The choice is:
(1) The use of diligent creative diplomacy to resolve differences with
Iran.
(2) A U.S. rush to war and bombing of Iran, supported by some other
states, even nuclear bombing, that may kill or maim hundreds of thousands
of Iranians.
It is very worthwhile for Professor Klare in the following article,
to outline the diplomatic option and encourage states and groups to
work with involved interested parties to achieve such a goal.
As Churchill said "Talk, talk is better than war, war" How
very true.
My great worry is that the last thing the Bush Administration is interested
in is a peaceful resolution of their quarrel with Iran.
As with Iraq, the Bush Administration wanted
their pre-planned war in order to control Iraq oil; build permanent
military bases; clamp down on dissent at home with patriot-type laws,
raid the U.S. treasury etc and expand their phoney 'war on terror'.
As with Iraq, I fear Bush and Co will proceed with their Iran war agenda,
perhaps including an arranged 'terrorist 9/11 event blamed on Iran as
an excuse' no matter how illegal, unjust and inhuman it may be, or how
it may escalate into even wider wars with Islamic countries. The longer
term consequences - possible escalating nuclear war, suppression of
U.S. Democracy, and lack of any action on real world problems such as
Global Warming, seems of little concern or interest to the Bush Administration.
So by all means let us take the number (1) path of working for a peaceful
resolution as Professor Klare suggests. If we do nothing that is equivalent
to condoning number (2).
Reports that Iran and Russia have reached
an agreement on a plan for the joint enrichment of Iran's uranium in
Russia have eased fears of a major international confrontation over
Iran's nuclear plans. But this danger has by no means been eliminated.
Without a permanent resolution of the dispute agreeable to both the
United States and Iran, the prospect of an armed clash will grow increasingly
severe. Such a clash might not entail full-scale war, but it could trigger
an uncontrollable explosion of sectarian and religious strife throughout
the Middle East. Preventing such a clash is among the most pressing
tasks facing the international community today.
The choice is:
(1) The use of diligent creative diplomacy to resolve differences with Iran.
(2) A U.S. rush to war and bombing of Iran, supported by some other states, even nuclear bombing, that may kill or maim hundreds of thousands of Iranians.
It is very worthwhile for Professor Klare in the following article, to outline the diplomatic option and encourage states and groups to work with involved interested parties to achieve such a goal.
As Churchill said "Talk, talk is better than war, war" How very true.
My great worry is that the last thing the Bush Administration is interested in is a peaceful resolution of their quarrel with Iran.
As with Iraq, the Bush Administration wanted their pre-planned war in order to control Iraq oil; build permanent military bases; clamp down on dissent at home with patriot-type laws, raid the U.S. treasury etc and expand their phoney 'war on terror'.
As with Iraq, I fear Bush and Co will proceed with their Iran war agenda, perhaps including an arranged 'terrorist 9/11 event blamed on Iran as an excuse' no matter how illegal, unjust and inhuman it may be, or how it may escalate into even wider wars with Islamic countries. The longer term consequences - possible escalating nuclear war, suppression of U.S. Democracy, and lack of any action on real world problems such as Global Warming, seems of little concern or interest to the Bush Administration.
So by all means let us take the number (1) path of working for a peaceful resolution as Professor Klare suggests. If we do nothing that is equivalent to condoning number (2).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Defusing The Iran Crisis
Michael T. Klare, March 03, 2006
Michael T. Klare is the defense correspondent of The Nation and a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College. His latest book is Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependence on Imported Petroleum. This piece first appeared in The Nation.
Reports that Iran and Russia have reached an agreement on a plan for the joint enrichment of Iran's uranium in Russia have eased fears of a major international confrontation over Iran's nuclear plans. But this danger has by no means been eliminated. Without a permanent resolution of the dispute agreeable to both the United States and Iran, the prospect of an armed clash will grow increasingly severe. Such a clash might not entail full-scale war, but it could trigger an uncontrollable explosion of sectarian and religious strife throughout the Middle East. Preventing such a clash is among the most pressing tasks facing the international community today.
continue....