Iran: Don't Do It

Iran War?

Far, Far, Far More Insane Than the Iraq War

Comment by Larry Ross, April 21, 2006

Matthew Yglesia makes a very good case that a U.S.-led war against Iran would be far,far,far more insane than the phoney illegal war against Iraq.

However like many commentators, he seems to accept as true a number of lies and assumptions perpetrated by the Bush Administration to justify their war plans. His article seems to assume that Iran is developing it's nuclear technology in order to make nuclear weapons. He neglects to mention that after years of rigorous UN inspections, the IAEA have reported that there is no evidence of a nuclear weapons programme. And the CIA reports that it would be ten years before Iran could produce a nuclear weapon.

He also neglects to mention the violations of the U.S. Constitution, International law, the UN Charter. Bush and Co are not licensed by God to make wars based on lies on whoever they like. There are many very adverse long-term consequences of a U.S. attack on Iran.

However some journalists may feel they have to repeat the generally accepted and 'embedded' Bushcon lies, in order to have their main message accepted and considered. Professor Paul Rogers seems to be another well-known commentator whose work is very thorough and has many important facts, but who sometimes repeats the embedded Bushcon lie - that Iran is considered a threat because it is developing nuclear weapons. (See his articles on this site).

I think it's best to always mention that the IAEA inspections have found no evidence of any nuclear weapons in Iran and no evidence that Iran has any program to make nuclear weapons. Even the C.I.A. says that if Iran decided to make nuclear weapons it would be about 10 years before they could produce any.

I don't think commentators should do Bush favours by repeating the lie and the liars assumption, that Iran has or is making nuclear weapons. If I am wrong, and Iran is found to be making nuclear weapons, how many decades would it take before it could even have a credible deterrent to defend itself against an attack by the U.S. or the U.S. and Israel.? And why, if Iran had nuclear weapons, would it be considered a threat to either Israel or the U.S., when they each have enough nuclear weapons to annihilate Iran many times over?. Are they seriously trying to sell the idea that a state, such as Iran, would commit national suicide by attacking them?

The answer to my questions is that the Bush/Blair/Howard axis is in the middle of a propaganda war, in which it is trying to justify their planned attack on Iran portraying it as a nuclear threat, and persuade their public's that attacking Iran is the only right thing to do.

They will need more than just outrageous propaganda and lies to get public support, even with mass media support.

From all my studies I am convinced that Bush and his neocons will stage a phoney terrorist attack on the U.S..Many informed commentators say the same thing. Bush will blame Iran and quickly attack Iran before people can expose this diabolical new lie. Then Bush and perhaps other states will introduce a blizzard of new fascist type 'patriot' laws to suppress criticism, exposure, dissent and protest. Then conscription will be introduced. A full-blown fascist military state will emerge out of the wreckage of the remnant of American Democracy that remains today.

With a big war on, conscription, and draconian new fascist laws, and the mass media thundering patriotism and support for Bush's new war, It will be too late then for protest to be more than a joke that would be ignored and suppressed. The time for action, exposure, education and protest to prevent this war is now before Bush implements the last chapter in his Iran war plans.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Iran: Don't Do It

by Matthew Yglesias, April 20, 2006

Matthew Yglesias writes for The American Prospect .

Should we go to war with Iran? The short answer is, "No." The long answer is, "Hell no."

As the rumbles of war are heard over the horizon, many feel they've heard this whole story before. But with all due respect to those who correctly ascertained in advance that backing Bush's march on Baghdad was insane, following the neoconservatives to Teheran would be far, far, far more insane.

The United States military is, for one thing, in much worse shape today than it was in March, 2003, with far fewer resources at its disposal (see the Iraq War). The Iranian military, meanwhile, is in better shape than Iraq's army was, since it hasn't been subjected to more than a decade of stifling sanctions. Iran is geographically larger than Iraq. Its population is about twice as large as Iraq's. Perhaps more to the point, the vast majority of the trouble in Iraq has been made by a distinct minority of the population—the one Iraqi in five, more or less, who is Sunni Arab, the dominant group in the Baathist ancient regime. Fully half of Iranians are Shiite Persians, so we're talking about a nationalist backlash with a population base about four or five times as large as the one we're facing in Iraq.

Surveying that scene, many have concluded that rather than an invasion, some sort of aerial bombing campaign, perhaps backed by special operations forces, is in order. This is foolish. If we bomb Iran, Iran will find a way to strike back—either at oil operations in the Persian Gulf, at American troops in Iraq, or using Hezbollah as a proxy. The conflict will escalate. To stop the Iranian nuclear problem, meanwhile, it would have to escalate. Blowing some stuff up won't make the Iranians abandon their quest for nuclear weapons, it will intensify it. At best, bombing will delay the Iranian program. At worst, by causing them to redouble their commitment, it will actually speed it.

Continue........