Home
Are we Already at War with Iran?
I came here, almost two years ago, thinking that the war in Iraq would soon end, and I could return to my regularly scheduled programming--figuring out how to lead a spiritually enriching, decent life in a relentlessly worldly society. Those who have been with me over the long haul know how wrong I was. And how little "spiritual" stuff has appeared on this blog.
On the other hand, as the late, great William Sloane Coffin pointed out, sometimes spirituality has to roll up its sleeves and do the dirty work. I have loathed doing that--indeed, it's why I only write here once a week. I just don't have the stomach to watch, close-up, as the Bush administration destroys our credibility, wrecks our economy, endangers our planet and--almost as an afterthought--turns up the heat on Middle East issues.
Now, just when you thought it couldn't get worse, here we are--days or months away from confrontation with Iran. Or, depending on your source, already moving against Iran.
That would explain one thing: the spate of retired generals speaking out against Rumsfeld's management of the Iraq war. Too late, you say. Just so. But maybe they're trying to unseat Rumsfeld before he can start the next war.
In any event, a primer follows. All the bad news in one place. From an e-mail going around:
This entire crisis has been manufactured, and has been years in the making. Stop and think back five years. What did we have five years ago? A moderate reformist Iranian government making overtures to the United States, rebuilding its relationship with Europe, liberalizing its society, and modernizing its economy.
9/11 comes along, the Iranians are overflowing with sympathy. Mass candlelit vigils are held in Tehran. Iran offers aid and cooperation.
Iran hates the Taliban who have executed Iranian diplomats and massacred Afghan Shiites. Iran hates Saddam Hussein. Iran hates Al Qaeda which is a Sunni Fundamentalist organization which declares Shiites infidels and subhuman. Iran shares its intelligence with America--they even arrested Taliban members and handed them over to US custody.
So we've got the Iranian spring; things are finally going to sort out. And what happens? The Bush administration rebuffs every Iranian overture and does its best to instigate a cold war. Afghanistan is invaded, and suddenly, the Iranians are looking at American troops and allies on their eastern border. Then Iraq is invaded, and American troops and allies on their western border. Then bases and treaties in Uzbekistan, and whoops, there's more American troops and allies on the northern border. The Persian Gulf is filled with American warships and carrier fleets.
Now the Iranians are surrounded. And the tough talk is constant. Iran is part of the 'Axis of Evil' and Americans tell each other "Baghdad, humph, real men go to Tehran." Essentially, America has been threatening military action against Iran for the last five years, and has surrounded the country on every side with troops, bases and allies. American aircraft invade Iranian airspace regularly, American special forces undertake operations inside Iran and Americans regularly accuse Iranians of interference in Iraq. Dick Cheney pontificates about Israel bombing Iran after he has just handed over to Israel the long range bombers and bunker busting bombs required to do the job.
Meanwhile, the United States undertakes economic warfare against Iran, interfering with its business dealings with third party countries, trying to scuttle a pipeline deal with India, and it goes on and on. The hysteria about the Iranians nuclear program is just more of the same.
Now how in God's Bloody Name do you think the Iranians are going to respond to that. Should they concede the nuclear program, abandon their pipeline project? If so, its not going to do them any good. America will just seek more concessions. Each surrender will be met by new demands. This isn't hard to figure out. It's exactly what Bush did with Iraq.
Iran's nuclear facilities are distributed across the country and in hardened sites near population centers. So any strike that cripples a significant portion of Iran's nuclear capacity will inevitably be so large and kill so many people that its going to be tantamount to inviting full scale war. Think about that. Iran is 70 million people, an area five times the size of Iraq, not disemboweled by 12 years of sanctions and air raids.
And you thought we were, somehow, the good guys. After five years of George Bush? Well, we all can dream. But now let's cut to the bottom-line reality--the right answer, from the never unreliable James Fallows of the Atlantic Monthly:
The central flaw of American foreign policy these last few years has been the triumph of hope, wishful thinking, and self-delusion over realism and practicality. Realism about Iran starts with throwing out any plans to bomb.
But, you say, hoping against hope, if we go to war with Iran, it will be a narrow, intensely focused war. No troops will be involved. We'll bomb surgically with nuclear "bunker buster" bombs.
Sadly, that is probably the worst approach. Look at this Union of Concerned Scientists animation.
Yikes, you say. This is nuts. Surely Bush is not crazy enough to fight a second war again. Not so. According to Glenn Greenwald, our President is just that mad:
I've read in many places that Bush will be hard-pressed to commit to an attack on Iran if his popularity remains so low and there is not broad popular support for the attack, but the opposite could quite easily be true as well. I think that's the more likely relationship between his popularity and the probability of an attack--the more unpopular he is, the more likely is an attack.
The weaker and more stigmatized Bush becomes, the greater could be the likelihood of some spiteful, bitter, strength-seeking military offensive. Few things seem more unstable and dangerous than an isolated, unpopular, bitter, failed, frustrated President, sitting in the White House recalling the glory days when war and military might caused him to feel so good and strong.
But it gets even worse. Remember Scott Ritter, a former U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq, 1991-1998? He weighs in with gloomy tidings:
The reality is that the U.S. war with Iran has already begun. As we speak, American overflights of Iranian soil are taking place, using pilotless drones and other, more sophisticated capabilities.
The violation of a sovereign nation's airspace is an act of war in and of itself. But the war with Iran has gone far beyond the intelligence-gathering phase.
President Bush has taken advantage of the sweeping powers granted to him in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, to wage a global war against terror and to initiate several covert offensive operations inside Iran.
The most visible of these is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by the Mujahadeen el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations.
It is bitter irony that the CIA is using a group still labeled as a terrorist organization, a group trained in the art of explosive assassination by the same intelligence units of the former regime of Saddam Hussein, who are slaughtering American soldiers in Iraq today, to carry out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq.
There's nothing I can do to stop this? At least the passengers on United Flight 93 got to fight the terrorists on 9/11--but what can we do? Especially if the decision for war has already been made? All this makes me feel....dislocated. How about you?
On the other hand, as the late, great William Sloane Coffin pointed out, sometimes spirituality has to roll up its sleeves and do the dirty work. I have loathed doing that--indeed, it's why I only write here once a week. I just don't have the stomach to watch, close-up, as the Bush administration destroys our credibility, wrecks our economy, endangers our planet and--almost as an afterthought--turns up the heat on Middle East issues.
Now, just when you thought it couldn't get worse, here we are--days or months away from confrontation with Iran. Or, depending on your source, already moving against Iran.
That would explain one thing: the spate of retired generals speaking out against Rumsfeld's management of the Iraq war. Too late, you say. Just so. But maybe they're trying to unseat Rumsfeld before he can start the next war.
In any event, a primer follows. All the bad news in one place. From an e-mail going around:
This entire crisis has been manufactured, and has been years in the making. Stop and think back five years. What did we have five years ago? A moderate reformist Iranian government making overtures to the United States, rebuilding its relationship with Europe, liberalizing its society, and modernizing its economy.
9/11 comes along, the Iranians are overflowing with sympathy. Mass candlelit vigils are held in Tehran. Iran offers aid and cooperation.
Iran hates the Taliban who have executed Iranian diplomats and massacred Afghan Shiites. Iran hates Saddam Hussein. Iran hates Al Qaeda which is a Sunni Fundamentalist organization which declares Shiites infidels and subhuman. Iran shares its intelligence with America--they even arrested Taliban members and handed them over to US custody.
So we've got the Iranian spring; things are finally going to sort out. And what happens? The Bush administration rebuffs every Iranian overture and does its best to instigate a cold war. Afghanistan is invaded, and suddenly, the Iranians are looking at American troops and allies on their eastern border. Then Iraq is invaded, and American troops and allies on their western border. Then bases and treaties in Uzbekistan, and whoops, there's more American troops and allies on the northern border. The Persian Gulf is filled with American warships and carrier fleets.
