Washblog

Professor Juan Cole is attempting to counter the hysteria over Iran's nuclear program with a little sane analysis. Unfortunately, the corporate media doesn't seem to be listening. And I don't see any evidence that Congress is listening either.

Even if the Bush administration didn't use nuclear weapons, bombing Iran would have catastrophic consequences. If the "surgical strikes" against Iraqi targets in the opening phase of the current Iraq war are any indication, bombing Iran with "conventional" weapons would cause largescale civilian deaths. The Bush administration would not only target nuclear facilities, it would target extensive anti-aircraft facilities and other military facilities. It might even target so-called "terrorist training camps."

Iran's regional power has been growing because of the ascendency of its allies in other countries. Pro-Iranian factions in Afghanistan did very well in Parliamentary elections. We all know about the ties between Iran and Iraq's Dawa Party and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, as well as Sadr's relationship with Iran. Iran also has allies in Lebenon's Hezbollah.

So let's spell this out. An attack on Iran will foment attacks on U.S. Forces and allies in Afghanistan and Iraq, as a minimum. We should expect some kind of response from Hezbollah, whether against our ally Israel or against U.S. Armed Forces or civilians directly.

Once the asymmetrical war with Iran has begun, it will not easily be ended. If invading Iraq was a very bad idea, then bombing Iran is an insane one. I dearly hope that antiwar activists are not caught flat-footed by the obvious prospect of a wider, even more dangerous war. If the Bush administration gets close to launching war against Iran and Congress isn't resisting, then massive nonviolent direct action will be the only means left to us.

by DWE on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 10:55:25 AM PST

---

I don't want to.  I guess I have to.

I don't want to.

by noemie maxwell on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 01:04:00 PM PST

---

That has always been the way with this bunch.  No matter how bad things are, they ratchet things up another notch and say "Now, what'll you do about it?"

Too many on our side back down when they do.

The question is, what would really, truly, get Bush's attention?  Millions went into the streets throughout the world before we went into Iraq, and it didn't matter one whit.  (The only way I can see demos having any effect is if, for example, you could convince the thousands that did so in the streets of Seattle to do so, for example, at the very gates of Bangor, of McChord, of Fairchild.)

I seriously think the only thing that might work is either the UN, or all other members of the Security Council, "pre-condemning" the USA for considering such a move, or all of us, and I mean all of us, taking an unscheduled week off of work.  Just stop the machine for a week, or make it so that they feel some pain for a week.

If you have better ideas, please, shout'em out - the clock is ticking and I have no desire to rush about converting my 401(k) into Euros and Canadian Dollars while getting a passport for my daughter on short notice.

by palamedes on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 01:51:27 PM PST

---

Quote from "The Left Shue" --

"In Bush She Trusts"

Some time ago, during one of my many rants about Maria Cantwell's vote to authorize military action in Iraq, someone suggested to me that the time to ask her about how she would vote for that kind of thing should have been in 2000 before she was elected to the Senate. Well, not realizing that Senator Cantwell was clairvoyant, it never entered my mind that she could tell me about an invasion that would be some three years away. As for the Patriot Act, it also never entered my mind that any Democrat would be so quick to vote away our civil liberties. Having learned from my mistakes, I decided that, with all the noise the Bush Administration is making about Iran, I should ask Sen. Cantwell how she feels about the situation in that country and if she would support a pre-emptive strike there. As it turns out, someone has already begun that ball rolling for me. What follows is the response from Sen. Cantwell to a constituent's question about the recent Seymour Hersch piece on the run up to pre-emptive action in Iran. (It is Hersch's conclusion that the Bush Administration is already in the planning stages of a pre-emptive strike against Iran.)
**********************

Dear Mr. Eachus,

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns for the development of nuclear weapons in Iran. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

