Warmongers - time to party like its 2003
8 Comments Published by Tom Gara on Wednesday, February 7 at Wednesday, February 07, 2007.
Remember that period in the months and months leading up to the Iraq war? All of a sudden people became hugely concerned about all the atrocities committed by Saddam and how dangerous his country was. Right thinking people everyone were suddenly concerned for the rights of Iraqi's to lead a better life, and worried about the huge threat Iraq resembled to the post-911 world. It really just popped up out of nowhere, and to question it was seen as de facto support for Saddam Hussein.
Even though war seemed inevitable, there was a few-months-long charade where the US said that if Saddam changed his tune - let inspectors in, etc - conflict could be avoided. Everyone knew it was bullshit, but the game was played anyhow, for the requisite minimum amount of time, and then the horrible, inevitable war began.
Doesn't it feel almost the same right now with Iran? It seems to be that you can say pretty much whatever you want right now about the evils of Iran and it is taken as some sort of self evident truth. The conventional wisdom seems to be that Iran is Bad and Must Be Stopped.
The fact that Iran is meddling in Iraq is viewed as some horribly unacceptable example of below the belt terrorism. But wouldnt any country with a massive devastating occupation and civil war right on it's borders be fairly interested, and interventionist, in seeing the end outcome of said war end up being one favourable to it?
Do you think if Venezeula invaded Mexico and inspired a massive Communist vs. Capitalist civil war, that the US would just sit around and let each side fight out out without getting involved in any way? Of course not. Its absurd, and just as absurd to think that Iran is going to sit around and watch as its biggest and most dangerous neighbour falls to pieces under the occupation of an aggressive foreign enemy.
Regardless of what I think is pretty justified Iranian meddling in Iraq, there just seems to be no evidence getting shared for any of Iran's supposed international menacing. Evidence of a nuclear weapons program? Evidence that they are running terrorist operations in Iraq? Evidence that Hezbollah is a "front" or forward operating base for Iran? Is there any actual evidence that Iran was involved in any of the recent attacks on US or Iraqi troops? Maybe there is, and I am just hopelessly ignorant of it. If anyone knows of this kind of evidence, or where I can read it, please let me know.
Even the billion-times-repeated line that Ahmadinejad said he wants Israel "wiped off the map" is basically bullshit. The hardcore pro-Israeli translation service MEMRI translates him as saying "This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history". So first, he was not saying Israel, he was saying the Israeli regime, and second, he is using a common Farsi idiom that does not mean "wiped off the map" in a military sense as everyone obviously imagines. Shouldn't there be some accountability for the hundreds and hundreds of news organisations and pundits who keep misquoting what is becoming a pivotal line in the justification of attacking Iran?
The worst thing is, I hate Ahmadinejad. I think he's a cock, for a number of reasons. Would love to see the guy eliminated from the pages of history. Same goes/went for Saddam. I just can't stand the idea that by flat out lying and misrepresentation, and pure, outright sophistry, it is looking more and more likely that a few hundred thousand Iranian civilians are probably going to suffer and die through conflict in the coming years.
Even though war seemed inevitable, there was a few-months-long charade where the US said that if Saddam changed his tune - let inspectors in, etc - conflict could be avoided. Everyone knew it was bullshit, but the game was played anyhow, for the requisite minimum amount of time, and then the horrible, inevitable war began.
Doesn't it feel almost the same right now with Iran? It seems to be that you can say pretty much whatever you want right now about the evils of Iran and it is taken as some sort of self evident truth. The conventional wisdom seems to be that Iran is Bad and Must Be Stopped.
The fact that Iran is meddling in Iraq is viewed as some horribly unacceptable example of below the belt terrorism. But wouldnt any country with a massive devastating occupation and civil war right on it's borders be fairly interested, and interventionist, in seeing the end outcome of said war end up being one favourable to it?
Do you think if Venezeula invaded Mexico and inspired a massive Communist vs. Capitalist civil war, that the US would just sit around and let each side fight out out without getting involved in any way? Of course not. Its absurd, and just as absurd to think that Iran is going to sit around and watch as its biggest and most dangerous neighbour falls to pieces under the occupation of an aggressive foreign enemy.
Regardless of what I think is pretty justified Iranian meddling in Iraq, there just seems to be no evidence getting shared for any of Iran's supposed international menacing. Evidence of a nuclear weapons program? Evidence that they are running terrorist operations in Iraq? Evidence that Hezbollah is a "front" or forward operating base for Iran? Is there any actual evidence that Iran was involved in any of the recent attacks on US or Iraqi troops? Maybe there is, and I am just hopelessly ignorant of it. If anyone knows of this kind of evidence, or where I can read it, please let me know.
