By now everyone following the developing news on Iran has heard about Seymour Hersh's article claiming that the Bush administration has decided to carry out plans for a massive bombing campaign of Iran in order to destroy its nuclear capability and destabilize its theocratic regime.
Despite the fact that Hersh's article was based on the statements of a variety of high-level sources within the White House, intelligence community, and congress, his article was dismissed as being 'wild speculation' and 'nuts', or 'sensationalistic' by many. However, there's been a couple of recent news items that should be something of a wake up call for those naive enough to think that Bush's belligerence is just empty bluster.
The first item was Blair's sacking of Jack Straw as Britain's Foreign Secretary last week. This piece of news came as a big surprise to many observers. The Guardian weighed in on the issue and speculated on the reasons behind Jack Straw's dismissal from the post.
The article argues that Straw was likely removed for two main reasons: 1. His chummy relationship with labour rival Gordon Brown, 2. His recent comments about an attack on Iran being 'inconceivable', and the use of tactical nukes being 'nuts'. The following passage from the article elaborates on the second reason:
Mr. Blair, who sees Iran as the world's biggest threat, does not agree with his former foreign secretary. The prime minister argues that, at the very least, nothing should be ruled out in order to keep Iran guessing. Downing Street phoned the Foreign Office several times to suggest Mr. Straw stop going on the BBC Today programme and ruling it out so categorically.
His fate was sealed when the White House called Mr. Blair and asked why the foreign secretary kept saying these things. In any case, Mr. Straw had boxed himself in on Iran to the extent that he would have had to resign if a military strike became a reality.
It should come as no surprise that Blair has denied that the removal of Straw had anything to do with his previous statements on Iran.
Article comments
1 - Victor Lana
Great piece, Akeel. I think there are moderates who are holding the administration back here. Hopefully, diplomacy and time will be given a chance to work.
There is enough rhetoric coming from all sides and the truth is that (as far as I know) that there is no concrete proof of Iran trying to build weapons. If they could build reactors for energy and prove it is nothing more than that, diplomacy is the way everyone will be satisfied.
As for WWIII, I think that is meant as a "war on terror." It is more like the "Cold War" than anything like WWII in my estimation. The Cold War was won in the end without a shot being fired. People shouldn't forget that.
Unfortunately, more than a few shots have been fired since 9/11. What the world needs now (besides love sweet love) is peace, sweet peace.
2 - Arch Conservative
We clearly are not ready to take any military action against Iran in the forseeable future.
However I do not believe that we will be able to reach an acceptable diplomatic solution with Iran.
I think the best course of action would be to try and destablize the current Iranian government so that it's citizens are able to overthrow it. It's no secret that a large portion of the Iranian population does not care for the current regime but thatthey also fear expressing this sentiment. Maybe this would involve covert black ops in iran and a coalition of western nations standing up to Iran like they actually mean it in a unified front.
As for Bush's world war 3 comments...... I'd like to think they were just a poor choice of words. You say that those on the right seem to be anticipating WWIII Akeel. I am on the right and am lookign foward to no such thing. I think you misinterpret the collective mindset of us on the right. It's not that we love war, violence and fighting..........it's just that we don't like being bullied. I sincerely hope no military action against Iran will ever be necessary. However if they persist in harboring terrorists, spreading anti-American hatred, and
conspiring to commit violence against America, it's citizens, and it's interests, I feel that we would be justified in taking military action against them.
I am "on the right akeel." I have no desire to tell other nations or groups of people outside the US how to live, what god to believe in, or anything like that. but the minute that any one of those nations starts threatening American lives without justification I am all for wiping them off the face of the planet for good.
The prudent thing for Bush to do at this point would be to convince other western nations of the threat that Iran poses to the world and garner thier support in bringing about a collapse of the current madman regime in Iraq from within. if Bush doesn't do this and committs our military to go it alone in Iran before the end of his presidency even I will say he is a fucking nutjob.