As you may know, international nuclear inspectors continue to monitor whether Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Such a program would be in contravention to the nuclear non-proliferation agreement that Iran has signed. In November 2004, the countries of Britain, France, and Germany negotiated an agreement with Iran, in which Iran agreed to cancel its nuclear programs. Unfortunately, Iran has recently backed away from its commitments. The International Atomic Energy Agency has reported that Iran is accelerating its nuclear fuel enrichment activities and has failed to comply with international nuclear inspectors. Specifically, Iran began resuming uranium conversion in August 2005 and then announced its intentions to begin research on enriching uranium in February 2006.
On March 29, 2006, the United Nations Security Council issued a Presidential Statement on Iran's nuclear programs requesting that Iran suspend its uranium enrichment programs within 30 days and cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Although I continue to support efforts to engage the Iranian government in constructive cooperation and dialogue that will encourage Iran to become a peaceful and responsible member of the international community, we simply cannot allow any government to development weapons of mass destruction.
Given Iran's unwillingness to suspend its nuclear programs, I co-sponsored legislation introduced by Senator Rick Santorum that would hold the current Iranian government accountable for its threatening behavior. If enacted, the Iran Freedom and Support Act (S. 333) would continue U.S. imposed sanctions, controls, and regulations relating to Iran's weapons of mass destruction until the President certifies to Congress that Iran has permanently dismantled its weapons programs and committed to non-proliferation. The President would also be given the authority to aid foreign and domestic individuals or groups financially or politically that support democracy and advocate for non-proliferation in Iran. In addition, this legislation would amend the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 to impose sanctions on any individual or group that provides Iran assistance in acquiring or developing weapons of mass destruction.
At this time, S. 333 is awaiting further review by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Please be assured that I will continue to monitor this situation closely.

Sincerely,
Maria Cantwell United States Senator
**********************

Considering that we are still living under the Bush Regime, and knowing what they did with the last resolution involving one of Bush's so-called Axis of Evil countries, I am deeply concerned that Senator Cantwell would still be so trusting of them to do the "right thing." I mean let's consider what we know and some of the lessons learned through the invasion of Iraq.

To begin with, even though Bush, Cheney, Condi, and Rummy told us that Iraq was the greatest threat to the United States, we have learned that they posed no threat not only to us but to hardly anyone else. Now they tell us that Iran is the greatest threat to the United States and yet our own State Department says that IF they were attempting to create a nuclear weapon, they are at least 10 years away from accomplishing that.

The resolution to authorize the use of force in Iraq was based solely on George Bush's judgment that Iraq had not disarmed and he had to act to protect America. Senator Cantwell was amongst the group that trusted that judgment. 23 Democratic Senators, including Patty Murray, did not trust that judgment. Guess who was right. The act - S.333 - that Senator Cantwell has co-sponsored with Rick Santorum (a model of moderate virtue) bases the ending of sanctions and controls on when "the President certifies to Congress that Iran has permanently dismantled its weapons programs and committed to non-proliferation." This president has already proven he either has no clue when that happens or simply lies about it.

I also find it disingenuous that we (the world's leader in the development and deployment of weapons of mass destruction) have a selective policy of who may and who may not engage in nuclear technology. The recent offer to share technology with India jumps immediately to mind. Then there is this strange relationship with another of Iran's nuclear neighbors, Pakistan. We invaded Iraq because Bush said they had designs on making nuclear weapons and delivering them to Osama bin Laden. Neither thing was true. Pakistan -"our staunch ally in the war on terror", on the other hand, already has nuclear weapons and, oh by the way, is the last known residence of Osama bin Laden. And then there is the matter of Iran's other regional nuclear neighbor, Israel. Obviously, with no love lost between these two countries, whether you approve or not, Iran has an interest in at least projecting some ability to counter any perceived threat from the Israel. Come to think of it, I don't believe we have ever required Israel to acknowledge the extent of their nuclear program.

I would like to think that Senator Cantwell might have learned something from her Iraq vote but, unfortunately, it appears that, for whatever reason, she seems to believe that saber rattling and pre-emptive punishments have permanently replaced diplomacy in the arsenal of the United States. While this philosophy fits in quite well with the Santorum-Bush-Rice crowd, it is far from what I believe our obligation is as the "last remaining super-power".

So if there were any questions remaining about how Maria Cantwell views American foreign policy in light of her "no regrets" vote to authorize Bush to invade Iraq, I think her answer to the question of Iran sums it up for me. In Bush She Trusts.

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

by Jo on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 12:19:21 AM PST

---