit for tat conflict with Iranian forces inside of Iraq, and which will escalate even further, is because of this vacuum created in Iraq due to Bush and Cheney's ineptness and greed. As you've stated Mr. Lindorff, Iran isn't a threat to the United States. Iran I believe, is merely filling this void in Iraq because they're tired of the constant bloodshed so close to home.
For eight long years both the Iranian and Iraqi people endured violence and senseless loss of life, and so call it Shia comradery, but these two countries are now trying to prevent this wretched debacle we've created in Iraq from escalating even further. Bush and especially Cheney see this "meddling" by Iran as a threat to the demented form of Democracy they're attempting to install in Iraq, which hasn't yet, nor will it ever work.
Diplomacy with Iran is the only solution. Sadly, this word isn't in either Bush or Cheney's vocabulary. The word profit is though!
Perhaps the only hope left is if China were to make a statement, that if the US were to foolishly attack Iran, they in return would liquidate its vast holding of US treasuries, essentially sinking the dollar. Either way it's a lose, lose situation.
Impeachment must be put back upon the table.
by
Munich (0 articles, 74 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 901 comments)
on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 at 10:07:56 PM
Nothing can stop this. George W. Bush will launch an attack on Iran to further hide his closeted homosexuality. It is the driving force behind all of his "cowboy" aspirations.
good luck
by
Senjo (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 20 comments)
on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 at 10:44:54 PM
I was very much affected by your article in the San Francisco Bay View:“DU, the Ticking Nuke in Bush’s White House War Room,” San Francisco Bay View, 25 Jan. 2006," on mindfully.org.
What you say here makes perfect sense to me.However I’d like to hear from you again, as eloquently as you wrote last year, on what the impact would be on Iran and the world if the United States dropped a thousand tons of depleted uranium (DU) on Iran as it did on Iraq, and, in lesser amounts, Afghanistan and the Balkans.
What I keep noticing in myself is that, when I consider the overriding danger of introducing another thousand tons or so of DU into the atmosphere, I keep forgetting everything else. It’s like all other problems disappearing when fire breaks out in the house.
So I’m not wanting to take you off your excellent line of inquiry here, which, if it helps stop a war in Iran, will be a great contribution to the planet. But, even if you want to speak off the top of your head, I’d like to hear your current thoughts on a war in Iran and the problem of DU.
by
Steve Beckow (18 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 46 comments)
on Monday, September 3, 2007 at 1:57:01 PM
6 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
