Mon 15 Feb 2010
Attacking Iran
Posted by USA / proudlib under Balkers
[7] Comments
What has been a surprise to me is that Iran is still an issue, at least to the United States. It’s all about nuclear weapons and whether Iran has any, so let’s take a look back at how we got here.
It’s four months after the biggest act of terrorism ever on U.S. soil and it’s clear that the 9/11 attackers were foreign based, not domestic like the Oklahoma City bombing of a federal building. The country is the most united it’s been for a while and with bipartisan support the invasion and initial defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan takes place. Now it’s 2002, time for the State of the Union speech to the nation and a new term is introduced into the national debate: The Axis of Evil.
Who are the three nations who Bush names as members of this Axis? Iraq, North Korea and Iran.
Plans go into motion to build up support for a second invasion and war in the Middle East, this time supposedly to stop development, storage and possible terrorist use of what the Bush administration claimed were stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons by Iraq’s dictator Saddam Hussein. The Republicans successfully use this as a campaign issue against the Democrats in 2002 as the ‘threat’ from Iraq is sold to frightened Americans.
In 2003, Bush makes good on his threat to invade Iraq and we’re pretty familiar with what happens after that.
While a majority of Americans applaud the invasion of Iraq, the other two ‘members’ of the ‘Axis of Evil’ get worried that they will be next. What becomes clear very soon is that the Bush administration is quick to invade a nation that was essentially defenseless after the first Gulf War but when a possible opponent shows that they have the means to fight back, the Republicans shift to just wanting to talk.
Case in point: Iraq is invaded, North Korea with it’s nearly 6 million member armed forces and potential to build nuclear weapons gets a good GOP talking to. The talking continues during the Bush era even when North Korea does their first nuclear tests and test fires the missiles to deliver them.
Would any of these three have a chance in hell of defeating an all-out conflict with America? Of course not, but if the case for having one is weak on the U.S. side, any support vanishes rather quickly when a lot of Americans die or get maimed for what the country sees as an unworthy war. If a party wants to build it’s war cred, pick someone weak to fight so you can win fast and get out.
Iran gets this message loud and clear. Iran has armed forces but nowhere near the reported size of North Korea so what can they do to prevent invasion by the Bushies? Announce loudly that they are close to making nuclear weapons. Sure enough, the Republicans back off and instead of sending troops they send sanctions. Despite much saber rattling on both sides that’s about where things stay until the election of Barack Obama.
Unfortunately, even with a President who has expressed no desire or interest in following the neocons’ plans for constant war in the Middle East, that’s where things still stand. If you followed Iran’s rhetoric, you’d think Bush was still in the White House.
The reason for this is now the Iran regime finds the threat of a foreign invader useful not on the international stage but the domestic one. Iran is facing a major movement to reform it’s quasi-democratic form of government and as usual the people in power don’t want their power reformed away. Attacking reform protestors in the streets, even executing some, isn’t getting the job done for the Iranian establishment. So they are going for what works for every country – convince enough Iranians that they are in danger from outside attack and that silly reform thing goes by the wayside.
Now, the boogeymen in the case of the United States are hard to find here. Sure there were the usual neocon war pimps howling for war with Iraq that they could watch from the safety of their homes but they are no longer in power. Remarks from the Obama White House only vaguely spoke of further action and that looks to remain more sanctions than military. So who steps in to take our place as a friend of the rulers of Iran who are seeking a foreign threat? Israel, who openly talks of bombing raids of Iran.
OK, now what’s the problem from the side of the people in the U.S. and Israel for their desire to attack Iran? Well, a couple of things:
First, the reports on where Iran actually is in developing a nuclear weapon is sketchy and contradictory, even as to whether they actually have an interest in actually making one. Some reports say a nuclear Iran is months away, others say it’s still years off. Iran wants to have its cake and keep it secret too – they claim they are close for the sake of bluster but never say for sure.
Second, the real threat from a nuclear weapon isn’t that anyone just has one – it’s whether they can get it to a target. So far, Iran hasn’t shown much capability in delivering such a weapon anywhere beyond their underground labs. Being afraid of a nuclear weapon without the means of it being delivered anywhere is like being afraid of a box of bullets. Both have the potential for harm but that requires a gun to shoot them out of or a missile to launch them on.
With domestic uses for a Iran ‘threat’ in three countries now, unfortunately not much is going to change. The Republicans want Iran around so they can make their usual “Democrats are weak on defense” argument for election time, a new conservative government in Israel wants to show their people that they will protect them and the Iranians want to have the threat of foreign attack to shut down that reform movement.
And so it goes…..
http://ranting-liberally.blogspot.com
Welcome proudlib to Balkingpoints – well done.