3 - Joey
My thoughts.
We have a real threat with North Korea. We have a long term strategic concern with China.
We're wrapped up tight in Iraq and not so tight in the Afghanistan area of operations.
We would have to draft people for a conflict in Iran. Unless Israeli's are willing to go in (figure the odds).
4 - MCH
"However if they persist in harboring terrorists, spreading anti-American hatred, and
conspiring to commit violence against America, it's citizens, and it's interests, I feel that we would be justified in taking military action against them."
"...but the minute that any one of those nations starts threatening American lives without justification I am all for wiping them off the face of the planet for good."
Ya talk the talk, Archie. Have ya ever walked the walk?
5 - Anna
Genuinely frank Ahmadinejad is a veritable thorn in the Israeli' eyes:
If the Israelis do not politely interfere via America with Iran's nuclear program, they perceive themselves as surrendering their nuclear supremacy in the Middle East - or have we forgotten that Israel bombed out the Iraqi reactor at Osirac ?
Well, this was not looked upon very favourably by the remainder of the world. Hence the American government helpfully threatens Iran with negative consequences for non-compliance with requests to stop the nuclear proceedings.
However, Ahmadinejad reveals himself not as a Skinner's rat but as an intelligent and openly honest individual who cannot be frightened into compliance.
He probably knows that his announced reaction to an American attack of Iran, namely Iran's attack on Israel, will elicit a nuclear crisis - Israel not only has hundreds of nuclear warheads, but also the rigid determination to unleash them if considered necessary.
Maybe we should be grateful for Russia's and CHina's smart diplomacy in order to prevent the worst.
Once Israel retaliated with nuclear warheads against Iran both nuclear powers will get involved - then it is too late for any diplomacy.
6 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Akeel,
Have you taken the trouble to read Ahmadinejad's letter to President Bush?
(Excerpts used with thanks to MideastWeb.org)
It was a well reasoned rant of a man reciting his case to an adversary. But it struck me that the main themes in his letter were 1) that national leaders would be judged - and he implied soon; and 2) that people, fed up with the false promises of liberal democracy would turn to G-d.
Your article goes through many sources but does not ask why Iran would combine a policy of developing nuclear energy with a policy of developing long range missiles and threatening the extinction of a state in its neighborhood. It does not ask why Iran does not back down in the face of opposition from the country that thinks it is the 800 lb. gorilla on the planet.
Ironically, the one article that attempts to answer those questions, Taheri's analysis, is the very one that you choose to ridicule as incredible.
But let's move from analyses and speculation and look at what Mr. Ahadinejad says himself.
Let us leave the second theme in his letter aside for a moment. Let us look at the first one. Ahmadinejad writes,
Mr. President,
In countries around the world, citizens provide for the expenses of governments so that their governments in turn are able to serve them.
The question here is "what has the hundreds of billions of dollars, spent every year to pay for the Iraqi campaign, produced for the citizens?"
As Your Excellency is aware, in some states of your country, people are living in poverty. Many thousands are homeless and unemployment is a huge problem. Of course these problems exist to a larger or lesser extent in other countries as well. With these conditions in mind, can the huge expenses of the campaign paid from the public treasury, be explained and be consistent with the abovementioned principles?
What has been said, are some of the grievances of the people around the world, in our region and in your country. My main contention, however, which I hope you will agree with in part, is this:
Those in power have a specific time in office and do not rule indefinitely, but their names will be recorded in history and will be consistently judged in the immediate and distant futures.
The people will scrutinize our presidencies. Did we manage to bring peace, security and prosperity for the people or insecurity and unemployment?
Did we intend to establish justice or just supported special interest groups, and by forcing many people to live in poverty and hardship made a few people rich and powerful -- thus trading the approval of the people and the Almighty with theirs?
Did we defend the rights of the underprivileged or ignore them?
Did we defend the rights of all people around the world or did we impose wars on them, interfere illegally in their affairs, establishe hellish prisons and incarcerate some of them?