Now the Iranians are surrounded. And the tough talk is constant. Iran is part of the 'Axis of Evil' and Americans tell each other "Baghdad, humph, real men go to Tehran." Essentially, America has been threatening military action against Iran for the last five years, and has surrounded the country on every side with troops, bases and allies. American aircraft invade Iranian airspace regularly, American special forces undertake operations inside Iran and Americans regularly accuse Iranians of interference in Iraq. Dick Cheney pontificates about Israel bombing Iran after he has just handed over to Israel the long range bombers and bunker busting bombs required to do the job.
Meanwhile, the United States undertakes economic warfare against Iran, interfering with its business dealings with third party countries, trying to scuttle a pipeline deal with India, and it goes on and on. The hysteria about the Iranians nuclear program is just more of the same.
Now how in God's Bloody Name do you think the Iranians are going to respond to that. Should they concede the nuclear program, abandon their pipeline project? If so, its not going to do them any good. America will just seek more concessions. Each surrender will be met by new demands. This isn't hard to figure out. It's exactly what Bush did with Iraq.
Iran's nuclear facilities are distributed across the country and in hardened sites near population centers. So any strike that cripples a significant portion of Iran's nuclear capacity will inevitably be so large and kill so many people that its going to be tantamount to inviting full scale war. Think about that. Iran is 70 million people, an area five times the size of Iraq, not disemboweled by 12 years of sanctions and air raids.
And you thought we were, somehow, the good guys. After five years of George Bush? Well, we all can dream. But now let's cut to the bottom-line reality--the right answer, from the never unreliable James Fallows of the Atlantic Monthly:
The central flaw of American foreign policy these last few years has been the triumph of hope, wishful thinking, and self-delusion over realism and practicality. Realism about Iran starts with throwing out any plans to bomb.
But, you say, hoping against hope, if we go to war with Iran, it will be a narrow, intensely focused war. No troops will be involved. We'll bomb surgically with nuclear "bunker buster" bombs.
Sadly, that is probably the worst approach. Look at this Union of Concerned Scientists animation.
Yikes, you say. This is nuts. Surely Bush is not crazy enough to fight a second war again. Not so. According to Glenn Greenwald, our President is just that mad:
I've read in many places that Bush will be hard-pressed to commit to an attack on Iran if his popularity remains so low and there is not broad popular support for the attack, but the opposite could quite easily be true as well. I think that's the more likely relationship between his popularity and the probability of an attack--the more unpopular he is, the more likely is an attack.
The weaker and more stigmatized Bush becomes, the greater could be the likelihood of some spiteful, bitter, strength-seeking military offensive. Few things seem more unstable and dangerous than an isolated, unpopular, bitter, failed, frustrated President, sitting in the White House recalling the glory days when war and military might caused him to feel so good and strong.
But it gets even worse. Remember Scott Ritter, a former U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq, 1991-1998? He weighs in with gloomy tidings:
The reality is that the U.S. war with Iran has already begun. As we speak, American overflights of Iranian soil are taking place, using pilotless drones and other, more sophisticated capabilities.
The violation of a sovereign nation's airspace is an act of war in and of itself. But the war with Iran has gone far beyond the intelligence-gathering phase.
President Bush has taken advantage of the sweeping powers granted to him in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, to wage a global war against terror and to initiate several covert offensive operations inside Iran.
The most visible of these is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by the Mujahadeen el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations.
It is bitter irony that the CIA is using a group still labeled as a terrorist organization, a group trained in the art of explosive assassination by the same intelligence units of the former regime of Saddam Hussein, who are slaughtering American soldiers in Iraq today, to carry out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq.
There's nothing I can do to stop this? At least the passengers on United Flight 93 got to fight the terrorists on 9/11--but what can we do? Especially if the decision for war has already been made? All this makes me feel....dislocated. How about you?
