Before the election most Americans were constitutionally incapable of believing we would attack Iran. We just assumed that even an administration as obtuse as this one could see we're stretched too thin in Iraq and Afghanistan to contemplate another offensive.
Consequently, concerns that an attack would leave our troops in Iraq vulnerable to retaliation, as well as gut the economy, were nonexistent. Nor were those aware of the massive naval deployment to the Persian Gulf inclined to think it was anything more than military exercises.
Post-election, issuing clarion calls about administration intentions toward Iran seems even more alarmist. Thanks to the Democratic victory and the Iraq Study Group, Cheney's on a leash now, right?
Better to be safe than sorry. Heed Seymour Hersh and never underestimate Cheney. If anyone can extricate himself from the choke collar of legislative restrictions that block the administration from pursuing military options against Iran, he can.
Even his rumored replacement by John McCain is no indication that cooler heads will prevail. Both McCain and his possible opponent in the 2008 presidential election, Hillary Clinton, seem determined to outdo each other in their interventionist stances at a time when the nation is rediscovering its isolationist tendencies.
Nor is Clinton the only Democrat who can't be counted on to enforce congressional restrictions against a military option. After all, only 80 members of the House favor prompt withdrawal from Iraq.
But when it comes to proving you're not soft on security what's the death of tens of thousands of Iranians, not to mention the disruption of world markets?
Men of letters
Iran's direction is equally as difficult to discern. That's due, in part, to the structure of its executive branch, which is bi -- not polar, though some think Ahmadinejad is -- but bicameral. It differs from our legislative branch in that it's divided into the sacred and the secular: the mullah and Mahmoud.
The mullah is one of the meinis. Supreme Leader Ali Khameini succeeded the mother of all ayatollahs, Khomeini, and while almost as anti-West as Ahmadinejad, he's capable of staying the president's hand. Thank Allah for small favors.
There's yet another division in Iran's government. In his Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists piece, "Divided from Within," Paul Kerr of the Arms Control Association describes it. Authority over Iran's nuclear program had been divided between its foreign ministry and its Atomic Energy Organization. In an apparently genuine attempt to facilitate cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency in 2003, Iran consolidated authority over its program under Hassan Rowhani, the nation's head of national security.
As a result, Kerr writes, "Tehran's left hand has not always known what its right hand is doing." Rowhani admitted that reconciling the two organizations resulted in not only disharmony, but outright sabotage.
As for that most disharmonious of all convergences -- Iran and our own administration -- Tehran, according to Kerr, has two reservations. The first is that the US regards the nuclear issue as but a pretext to effect "regime change." It seems Tehran hasn't forgotten how the CIA overthrew their democratically elected prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh, in 1953 and installed the tyrannical Shah. Talk about holding a grudge.
Second, it's been overshadowed by all that's happened since. But when the United Nations Special Commission weapons inspection team was scouring Iraq for WMD in the nineties, it was infiltrated by US intelligence, which electronically eavesdropped on Iraqi military communications. Iran fears the US would use UN inspections of its nuclear facilities to the same ends.
US spying on the UN headquarters is a time-honored tradition. (Great Britain too -- remember Kofi Annan before the Iraq invasion?) But, as surely as the short shrift we give Palestine taints our Middle-Eastern policy, heavy-handed surveillance compromises our credibility.
In the same vein, our efforts to keep nations like Iran from nuclear-weaponizing are poisoned by our insistence on keeping our own status as a nuclear power intact. In clear violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, we're not only failing to disarm, but developing new weapons.
Russ Wellen is the nuclear deproliferation editor for OpEdNews. He's also on the staffs of Freezerbox and Scholars & Rogues.
"It's hard to tell people not to smoke when you have a cigarette dangling from your mouth." -- Mohamed El Baradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency
Little people are the ones that have very small goals. That does not mean they are not vehement in achieving those. But those goals are meniscule, like having their annual hunting party or Crawford vacation, etc. To maintain that they can kill 100000 people, start nuclear war, etc. They are the actual enemies of humanity, not just enemies of our country. Little people, of course exist in other countries too. When they reach the critical mass the abscess ruptures and we have wars. The purpose of the healthy society is to identify the little bastards and redirect them to the proper use. In our country they are clearly seen; they do not hide. So let's put them to the good use- get rid of them in power and make them TV personalities. And let's sign a Little People Non-Proliferation Treaty with other countries. That will prevent war for sure.
by
Mark Sashine (44 articles, 19 quicklinks, 228 diaries, 3254 comments)
on Thursday, November 30, 2006 at 7:49:10 AM
