Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 4 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds   

Fool me twice

By       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
(# of views)   1 comment
Author 4442
Follow Me on Twitter     Message Daniel Pourkesali
Become a Fan
  (2 fans)

In a Haaretz interview published today and titled "Is an attack on Iran a big Risk?" Patrick Clawson seems to weigh the possible outcome scenarios of a hostile attack on Iran in the same cavalier and careless manner a prospective violator would consider speeding his vehicle down a freeway.

Of course many of us unsheltered souls, who happen not to have spent the last six years under a rock watching rerun episodes of "Fox Reality" shows on TV, are painfully familiar with this type of "expert" risk-benefit analysis.

The 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq was preceded, facilitated, and followed by one of the largest propaganda campaigns in which the public were subjected to a barrage of misinformation, lies, fear mongering, and mass deception.

Following the 9/11/01 terror attacks, Iraq was made into a WMD menace that had to be dealt with before it would attack Israel, its neighbors or even Europe and the United States. Yet Saddam had just fought a bloody eight-year war against Iran with full support of the U.S. and the Europeans and like those currently in charge of Iran, was fully mindful of the mad notion of attacking Israel given that country's clear military superiority and hundreds of nuclear weapons.

Non-existence of the WMDs aside, some may argue that Saddam's aggressive behavior displayed in attacking both his neighbors Iran and Kuwait was reason enough to remove him although many have already begun to question that wisdom given the hefty price tag.

While nothing we do now can ever reverse the colossal mistake that has manifested itself into the current fiasco in Iraq, there is a lot that can be done to stop a repeat of the same blunder on a far larger scale with respect to Iran. If countries can be bombed in violation of international law solely based on some perceived threat or improper rhetoric uttered by their leaders, then there will be nothing left but mayhem and global disorder.

When a violator is caught speeding down a freeway, the driver is the sole loser; but when one nation unilaterally imposes a war of aggression against another in violation of the U.N. Charter, we are all losers.

 

Rate It | View Ratings

Daniel Pourkesali Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Daniel M Pourkesali is a Project Manager with an Aerospace company in Northern Virginia specializing in development and manufacturing of flight dynamics, engineering and control systems.

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Follow Me on Twitter     Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

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

Ukraine regime change: A bad deal for the working class

Shooting the Messenger

The Next Nuclear Holocaust

Time for behavior adjustment ┬ľ Ours

Iran's Missiles Not an Existential Threat

'Missile Defense Shield' and other imperial misnomers

To View Comments or Join the Conversation: