Now what to do about Iran?

Stephen Hadley looks concerned in this NY Times photo doesn’t he?

Stephen Hadley

People might think that an article titled “U.S. Finds Iran Halted Its Nuclear Arms Effort in 2003” might slow down the rush to go to war with Iran. But I don’t think that will be the case. I think that the administration will make the case for stopping Iran as this critical point before they can realize their ambition to become a nuclear weapon state.

For some reason the administration is bent on going to war with Iran. I personally don’t get it. Afghanistan made sense to me since there were people there that killed almost 3,000 of our citizens.

The war in Iraq never made sense to me. The country was in horrible shape after 12 years of sanctions. The sanctions definitely did not have the desired effect since the big shots in Saddam’s circle got wealthy and the country suffered. But they did not attack us and there were other places in the world that were selling nuclear and ballistic missile technology. Saddam was an evil tyrant alright but there are a lot of those around the world.

I think the case for a war in Iran will be based on similar reasoning as it was for Iraq. I don’t think it matters what the reality is, just that Cheney and President Bush are out to do this. I think they’ll attack and just spend time debating congress about what “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States” means.

Just now I read that President Bush is still claiming that “Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous and Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon,” and I don’t think this National Intelligence Estimate will do anything but embolden the President.

I wonder how it will start? I can picture the Iranians pulling another stunt in the Persian Gulf just to provoke an escalation. This would be really interesting to watch the politics if it were not this country.

3 Replies to “Now what to do about Iran?”

  1. “The war in Iraq never made sense to me. The country was in horrible shape after 12 years of sanctions.”

    but afghanistan wasn’t in horrible shape after going through war with the british & the russians (which started in the 1970’s and didn’t end &stablize before the US came in).

    gee man. read up on your history.

    Afghanistan was USED by the arabs and the pakistanis. The afghans had nothing to do them. and the CHILDREN of afghanistan are paying the price, a million times worse then any portrayal of “setsuna” where over 70% of the population is under 22, and over 50% is under 15.

    Thats alot of messed up (physically, mentally and sexually abused) children

  2. also, I thought this quote was beautifully written”

    One of the effects of nationalist thinking is a loss of a sense of proportion. The killing of 2,300 people at Pearl Harbor becomes the justification for killing 240,000 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The killing of 3,000 people on Sept. 11 becomes the justification for killing tens of thousands of people in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

    http://instantmirage.multiply.com/reviews/item/72

  3. I can’t disagree with what you are saying.

    The Afghani’s got a raw deal from their neighbors: they were definitely used by Arabs and Pakistanis.

    I don’t think that a response for an attack can be justified. I do think however that we were attacked and we responded in Afghanistan were the culprits were. Proportionately? Not at all and there were certainly tens of thousands of people in Afghanistan are paying the price for having bad people in their country.

    On a lighter note (I hope): the character Setsuna in Gundam 00 represents something horrible in the world today. The character killed his own parents to prove his worthiness to join the “cause”. Atrocities like that happen all the time (lately the media talks about it happening in Africa). I find it refreshing when that topic makes it into something like anime.

Comments are closed.