Did we bring the world peace and security or did we raise the specter of intimidation and threats?
Did we tell the truth to our nation and others around the world or present an inverted version of it?
Were we on the side of people or the occupiers and oppressors?
Did our administrations set out to promote rational behavior, logic, ethics, peace, fulfilling obligations, justice, service to the people, prosperity, progress and respect for human dignity, or the force of guns, intimidation, insecurity, disregard for the people, delaying the progress and excellence of other nations, and trampling on people's rights?
And finally, they will judge us on whether or not we remained true to our oath of office, to serve the people, which is our main task, and the traditions of the prophets.
In short how will George Bush fare in the eyes of his own people when they judge him?
Here Ahmadinejad talks of divine judgment. He asks,
Mr. President, it is not my intention to distress anyone.
If the Prophets Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Joseph, or Jesus Christ (Peace Be Upon Him) were with us today, how would they have judged such behavior? Will we be given a role to play in the world to come, where justice will become universal and Jesus Christ (Peace Be Upon Him) will be present? Will they even accept us?
My basic question is this: Is there no better way to interact with the rest of the world? Today there are hundreds of millions of Christians, hundreds of millions of Muslims and millions of people who follow the teachings of Moses (Peace Be Upon Him). All divine religions share and respect one word and that is "monotheism" or belief in a single God and no other in the world.
The implication in all of this is that this divine judgment will come soon. Note the phrasing here:
Mr. President,
According to divine verses, we have all been called upon to worship one God and follow the teachings of the divine prophets.
"To worship a God that is above all powers in the world and can do all He pleases." "the Lord who knows that which is hidden and visible, the past and the future, knows what goes on in the hearts of His servants and records their deeds."
"The Lord who is the possessor of the heavens and the earth and all universe is His court" "planning for the universe is done by His hands, and gives His servants the glad tidings of mercy and forgiveness of sins" "He is the companion of the oppressed and the enemy of oppressors" "He is the Compassionate, the Merciful" "He is the recourse of the faithful and guides them towards the light from darkness" "He is witness to the actions of His servants" "He calls on servants to be faithful and do good deeds, and asks them to stay on the path of righteousness and remain steadfast" "Calls on servants to heed His prophets and He is a witness to their deeds" "A bad ending belongs only to those who have chosen the life of this world and disobey Him and oppress His servants" and "A good land and eternal paradise belong to those servants who fear His majesty and do not follow their lascivious selves."
We believe a return to the teachings of the divine prophets is the only road leading to salvation and have been told that Your Excellency follows the teachings of Jesus (Peace Be Upon Him) and believes in the divine promise of the rule of the righteous on Earth.
Why write of this judgment if it will not arrive soon? The only logical answer to the tone of this letter - David coming with a stick to challenge Goliath, as though he were going to beat a dog - is that Ahmadinejad really does believe that he has met the Mahdi and that he is on a divine mission. This would explain why he follows the policy he does. Messianic politics may be incredible to you - certainly they are incredible to me - but they appear to cover the behavior we see out of Teheran and the words of the leader of the Islamic Republic.
Perhaps we should take the man seriously on his own terms instead of merely weaseling about, trying to pin a tail on a jackass.
Now, will the US attack Iran? Will the US "allow" Israel to attack Iran? Will Bush be restrained? Who knows?
I only know one thing. Ahmadinejad - a fellow who I would like to be able to like - is out to destroy Israel at the first opportunity.
7 - tommyd
All the hype and fearmongering about the Iranian "menace" and the new "Hitler" Ahmadenijad is so beyond rational that it's just absolutely ridiculous. Ahmadinejad is using some alarming rhetoric, but it remains just that: rhetoric. Ahmadenijad has also demonstrated that he's also rational and willing to engage in diplomacy.The American and Israeli warmongering towards Iran, if taken to it's full extent, will indeed lead to thermonuclear World War. The American/Israeli axis is way too caught up in meglomaniacal leanings to ever come back to earth and work diplomatically to solve serious problems.
