There are more than two options for Iran!

M.J. Rosenberg [1] has an article [2] on TPM Café chastising certain (unnamed) Democrats for refusing to take war with Iran off the table.  As an individual, scholar, writer, and voter I am adamantly anti-war.  However, this in no way should imply that I am anti-conflict.  It remains to be seen whether this conflict with Iran must turn violent.  Yet I am willing to concede that inaction could prove far more costly – especially when such passivity stems not from measured and meritorious arguments, but in significant part from hatred and distrust of the executive branch. 

A couple of months ago, I was trapped in a small waiting room while the great city of Dublin judged the roadworthiness of my latest clunker.  A small television set babbled away in the corner and, like any good American automaton, I was powerless to avert my eyes.  In a cruel twist of providence, this turned out to be one of those unfortunate rare occasions where our president had escaped his cage and was seen wandering loose in the White House press room.

The big news item that week was the administration’s claims to have tied Iranian arms to IED’s in Iraq.  One reporter was challenging the evidence that the Iranian government had anything to do with the items showing up in the neighboring country.  I remember chuckling to myself that this seemed like a far more disturbing alternative – the only thing worse that an erratic government is an unstable government.  And at that very moment, the sky opened, the seas turned to blood, and a torrent of frogs rained down – while Bush verbalized (albeit in choppy, semi-articulate idiom) the very essence of what I had just been thinking.

At this point I blacked out for a moment and only vaguely remember switching seats while the janitorial staff got to work cleaning my brains off the wall.  Yet it was certainly a moment of clarity for me to realize that, while I firmly oppose the administration’s march to war, this had little to do with my feelings about Ahmadinejad’s government.  George W. Bush may be dangerously incompetent, but that is an entirely different matter than a Tehran which has repeatedly flouted international weapons laws, chronically violates human rights, is regressively curtailing the rights of women, has inserted further chaos into an already disastrous Iraq, and maintains active calls for Israel’s annihilation.

None of this is meant to refute Iran’s right to nuclear energy (to which they are certainly entitled) nor their right to retain sovereignty over political decisions within the bounds of acceptable human  rights standards (which remains questionable).  Yet, much like our own, the Iranian government is firmly under the control of conservative zealots who are aggressively asserting their perception of relative power in the regional and global theaters.  In my humble opinion, they certainly don’t represent the kind of menace that must be met with preemptive violence, but I am equally convinced they pose a threat to domestic and international stability that must be dealt with swiftly and certainly. 

Yet after six years of dichotomous framing by the Bush administration, even ordinarily clear-headed thinkers like Rosenberg find themselves unable to see beyond the boolean absolutes of ‘war’ and ‘not war’.  In fact, very few people are posing the question of why we cannot recognize that Iran poses a viable and rational threat without automatically signaling our support for military intervention or the totality of administration policies.  The reason for this is clear – when the Snow/McClellan/Fleischer du jour gaggles that “all options are on the table,” we all know they are actually considering both options (which, for them, appears to be one too many) and, with the complicity of a lazy mainstream media, a national debate emerges in which alternate options cease to exist. 

This administration has gambled recklessly with our good faith and dragged us into a mess from which we may never entirely emerge.  They have proven themselves dishonest, feckless, and incompetent in the conduct of their elective invasion and, no matter how threatening Tehran may become, I could not imagine a single scenario under which I would support Bush’s leadership in yet another invasion.  I doubt I am alone.  Yet like children, we seem prepared to ignore Iran’s growing threat for as long as Bush remains in office.  And for me, there is no more compelling reason to bring impeachment back to the table.  While I will continue to oppose aggressive and violent countermeasures under a new administration, I could at least find comfort in a country finally able to look past this despised president and resume a rational and inclusive dialogue on the very real problems we must face.

Comments

kruledent (not verified)Sat, 2007-03-31 04:42

Re: There are more than two options for Iran!

Wow, Cam.  You said everything I would have said--but only better. 

I don't trust that we get our information straight.  I don't put it past this administration to feed us propaganda as it needs in order to justify attacking Iran.

I disagree with the OP' statement that Iran cosistantly violates "...international weapons laws, chronically violates human rights, is regressively curtailing the rights of women, has inserted further chaos into an already disastrous Iraq, and maintains active calls for Israel’s annihilation."  Those are all statements that we've been fed. 

What is really boils down to is that we don't want Saudi Arabia and Iran Shi'ite majority in control of most of the world's oil. If the Middle East oil resources link up to China, then the United States really becomes a second-rate power. 

