Potential US attack on Iran

Overview

There is persistent discussion of a possible United States attack on Iran.

The pro-attack argument seems to be, as explained here:

• Iran is an oppressive, totalitarian regime with Islamofascist values we do not want to see spread at all, much less throughout the world.
• Iran is on the verge of developing nuclear weapons, despite their claims that their nuclear program is entirely for nuclear power.
• Once they have developed nuclear weapons, they will be in a position to "start exercising its Islamic agenda and dominance across the Middle East and throughout the world".
• Therefore, we must stop their nuclear program at any cost.

The obvious counters to this:

• When has a pre-emptive strike ever been a good idea? (Any historical examples?)
• A pre-emptive strike could start a conflagration which could do tremendous physical harm, eclipsing even the long-term physical harm which might be done by the resulting hypothetical accelerated spread of Islam.
• A pre-emptive strike would inflame the Islamic world, driving yet more otherwise-neutrals into the arms of the terrorists (as the US invasion of Iraq has done)
• There are better ways to fight the spread of Islam, even though neocons have done their best to pretend they don't exist. Carefully-engineered regime change within Iran would be more likely to have a good effect. After all, we toppled the former democratic government and put the current one in place; surely we can do the reverse.
• At the very least, even if you insist that all these objections are outweighed by the urgency of the matter, George W. Bush is not the leader who can do this properly. This is likely to be another fiasco like Iraq, with more unaccounted-for billions of dollars spilling into the desert for the enemy to find and use against us.
• Most recently, the National Intelligence Assessment has concluded that Iran has not had a nuclear weapons program since 2003, once again undermining Bush's claims that Iran is a threat.

Additional counters:

• If we need to attack Iran to defend ourselves, then was the $5 trillion (1950 dollars) nuclear deterrent a waste of money? [1]
• We have yet to see a good case that Iran is even a repressive regime. Wouldn't the pro-war people be focusing more on this, if it actually is true?