Just because you don't like the way certain leaders run their countries is no way grounds for bombing them into dust. It will be a monumental war crime, surpassing the Nazis, if America/Israel nuke, or even bomb Iran. People are so casual about using nuclear weapons not even realizing that the fallout from such an attack will cause a worldwide cataclysm.
There are two choices here, and the Armchair Warriors should take heed:
a) America/Israel find some humility and bring themselves to talk directly with the Iranians. (Iranians have already expressed their desires to talk.)
b)Thermonuclear World War with cataclysmic death and annihilation.
There's your choices, choose well and be careful what you wish for.....you just might get it.
8 - tommyd
People talk about the Iranian revolution as if it were some illogical occurence. The Americans claim that the Iranian government is undemocratic, yet Iran has elections and is much, much closer to democracy than America's "allies" like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt. Talk about double standards. Do you think the Iranians don't see this hypocrisy?
Well, lessee.....
In 1953, CIA backed operatives overthrew the democratically elected Iranian president Mossadegh and installed the American-backed Shah.
The Shah ruled Iran like a latter day Louis XVI spending lavishly on himself, his family, and his close cronies, while ordinary working Iranians remained poor. The Shah's vicious SAVAK secret police disappeared thousands of people and ruled brutally by fear. IRAN NEVER HAD AN ELECTION WHILE THE SHAH WAS IN POWER.
Iranians have NOT forgotten this history, especially when America is constantly spewing their "democratic" values to lesser nations and bombing them if they don't join the "democratic revolution". God, America's vision is just too eerily close to the old Soviet Union propaganda that I think the ghost of that "evil empire" flew across the Atlantic and found new blood in Washington, DC.
Crazy.
9 - Richard Brodie
America is leaving diplomatic options open. Iran is not. Incredibly, Mr. A asks Mr. B:
Did we bring the world peace and security or did we raise the specter of intimidation and threats?
This from the fanatic who delcares that he intends to Nuke Israel into non-existence.
Here's Bush's response (I wish):
Mr. President,
You are correct to note that I "follow the teachings of Jesus." However, here in America we a have a concept that is foreign to messianic Islamists such as yourself. It is called Liberty.
You call for a respecting of other cultures. We call for a respecting of individual rights.
You claim that "we have all been called upon to worship one God and follow the teachings of the divine prophets." But that is a matter of belief. And it is not true that every human being chooses to believe the way you do.
Some of our citizens are atheists, others agnostics, others Bhudist, Hindus, etc. who worship quite a different god than the one spoken of in the Christian/Jewish/Muslim scriptures.
You look forward to a world in which that narrow tradition will be forcibly imposed upon the entire population of the globe. America looks forward to a world in which religious freedom is universally respected - where no government would enact laws "respecting an establishment of religion."
So do not pretend that America has anything in common with your dictatorial and oppressive regime, regardless of how you try to sugar coat it.
Sincerely,
George W. Bush
10 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Richard,
Bush has the same dictator's mentality as does Putin - and is using it. Check out Mike West's fine piece on NSA's illegal surveillance of all telephonic communications in the States.
Tommyd,
Iran does not recognize Israel. There is nobody in Teheran for any Israeli leader to talk to. So stop blaming us for America's confrontationist policies - and stop blaming us for Teheran going after a nuclear bomb. Something they are doing.
Finally wake up and smell the coffee. Ahmadinejad is not a Hitler and bombing Iran would not in any way match what the Nazis did in Europe 60 years ago.
Using nukes on Iran would be a catastrophe that would hurt us in Israel. BUT there may be no choice in the matter. Whether you want to recognize this fact or not, the Hizb Allah is in the laps of Ahmadinejad - and they will attack this country at his command. And there will be a response that will kill thousands in Iran; as thousands here would die from a missile attack from Lebanon. Vengeance will be taken.