We were content with Iran when our guy the Shah was in power.  We were happy with the likes of Pinochet and Suharto  in power.  Even though they were the worst human rights offenders and murderers, they opened their countries to American business interests and other Western corporations--so we supported the coups to get them in power.  

And how do you explain our history of throwing democratically-elected leaders in Latin and Central America, Africa, and the Middle East just because they don't support U.S. economic aka "national" interests?

I'm not convinced we aren't trying to do the same for Iran.  I wary of our motives.

Iran's previous president, Khatami, tried very hard to bring reform and western democracy to Iran.  He looked to the U.S. for support.  He looked like a fool when Pres. Bush listed Iran in his "Axis of Evil."  

Then, along comes Admadinejad.  He is outspoken and often puts his foot in his mouth; however, many of his comments have been taken out of context and/or misinterpeted.  In regards to Israel, what he said was "Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map." Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian.  He said that hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse.  But of course our media had a field day with that one. 

Pres. Polk lied about our reason for invading Mexico in 1846; Pres. McKinley lied about invading Cuba; Reagan lied about Grenada; I can list Truman, Bush, and so many other presidents here who have lied to us.  We've cried "wolf" too many times for me to trust.  Iran may indeed be a threat, but I'm not convinced.

Camster1177 (not verified)Fri, 2007-03-30 08:31

Re: There are more than two options for Iran!

One should never rule out military action as a last resort - however, Iraq style pre-emptive invasion is widely considered an international war crime. US military action against Iran would be seen the same way. As for Iran arming radicals - yes, I don't doubt they do. The issue is that the US historically does the same thing. We've seen how, who and what the US has sponsored. I, like you and many others around the world, don't trust that the Bush administration will exhaust all diplomatic options before reverting to war. Unfortunately his track record proves otherwise. I don't believe that Democrats have the backbone, even with a house majority, to keep Bush on a leash either. I believe more pressure should be put on China and Russia with regard controlling Iran given that American and British intervention in Iran, going back to the 50s, is actually at the root of much of the anti-Americanism in the area. The Ayatollah was only brought to power after the US/Britain spearheaded Operation Ajax and overthrew Iran's first democratically elected Prime Minister when he attempted to nationalize Iran's oil. The US installed the brutally oppressive Shah - which gave birth to the rise of anti-American radical religious fundamentalists like the Ayatollah Khomeini. Any US or British led sanctions or intervention will be seen as self serving and subjective due to an atmosphere that we created ourselves by way of twisted foreign policy. The best thing for everyone is to use countries with credibility with Iran to lead the process. Neither China, Russia or anyone else (US ally or not) want nukes in the hands of Iran - however, in the end - they are a sovereign country and above and beyond sanctions - not much else can be done if their own researchers are developing their own technology while the west is doing the same. Anything beyond sanctions and diplomacy is hypocritical. Despite the fact that the prospect of Iran having Nukes scares the hell out of me -- the powers of the west hardly lead by example and hardly have the right to subjectively decide who can and cannot develop that technology - especially given the willingness to trade, sell, sponsor and research technology in the same category. Any US military action will fuel more extreme radicalism and further destroy any credibility the US has internationally.

Jay DaverthFri, 2007-03-30 10:53

Re: There are more than two options for Iran!

Cam, wow!  As always, thanks for the thoughtful comment.  I don't know if you saw, but I really took a hit on this post over at the Daily Kos from those who thought I was buying unquestioningly into the administration's accusations.  In fact, I think you make an even broader point - whereas I have no faith in the administration and therefore view all his decisions and accusations with mistrust, in fact the same is true by extension for the reputation of the US and UK around the world.  With Bush at the helm (and given our longstanding history before him) we have squandered any moral high ground we may have had.  We are truly the country who cried wold too many times!

Tony (not verified)Mon, 2007-03-26 15:26

Re: There are more than two options for Iran!

I can't say I'm very comfortable with having even one nuclear weapon in the hands of the Ayatollahs, but do I trust President Bush and his buddies to pursue all courses of action on the table before deciding on a military strike?  I have to honestly say the answer is no.  

We're between a rock and a hard place.  The costs of doing nothing are too high and the costs of letting slip the dogs of war upon Iran could be equally as costly, if air and sea strikes don't do what they're supposed to do.  What quite a few Americans don't understand is that Iran has quite the conventional army, and if we're going to strike, we'd better do it quickly or completely, or else Iran could make it very difficult on us, militarily speaking.

I think we have to continue what we've already started, and that's engaging them diplomatically and economically.