As someone who would rather not see us (us meaning the United States) engage in yet another war, I am utterly frustrated at the actions of Iran. Forget which side of the political aisle you are on and forget whether you are anti-war in general, with regards to the current Iraq war, or anything of the sort. What we know is that the current US Administration is not shy at all about going to war; one might even describe them as somewhat trigger-happy. In the face of that, the Iranian regime seems to be doing just about everything they can to provoke them. You could argue that countries have the right to pursue peaceful uses of nuclear power. However, combine that assertion with a country that recently has developed and tested MIRV missile technology, combine that with a country that has recently developed and tested missile technology that has a low radar visibility, and a country that has just tested extremely advanced torpedo technology, one for which there may be no current countermeasures AND you add the historical hostility between our country and Iran that includes an unthinkable violation of international law and diplomacy that was the invasion of our embassy, and you see the reason for the title and thesis of this Op-Ed piece. What are the Iranians doing? What are they thinking? What is wrong with them?
I realize that my very own articles have opined that the US does not have the conventional capability to deal with Iran if they started behaving aggressively, but we could certainly mount a number of different non-conventional type conflicts with Iran that would be horrific, both to Regional and Global stability, and to the poor Iranian people. We could follow-up cruise missile and air attacks of Iranian Air Force and anti-aircraft sites with sustained (I am talking about months of) B-52 carpet bomb attacks on Iranian population centers and military sites. We could add terrible munitions like napalm and fuel-air explosives to the mix. The conflict could descend into complete madness and we could end up using tactical or even strategic nuclear weapons against Iran. Again, what do the Iranians think they are gaining by provoking the Bush administration?
I have as much as said that one possibility is that they may think we are too bogged down in Iraq to do anything about their provocations, but I have shown the folly of that logic in the above paragraph. There is another possibility. After his election, Iranian President Ahmedinejad said, "Thanks to the blood of the martyrs, a new Islamic revolution has arisen and the Islamic revolution of XXXX (the current Islamic year) will, if God wills, cut off the roots of injustice in the world ... The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world." This is even more ominous when combined with one of his campaign statements, "We didn't participate in the revolution for turn-by-turn government ... This revolution tries to reach a world-wide government"
Similar to what I believe are the goals of Osama bin-Laden and Al-Qaeda, the above could indicate that Iran, or at least their new President and the Mullahs he supports, hope to initiate a World War with the West, i.e. US and its allies on one side and the 1.9 Billion believers of Islam on the other. There is little other sense to be made of Ahmedinejad’s statements and the actions of Iran under his leadership. Knowing that this might be the case; shouldn’t this alter our reactions to Iranian provocations? Of course, I am just guessing with my theory, but regardless, shouldn’t the US do everything short of appeasement to defuse the situation, prevent a further destabilization of the Middle East and the pushing of its peoples into the camp of the Radical Islamicists? We can but hope that between Condi and the rest of the people at State, there are enough people who realize the danger and enough people with the practical understanding to prevent a greater conflagration from erupting in the Middle East. So far, during this administration, they haven’t shown us much.
Steven Leser specializes in Politics, Science & Health, and Entertainment topics. He has held positions within the Democratic Party including District Chair and Public Relations Chair within county organizations.
Steven Leser writes for www.opednews.com, an internet only media site that has grown to become one of the highest traffic news sites in America, reaching more traffic, according to alexa.com, than all but the thirty largest daily newspapers in the US. Mr. Leser is one of the 500+ liberal pundits who, each month, are published in what has become one of the top five Liberal/progressive media sites in the US.
The US supports, with much military assistance, the nation of Israel that has waged brutal war on a civilian population for decades, contributing mightley to the instability of the middle east.
The US military invaded Iraq illegally and occupies that nation, committing more brutal acts of torture and murder than one may count.
The US allows nuclear arms in the hands of those it chooses to honor, nations such as Pakistan with a brutal dictatorship of its own, is currently dealing with India to enlarge its nuclear capabilities, is testing even more nuclear weapons of varying size and capabilities. All the while the US rails beligerently against Iran's right to a nuclear position of its own.
Gee wonder why Iran seeks to oppose the rule of the US over its own self determination?
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Thursday, April 6, 2006 at 7:21:42 AM
This time Ardee is right on the money. Until we all start evaluating the events in the world first and foremost from the point of view that we are not the saints, we will certainly never understand why other people whom we do not know, never met and never even talked to are so vehemently opposed to the perspective to be governed by us. Look in the mirror, folks, or rather look at what we do or what is done in our name why we sit there gaping.
by
Mark Sashine (54 articles, 19 quicklinks, 252 diaries, 3605 comments)
on Thursday, April 6, 2006 at 3:12:49 PM
«You could argue that countries have the right to pursue peaceful uses of nuclear power. However, combine that assertion with a country that recently has developed and tested MIRV missile technology, combine that with a country that has recently developed and tested missile technology that has a low radar visibility, and a country that has just tested extremely advanced torpedo technology, one for which there may be no current countermeasures...» If the above list characterises countries that represent a clear and present danger to humanity and therefore should be attacked, what is then to be said of countries that not only possess nuclear energy programmes but also nuclear weapons in addition to the type of military technology described above, and which moreover have a well-documented propensity to go to war against other nations to promote their agendas, both foreign and domestic ? China ? Meets the criteria, save for that propensity to go to war - with the exception of Deng Xiaoping's brief adventure in Vietnam in 1979, for the last thirty years the Chinese leadership has been very reluctant to engage in military actions abroad. This may change as China's military strength increases, but for the present - not qualified. Russia ? Same as China as regards weapons and military technology, only more so - but fails again to meet the criteria of current military adventurism (the task of bombing villages in Afghanistan has been turned over to others). France ? There are certainly those who would like to see the country nuked on the grounds of insolence, but recent French foreign policy has not been characterised by military adventurism - France only picks on small African countries or places like Haiti which cannot defend themselves. The UK ? Here, of course, we come nearer the mark. Armed and dangerous, always willing to respond to those tugs on the leash its master provides from time to time, when not actively pulling on the leash itself, as in the Balkans in the preceding decade. A good target. What about Israel ? This one is a sleeper. Armed to the teeth and with both a foreign and a domestic policy which can only be characterised as extremely aggressive, the leaders of this state have shown themselves to be highly adroit in getting the reigning bully on the block to attack its enemies, while staying out of the fray themselves (of course, while Iraq was engaged in the war with Iran in 1981, they did manage to pull of a bombing raid, and then there's the little matter of the invasion of Lebanon a year later, but to those not directly affected, these are perhaps minor matters). Its tactics and strategy have not changed ; witness its current lobbying for a US attack on Iran. In occupation of foreign territory for nearly four decades, despite innumerable UNO resolutions. Comes very close to fulfilling the criteria fro pre-emptive (post-emptive ?) attack....
But wait, we seem to have forgotten that 300 kg gorilla ! The most clear and present danger to the peace of the world is a country with a military budget which exceeds that of the rest of the world combined, with hundreds of military bases on foreign territory and more a-building, and which is presently engaged in overt wars on two foreign countries, with many covert operations going on throughout the world. This country possesses the technological leadership in the military field, and a political leadership which steadfastly refuses to «take the military option off the table». Moreover, at least portions of that leadership seems to be driven by chiliastic visions at least a match for anything an Iranian Shiite could dream - in their mouths the term «democracy» seems to have become a code word for «Rapture». Perhaps Mr Leser would be advised to re-title his OpEd : «The USA - Are they inviting attack ; if so why ?»....
by
mhenriday (0 articles, 11 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 152 comments)
on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 4:43:25 AM
3 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 (