Links

Reference

• Pretext for War with Iran

Filed Links

1. redirect template:links/smw

Events

• 2007-03-23 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel

News/Editorials

• 2007-10-18 Iran brushes off Bush 'World War III' warning
• 2007-10-17 The Future Equilibrium of Planet Earth - The Iran Question?: the argument for attacking
  • 2007-10-19 There is no peace, prepare your family.: commentary
• 2007-09-30
  • Shifting Targets: The Administration’s plan for Iran. by Seymour M. Hersh
  • Big Coffers and a Rising Voice Lift a New Conservative Group: "Freedom's Watch, a deep-pocketed conservative group led by two former senior White House officials, made an audacious debut in late August when it began a $15 million advertising campaign designed to maintain Congressional support for President Bush’s troop increase in Iraq. .. Next month, Freedom’s Watch will sponsor a private forum of 20 experts on radical Islam that is expected to make the case that Iran poses a direct threat to the security of the United States, according to several benefactors of the group."
  • US trains Gulf air forces for war with Iran by Tim Shipman: "The American air force is working with military leaders from the Gulf to train and prepare Arab air forces for a possible war with Iran, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal."
  • Neocons seek to justify action against Teheran by Tim Shipman: "American diplomats have been ordered to compile a dossier detailing Iran's violations of international law that some fear could be used to justify military strikes against the Islamic republic's nuclear programme."
• 2007-09-29
  • Head of IAEA defies criticism on Iran by George Jahn: "Criticized by the U.S. but backed by other world powers, chief U.N. nuclear inspector Mohamed ElBaradei is walking a fine line in trying to cajole Iran into revealing past nuclear secrets."
  • I hate all Iranians, US aide tells MPs by Simon Walters: "The all-party group of MPs say Debra Cagan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Coalition Affairs to Defence Secretary Robert Gates, made the comments this month."
  • So what about Iran? Israel and the USA plotting to attack Iran, by "Israeli journalist, writer and peace activist" Uri Avnery
• 2007-09-28 The Iran War is on the Front Burner by Muriel Mirak-Weissbach
• 2007-09-27 Senate Urges Bush to Attack Iran by Joseph A. Palermo: "Yesterday, Democratic Senators Hillary Clinton (NY), Chuck Schumer (NY), Bob Menendez (NJ), Barbara Mikulski (MD), and Ben Cardin (MD) all voted in favor of the "Kyl-Lieberman Iran Amendment." This piece of legislation actually encourages the practitioner of cowboy diplomacy, George W. Bush, to be even more belligerent in his foreign policy. The Kyl-Lieberman Amendment passed by a vote of 76 to 22. Chris Dodd and Joe Biden voted against it, and Barack Obama missed the vote."
• 2007-09-16 France warns of war with Iran but also doesn't explain why we need to do this, other than the usual shouting about nuclear weapons for which nobody has yet shown any evidence.
• 2007-09-01 We Are Going To Hit Iran. Bigtime may be disinformation, but seems consistent with other news
• 2007-08-28
  • Study: US preparing 'massive' military attack against Iran
    • Discussion here seems to be conflating Tarpley's warning about US faked "false flag" attacks with a 2005 Fox News story warning of an imminent terrorist attack (presumably intended to stir up support for Bushco) within "Ninety days at the most", which obviously didn't happen: Fox News 2005-07-13. Both the poster and the source referred to (Arabesque: 9/11 Truth) claim the story was reprinted essentially verbatim in 2007, but the link for 2007 is the same exact URL as the link for 2005. Not sure what's up with that. The rawstory.com story about the study warning that the US is planning to attack Iran seems genuine and is consistent with other sources.
  • Bush warns Iran over insurgents: "US President George W Bush has warned Iran to stop supporting the militants fighting against the US in Iraq."
• 2007-08-21 Former CIA officer: US to attack Iran within 6 months: includes video
• 2007-08-09 Wash Post Provides Discredited Neoconservative Pundits A Platform To Advocate For Iran War: "In today’s Washington Post, reporter Robin Wright gives neoconservative pundits like the Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol and AEI’s Michael Rubin a platform to advocate for military action against Iran. Wright suggests these calls are part of "a new drumbeat for bolder action." Without offering opposing viewpoints, Wright recycles the preemptive strike theories of her sources — all prior advocates of preemptive military action against Iraq."
• 2007-07-21 impeach or face a new round of synthetic terror this summer to kickstart the war in Iran (see also we need another 9/11)
• 2007-07-13 Ron Paul: U.S. In "Great Danger" Of Staged Gulf Of Tonkin Style Provocation: "Congressman & presidential candidate warns of economic collapse precipitated by bombing of Iran"
• 2007-07-02 US links Iran to attack in Iraq "The US military in Iraq has accused Iran of orchestrating an attack that killed five US soldiers and of using Lebanese militants to train insurgents."
• 2007-06-01 The coming Iran war--- or perhaps they are not morons, after all (from Contrary Brin): discusses some of the loony neocon "logic" behind the push to invade
• 2007-05-22 Lying War Propaganda Against Iran by Ron Paul: Statement on H Con Res 21 Before the U.S. House of Representatives
• 2007-05-15 CENTCOM Commander's Veto Sank Bush's Threatening Gulf Buildup by Gareth Porter
• 2007-04-02 US jet fighters violate Iran's airspace: are we seeing the beginning of a series of provocative "incidents" designed to provide an excuse for war?
• 2007-03-14 Triggering the Next Iranian Revolution, Part I and Part 2, by Poland's former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Professor Grzegorz W. Kolodko: very cogent statement of the situation
• 2007-03-05 Kidnapped or Defected? Top Iranian General Disappears by Hoda Osman and Christopher Isham
• 2007-02-25 US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack
• 2007-02-21 Iranian official offers glimpse from within: A desire for U.S. (as an) ally by Christiane Amanpour, CNN chief international correspondent
• 2006-11-22 Bomb Iran by Joshua Muravchik
• 2006-11-20 The Next Act by Seymour M. Hersh: inside notes on the administration's Iran strategy, both pre- and post- election
• 2006-09-30 President Applauds Congress for Passage of Iran Freedom Support Act
• 2006-09-26 Why Bush Will Nuke Iran by Paul Craig Roberts
• 2006-05-04 The Intelligence War Over Iran by Robert Parry, TomPaine.com: "Intelligence Czar John Negroponte splashes cold water on the neocons who are hot to attack Iran"
• 2006-01-17 coming soon: the neo-cons next war... by Krassimir Petrov