Even the billion-times-repeated line that Ahmadinejad said he wants Israel "wiped off the map" is basically bullshit. The hardcore pro-Israeli translation service MEMRI translates him as saying "This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history". So first, he was not saying Israel, he was saying the Israeli regime, and second, he is using a common Farsi idiom that does not mean "wiped off the map" in a military sense as everyone obviously imagines. Shouldn't there be some accountability for the hundreds and hundreds of news organisations and pundits who keep misquoting what is becoming a pivotal line in the justification of attacking Iran?
The worst thing is, I hate Ahmadinejad. I think he's a cock, for a number of reasons. Would love to see the guy eliminated from the pages of history. Same goes/went for Saddam. I just can't stand the idea that by flat out lying and misrepresentation, and pure, outright sophistry, it is looking more and more likely that a few hundred thousand Iranian civilians are probably going to suffer and die through conflict in the coming years.
You know it was Nasser who made the statement "wipe israel off the earth"
Bless him..........N O T!
Gara,
I would like to say that the US will definitely not invade Iran (I don't mean "hot pursuit" I mean Iraq style invasion).
Why? Some quick points.
Hawks have already overspent political capital an unpopular war in Iraq.
Sept 11 is 4 important years further away, and a now does not have the influence to kick US congress, media and populace into ideological line. Especially a Democratic Congress, Senate and most likely Whitehouse.
The US Military and Administration (even the broader populace) has learned a great deal about the region- and don't have as much naivete as the did invading Iraq. What they have learned (and spent) does not encourage further occupation.
Ahmadi-Nejad’s on the way down. "Ahmadi-Nejad’s recent electoral setbacks, increased elite criticism of his foreign policy performance, and failure to achieve his economic program have all weakened him, but Washington would be wrong to conclude its more aggressive posture against Iran in Iraq and naval build-up in the Gulf, much less a direct military intervention, would produce cracks in the regime. Instead, the U.S. should show willingness for broad engagement with Iran without preconditions."
The ICG.
Having said all this, I'm very concerned with Iran- for two big reasons.
1- Nukes. I'm worried they are going to get them covertly or with tacit acknowledgement of part of a "broader engagement" giving the US a slightly cleaner exit from a nasty mess. I'm majorly concerned by more countries in the region having nukes- especially ones prone to fundamentalist ideology and regime change.
2- Theocracy. Whatever way you cut it, Iran is run by a Shia "Supreme Leader" and "Governing Council". I think human civilisation has learned enough bloody lessons on the separation of Church and State, and the disengage from reality that comes from religous ideological government. Furthermore, this is only furthering the Shia/Sunni polarisation that seems to be occuring in the region.
Having said all this, Iran does seem to have a lot of the things needed for real reform from the inside; real national identity and history, increasingly hardening and suppressive government (esp on human rights associated with leadership), reasonably educated populace and a pretty broad elite.
Maybe Iran will be an example of the internal change, supported (delicately) from the outside.
As for the current news gossip- I think all the talk is just right wing gibberings that have lost their underlying power and the left wing heightened concern from getting burnt in Iran.
Peace
Arthur
Cavaet- Most of the ideas above have been gleaned from playing Civilisation IV.
Arthur,
Totally agree that the US will not invade Iraq style. Then again, I would argue that the US didnt really want to invade Iraq Iraq style either.
I think the US will stumble ass backwards into catastrophe with Iran just like they stumbled ass backwards into the current situation in Iraq. Incompetently, and not according to plan.
My basic feeling is:
- Momentum gathers for a limited bombing of Iranian sites.
- Simultaneously, some provocative things are done "against" Iran via Iraq (more Iranian "diplomats", intelligence people etc getting killed/abducted, and perhaps some sensitive border area "hot persuit" style battles
- Iran gets angry and does something nasty against the US in Iraq
- The US bombs Iran
- Iran sends a few Shahab missiles into Tel Aviv
- Israel sends a metric shit ton of missiles into Iran
- All hell breaks loose in the middle east
- America gets drawn into something horrible and has to fight it out....
I don't think its particularly unrealistic. And I think it is something that this current US administration is easily incompetent to stumble into...