Ignorant bravado & saber rattling by the Bush Regime, setting into motion the self-fulfilling prophecy of arms build-ups and pending war. Indeed / my view also. Even Bush himself admitted a few years later that his infamous “bring it on” quote, put those unfortunates charged with prosecuting his unhinged War on Iraq, in even more jeopardy than they were in already. (Today I read from Media Inc., how Iraq had become “a success”…)
Long past is the day when a lone super power will simply dictate to the world, if it ever existed at all – perhaps for a brief period after WWII. Which coincidentally, is when and how the U.S. planted all those seeds of
oil-addiction trouble, in that same Middle East. Along with short-shrifting the rights of displaced Palestinians to self-determination and a homeland, which we didn’t move to address until Bill Clinton in 1993.
As she condemned militaristic posture by Iran today in Qatar, Hillary Clinton also said the U.S. is not planning any military action in response. This is a diplomacy / isolation / economic carrot & stick matter, which is clear to Progressives at least. It undercuts a nationalist like Ahmadinejad’s attempts to hold onto his post of hood ornament to a religious dictatorship, by whipping up fear of attack.
Something you’d expect Cheney if not Bush, to have been able to comprehend…
The brash approach to foreign relations is also how America started getting on the bad side of people around the world. There had been tons of solidarity and sympathy right after 9/11 happened, but then after Bush invaded Iraq he received less and less support for his policies. Lots of dead in Iraq, no WMD found, Abu Garib abuse pictures, Guantanamo prison that had no due process, on and on
I believe we can all agree that the Bush approach did nothing but foster hatred and disappointment around the world. That said I believe in looking forward, thank god those 8 years are past, hopefully Mrs. Clinton will show some real thought in her handling of Iran. Hopefully Roy is correct in predicting her latest statements will remove some of Mr.Ahmadinejad’s power to cow his people into thinking that there is a real threat from the US.
Israel is another matter altogether, I’m afraid that their newly elected government is more akin to our past one, at least on policy issues. I for one would like to see our current administration use some of our “clout” with Israel in a more aggressive manner. They don’t seem to respond well to suggestions on how to move forward on the peace process, the settlement issue comes to mind quite prominently on that note. Perhaps the US being the largest supporter has to take the unpopular position of removing some of our support.
After their last incursion into Gaza and their failure to cooperate with or acknowledge UN findings of war crimes (albeit on both sides), I believe they are perilously close to being what they so vehemently oppose, a terrorist nation. Yes the defense excuse is there, however their actions don’t back up their words. Though they may not have initiated aggressions, it behooves all civilized nations to act in a manner deserving of the word civilized. Based on the past performance of their reactions to the Arab threat, Iran may prove a much more serious issue altogether. I hope that much like the past Republican administration, they prefer attacking weaker targets for political gain, however mindless that is. My worst fear would be that they overstep their bounds and escalate things in Iran, perhaps Iran has nukes, perhaps not, but finding out by military aggression is not an intelligent act. I would hope most countries learned at least that from Bush’s search for all those WMD’s that never existed.
Iran’s people need to know that their biggest threat is their own government, not foreign aggressors.
Hello proudlib and nice to have you aboard. That’s a good detailed write up on how we got so adversarial to Iran. War is always serving somebody’s interests, and it’s never anybody who is in the line of fire, for sure.
We’ve done some balking about the part that commercial media in America plays in getting support for these wars, or keeping opposition down on things like not having national health insurance for decades on end. The fact that they are major corporations really can’t be separated from the messages that come out of them; good for corporations and the wealthy but usually bad for average Americans.
Isn’t it amazing for example, how one contingent; who’s in the minority but very loud and threatening, still thinks the way to prosperity is to keep cutting government?!
These morons eat that dung up from corporations like Fox News and syndicated right wing radio networks, like that isn’t exactly what was tried and failed through the decades we had Reagan and then both Bush presidents. Like it never led to a
collapse of banks and 11% unemployment and millions losing their house!
You’ll like this link we’ve posted a few times, if you haven’t seen it before. Bill Moyers did a big expose on PBS a couple of years ago, about how the media never challenged BushCo a bit on his faulty justifications for invading Iraq. Even though many contradictions existed. “Buying The War”
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html
In contrast to the USA, UK has been holding a formal inquiry into the entire Iraq invasion and commitment of British forces by former PM Tony Blair. Gordon Brown is next in que to be questioned.
One wonders why Obama has not sought the same. There is a homesite link for our hearings http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/
The only thing that kept the United States from invading any of the axis-of-evil states is the United States. Your so-called build up of foreign military might that frightened the US off is so childish that it brings into question your age. Political correctness and fear of the American electorate is the only thing that drives any US Administration “go or no” decisions. I predict that, eventually, some enemy will step so far beyond the capacity of political correctness reiging in the United States hawks, that the full force of the military will be unleashed. And, if you think you saw that after 9/11 you know naught of what the US can do. That’s what should concern the doves of the world – which nutball rouge regime acts beyond the pale and forces the United States to REALLY attack.
Welcome to Balkingpoints brnzartist.
If you read above, nobody indicated they thought a buildup in Iran or North Korea scared off the U.S. The point is the reverse: If the world’s most militarily-powerful, nuclear-weaponed nation puts you on an “Axis” list (Bush 2002), and then it attacks one of the other nations on the list (Iraq), you would very likely build up arms and nuclear capacities in expectation that you are next to be attacked.