OpEdNews Op Eds

How to Talk About Iran

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 4 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Become a Fan
  (117 fans)
- Advertisement -
John Aravosis suggests some talking points on Iran, but I'd like to suggest some changes in bold.

George Bush has decided to use Iran as a foil to help his sagging poll numbers and to help Republicans in the fall congressional elections. I'm going to discuss why this is true, and what the Dems should do about it.

Iran is ten years away from developing nukes.

I'll say it again, TEN YEARS away. And that's not according to some peacenik liberal, it's according to the best estimate of US intelligence

From the US State Department's own Web site:

Iran is likely years away from producing weapons-grade plutonium or highly enriched uranium. Vice Adm. Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in March 2005 that Iran is expected to be able to produce a weapon early next decade. According to one report, the new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran assesses that it will be ten years before Iran has a bomb.

So why, suddenly, in the second week of April, 2006, have we found ourselves in a media feeding frenzy of speculation over whether the US will be soon be launching a massive (possibly nuclear) attack on Iran to eliminate an "impending" nuclear threat that won't appear until 2016?

And why are we allowing to go unchallenged the idea that it would be all right to attack another nation if it did have nuclear weapons? Or (in some people's talking points and MoveOn's Email) that it might be all right to attack another country as long as we don't use nuclear weapons to do so? MoveOn says that a conventional attack would probably be a disaster. No. It would be a crime. It is illegal, immoral, and destructive in every way for one nation to attack another, no matter what weapons it possesses. And let's drop the pretense in any case that we would be attacking because of weapons. The US attacked Iraq and would attack Iran because they do NOT have weapons. If they did, the US would no more attack them than we are attacking Korea. The key point here is that the US should respect international law and stop launching aggressive wars, not that we should wait until Iran has weapons.
- Advertisement -


Iran is a convenient way to change the subject

The answer is that Iran is a convenient way for the Bush administration to get America's attention off of the Iraq debacle, rising gas prices, Valerie Plame, New Orleans lost, Republican corruption, the massive budget deficit, and a growing number of revelations of how Bush lied to the American people in trying to sell them on the Iraq war.


Start saber-rattling about how Iran is going to nuke America's babies, and people may very well forget all the other problems on their plate.


Bringing up Iran now is a convenient way to help Republicans in the fall congressional elections

But in reality it's much more likely to hurt them.
- Advertisement -


There's a second benefit to this strategy as well. Bush can again look presidential - the strong leader taking on more evil dark-skinned false-god worshippers. Bush's hope is that all of this will help the Republicans sagging poll numbers, and thus help them retain the House and Senate in the fall.

Bush is also hoping that going to war in Iran, like the war in Iraq, will divide Democrats. Some Dems will have the courage to say publicly that the Bush administration can't be trusted with a war in Iran, while other Dems will fear looking too dove-ish if they take on Bush. All Bush and the congressional Republicans need to do is bring up the Iran war resolution in September, right before the elections, and hope the Democrats fall apart.


So how should Democrats respond to the issue of Iran's nuclear threat?

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4

 

http://davidswanson.org

David Swanson is the author of "When the World Outlawed War," "War Is A Lie" and "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union." He blogs at http://davidswanson.org and http://warisacrime.org and works for the online (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): ; , Add Tags
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Feith Dares Obama to Enforce the Law

Obama's Open Forum Opens Possibilities

Public Forum Planned on Vermont Proposal to Arrest Bush and Cheney

Did Bush Sr. Kill Kennedy and Frame Nixon?

Holder Asked to Prosecute Blankenship

Eleven Excellent Reasons Not to Join the Military

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
2 people are discussing this page, with 2 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

With the death of the Right Reverend William Sloan... by ardee D. on Thursday, Apr 13, 2006 at 7:08:03 AM
I agree with both Mr. Swanson and Ardee here. It i... by Mark Sashine on Thursday, Apr 13, 2006 at 8:17:35 AM