A freakin scary scenario. I suppose my thinking has been focussed on US domestic politics- thinking this factor would be fundamentally different in 2007-8 than in 2003- and that this would be a fail safe limiting the proven incompetence of the current Administration. i.e. Potential Presidential candidates could garner easy extra additional support by being anti another war (and positioning a limited strike as a war). This article kinda undermines my position however. http://www.antiwar.com/frank/?articleid=4521
So, if the response to a nuclear Iran is going to be US or Israeli bombs, which will lead to the scenario you mentioned. The questions seems to be- is there any way of Iran is not going to acquire nukes? A full embrace into the international community? (drop embargo, trade, money, role in stabilising iraq, all the Magic the Gathering cards... wikipedia sponsorship? ;)
Arthur,
Is there any evidence that Iran will develop nuclear weapons?
From everything I can read, Iran has a fucking long history of not starting wars and being fairly internally focussed. Is there anything at all that suggests this trend is about to change?
I just don't see much connection between reality and everyones fears of a nuclear armed Iran....Do educate me if I am missing something here.
Gara,
I think the question is then, if not to become one of the nuclear states why get nuclear power?
Iran is 3rd in proven oil reserves, 4th in oil production, and 2nd in gas reserves. Iran has one of the cheapest gas prices in the world, and still is able to export huge amounts while covering the internal market. All this underlines the fact that there is no need for a very expensive nuclear energy programme. Even if they are thinking super long-term (and would be one of the last countries to need do this)- why not jump onto nuclear energy in 15-20 years when its more commoditised, cheap, efficient and safe?
I think the answer is nuclear weapons- or at least brinksmanship around nuclear weapons. Being a nuclear state has some advantages (if you can avoid getting into a major war on the way). Especially for an internationally unpopular regime, and perhaps one that might become domestically unpopular as development and liberalisation continues. Nukes mean that other countries cant invade you and you get to be more of a regional player. This means you can do whatever you want at home, and be more liberal in what you do abroad.
In the past the prospect getting nukes without being nailed would have been highly unlikely for Iran. But now, the US needs Iran's co-operation in Iraq, and the region needs their stability- and really wants to limit their meddling. Do they have enough cards to trade in for nukes?
Even if not, they can still get a lot out of brinksmanship- moving in the nuke direction and cashing out when it gets too dangerous.
A point for your side- Iran has suffering the second most casualities from weapons of mass destruction (chemicals in Iran-Iraq war) which has lead to strong Iranian statements against them, and perhaps in the culture, but I wonder if this could be bent in the name of preserving the Islamic state.
Arthur,
I agree that Iran doesn't need a nuclear power program. I don't want them to have nuclear weapons, but then I don't really want anyone outside of the US/EU/China to have nuclear weapons anyhow.
I'm not too qualified to project the motivations of the Iranian government, but I can imagine the motives for getting nuclear power being:
1 - Brinkmanship: Just having the capacity to make nuclear weapons is a deterrent to attack. And its not like Iran doesn't have plenty of rational reasons to want a deterrent - it borders on Iraq (a hostile enemy country currently occupied by another hostile enemy country), Afghanistan (a failed state occupied by hostile enemies) and Pakistan (a nuclear armed military dictatorship). All of these countries will have permanent US military bases within the next 2 years.
A thousand kilometres away is Israel, another hostile, nuclear armed enemy state, whose leaders continually lobby for a conflict with Iran.
I'd be shitting myself if I was Iran. They probably have literally the worst geographical and geopolitical hand of cards out of any country in the world right now.
2 - Nuclear is smart: Is there any doubt that nuclear energy is the future? Oil is too precious to burn, and if you think Iranian oil is valuable today, imagine how valuable it will be in 50 years. Using proceeds from oil sales to build a clean, sustainable nuclear power system sounds like the most logical thing for oil economies to do.
3 - Pride: Iran has a long, proud history - unlike many countries around it, it isn't a postwar colonial construction, its a real country and people with a long history of science, mathematics, intellectual advancement etc.
4 - The fuck you element: Perhaps if people stopped talking about Iran like a naughty child who can't have his ice cream until he cleans his room, things would be different. But all this talk of whether to "allow" Iran to develop a nuclear program is probably the best reverse psychology in the world.
Its not like Iran is Burkina Faso - we cant just push them around and bitchslap them into whatever we want. They have a huge history, landmass, culture, military, economy, organised government etc.
Gara,
You've added several more relevant points all of which further add to the argument that Iran will pursue nukes. So the options to avoid the big war you outlined previously seems to fall back on
1- When can Iran play the brinksman card and get out of the game- in a way that everyone wins?
2- If this doesn't happen and they nuke up, how does the US/Israel respond?
On NPR smart guys debate "The Motion: We Must Tolerate a Nuclear Iran" http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6140564