Projects

• stopIranWar.com: petition site created by Wes Clark's WesPAC organization

Political Viewpoints

• George W. Bush, 2005-08-13 (answering reporter's question "Sir, when you talk about Iran, and you talk about how you have diplomatic efforts, you also say all options are on the table. Does that include the possibility of a nuclear strike?"): "All options are on the table."
• 2008 presidential candidates:
  • Barack Obama, 2007-02-11 (responding to the question "Would you advocate the use of military force to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons?") "I think we should keep all options on the table..."
  • John Edwards: "All options must remain on the table in regards to dealing with Iran, whose nuclear ambition threatens the security of Israel and the entire world."
  • Hillary Clinton: "We cannot, we should not, we must not, permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons, and in dealing with this threat, as I have said for a very long time, no option can be taken off the table."

Discussion

From Contrary Brin [2]:

Russ Daggatt said:

These people really, truly are insane. The same Joshua Muravchik (a “resident scholar” at the American Enterprise Institute) quoted above has an op-ed piece in the LA Times titled simply and honestly "Bomb Iran". Among the insights of this 'scholar": "WE MUST bomb Iran . ... wouldn't such a U.S. air attack on Iran inflame global anti-Americanism? Wouldn't Iran retaliate in Iraq or by terrorism? Yes, probably. That is the price we would pay. But the alternative is worse. ... Ahmadinejad wants to be the new Lenin. Force is the only thing that can stop him." This crazy man, who is getting ink in Foreign Policy and the op-ed page of the LA Times, doesn’t even seem to be aware that the president of Iran, far from being a dictator, isn’t even particularly powerful in that government. As Scott Ritter notes in the New Republic ("The Case for Engagement"): "For all the attention the Western media give to Ahmadinejad's foreign policy pronouncements, the reality is that his effective influence is limited to domestic issues. The citizens of Tehran I spoke with, from every walk of life, understood this and were genuinely perplexed as to why we in the West treat Ahmadinejad as if he were a genuine head of state. "The man has no real power," a former Revolutionary Guard member told me. "The true power in Iran resides with the Supreme Leader." The real authority is indeed the Ayatollah Sayeed Ali Khamenei, successor to the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini." More than two-thirds of the population of Iran is under 30. Unlike North Korea or Iraq under Saddam, the people of Iran are not isolated from the rest of the world. Iranian youth, in particular, are quite Westernized. Before Bush deemed Iran part of the "Axis of Evil" (a watershed event in the relations between the US and Iran) reformers were on the ascendancy in Iran. After teetering for years and almost toppling before liberalizing pressure, the hardliners have benefited from Bush’s blunders and belligerence (even in our country, people tilt toward the hardliners when they feel threatened by external forces). Unless we do more really stupid things, like bombing Iran, it is probably just a matter of time before the clerics lose power. As the Washington Post reported last June: "Just after the lightning takeover of Baghdad by U.S. forces three years ago, an unusual two-page document spewed out of a fax machine at the Near East bureau of the State Department. It was a proposal from Iran for a broad dialogue with the United States, and the fax suggested everything was on the table – including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups. "But top Bush administration officials, convinced the Iranian government was on the verge of collapse, belittled the initiative. Instead, they formally complained to the Swiss ambassador who had sent the fax with a cover letter certifying it as a genuine proposal supported by key power centers in Iran, former administration officials said. ..." Think of it this way. Bush will have squandered thousands of American lives and a trillion dollars, destroying US military readiness in the process, in order to take out Iran's two main rivals, the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq. AND HE GOT NOTHING FROM IRAN IN RETURN! In addition to making Iran the dominant power in the region, he managed to undermine the reformers in that country. AND actually made our relationship with Iran WORSE. Now THAT is diplomatic skill! Potential US attack on Iran/excerpt