These are realities that every Israeli lives with - and tries not to think about.
11 - troll
sorry Ruvy - given what is common knowledge about such devices anyone who concludes that the use of nuclear weapons against a civilian population is a viable option for any reason crosses over to the dark side of lunacy to reach that position...so I'd say that you are correct - there is no choice in the matter
EOF
troll
12 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Troll, I see you have forgotten what the Cold War felt like. I know that 10,000 missiles are sitting on the southern border of Lebanon, essentially in the hands of this Ahmadinejad or his poodles.
I didn't put those missiles there, Hizb Allah did. They are not there just for the sake fo having no place to put surplus phallic symbols. They are there to destroy the Zionist entity.
Now you come here and tell me how you would deal with the issue. You explain to me how you would deal with the fact that manufacturing and chemical plants in Haifa are being held hostage by Hizb Allah. Explain to me how you would maintain the security of a sovereign Jewish state with people who will not recognize your existence.
This should be interesting...
13 - troll
what makes you think that the world is any farther from the nuclear brink now than during the 'cold war' - ?
since we no longer confine the debate to mutually assured destruction but allow that atomics might be used tactically we are closer to their actual use than ever
but if one cannot save the Chosen without giving himself over to absolute evil then I suggest that it's time to consider diaspora once again - that or the lessons of Masada's hopelessness
by the by - don't you think that Israel has enough conventional weaponry to deal with most any situation - ?
troll
14 - karensky
Thank you for defending Ahmadinejad.
But can you be sure that he is onlmy playing with words?
Or are you so blinded by your hatred of the United States and the West in general to always prefer their enemies?
SK
15 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Troll, after 2,000 years in exile, some of us have learned one lesson very clearly. We cannot trust non-Jews with our fate. Leaving all the religious issues aside, as a matter of practical survival, that is a bottom line lesson.
Course Title:
Auschwitz 101, in the Universtiy of Survival in an Evil World. Semester cost: 6,000,000 lives plus books and transport. Curriculum Survival. Credits rewarded - semi-sovereign state.
Maintaining those credits against all comers is the basic task of Jews while they study in a separate course:
Course Title:
Redemption 201, in the University of Building the Perfect World. Semester cost: obedience to law of G-d: Curriculum: willingness to pursue justice and do good and not do evil. Requirements maintaining of semi-sovereign state awarded for passing Auschwitz 101
Credits awarded - Redemption.
That should put the whole issue in perspective for you.
We are required to maintain the semi-sovereign state against all comers to achieve redemption.
16 - mschannon
Uh oh, I find myself in agreement with much of what Arch Conservative said(Comment 2). Who put what in my coffee??? I suddenly feel the need to go out and kick some homeless person. But I digress.
As long as Russia and China play suck up to the Iranian lunatics, a diplomatic solution will be impossible. There have been many who've talked about destablizing the regime--to call them a democracy is absurd since they controlled who was on the ballot & controlled the counting.
Also, when Israel took out the Iraqi nuke, it wasn't with nukes but with conventional weapsons, and while the west pretended to be horrified, it was well known that they totally supported Israel's move. There's no need to use nukes in Iran to take out their nuclear threat--in fact, it would be tactically stupid.
The archer man wrote,
The prudent thing for Bush to do at this point would be to convince other western nations of the threat that Iran poses to the world and garner thier support in bringing about a collapse of the current madman regime in Iraq from within. if Bush doesn't do this and committs our military to go it alone in Iran before the end of his presidency even I will say he is a fucking nutjob.
The problem is that Bush has so alienated the rest of the world--with the help of a schizophrenic foreign policy argued by Rice & Rummy--that his ability to construct a strong coalition is highly unlikely. The West isn't the problem--it's those Russians and Chinese. We need to use the power of the entire western world to put pressure on them.
Of course that requires a degree of sophistication on the administration's part that hasn't been evident over the past 6 years.