Another Holy War

This post is also available at Blogger News Network

It’s the season of Summer Blockbusters. “Revenge of the Sith” premiers next week and it looks to be on par if not better than “The Empire Strikes Back.” Other movies on tap to wow us at the box office are, “Fantastic Four,” “Batman Begins.” “Bewitched,” and a remake of the Burt Reynolds classic, “The Longest Yard.” Speaking of remakes, the Bush Administration appears to be in the business of remaking a story of their own beginning this summer in Iran. “Weapons of Mass Destruction II: Bombs Over Tehran.”

There are a number of elements of this story that are already coming together and they are not presenting a pretty picture. First, The Financial Times is reporting that, “Senior British officials warned last night that talks with Iran over its nuclear ambitions were on the point of collapse and that it risked referral to the United Nations Security Council.

Western diplomats said yesterday's statement by a top Iranian official that it would resume "in the next few days" activity related to uranium enrichment was a "serious" development.

Iranian hardliners seeking to provoke an international crisis had gained the upper hand in Tehran, they suggested.”

Now compare this with recently released British documents that illustrate a plan to depose Saddam Hussein well before 9/11. “…The case for war was “thin”. So Blair and his inner circle set about devising a plan to justify invasion.

“If the political context were right,” said Blair, “people would support regime change.” Straightforward regime change, though, was illegal. They needed another reason…Blair set certain conditions: that efforts were first made to try to eliminate Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) through weapons inspectors and to form a coalition and “shape” public opinion. But the bottom line was that he was signed up to ousting Saddam by force if other methods failed. The Americans just wanted to get rid of the brutal dictator, whether or not he posed an immediate threat.

This presented a problem because, as the secret briefing paper made clear, there were no clear legal grounds for war.” (Times.UK)

Anyone that still believes that this administration didn’t have a preconceived plan to depose Hussein well before the average American knew who Osama bin Laden was must strictly be acting on faith that would make Jesus blush. Furthermore, the brouhaha regarding proliferation of weapons of mass destruction seems to be a convenient ruse for eliminating pesky regimes rather than being a methodical and thoughtful policy global cooperation. It has been written and it would not appear that Iraq was never the endgame; it was only the opening salvo in a war to seemingly control the greater Middle East. As many have been predicting, Iran appears to be next in line and the powers that be are going back to the same playbook in selling the American public this next war.

The premise that this conflict with Iran will come to a head in June was put forth by, “Scott Ritter, the controversial ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector in Iraq, who correctly predicted there were no WMD in Saddam's arsenal, [whom] says the plan to bomb Iran's widely scattered nuclear installations has been approved by President Bush. Mr. Ritter predicts the massive air attack against Iran's nuclear infrastructure will take place next June.” (Insightmag.com)

It would also appear that the Bush administration allowed the EU3 to employ negotiations long enough to look like the Western world was attempting to give peace a chance but simply failed…like what happened in the run-up to Iraq. According to the Jerusalem Post, “Last weekend, the so-called EU3 - Britain, France and Germany - met their Iranian interlocutors in London to resume the business of persuading the mullahs to limit their nuclear ambitions. Nothing doing.

Sadder but no wiser, the Europeans put on a brave face as the talks ended. While sources conceded that they made no progress on substantive issues, they struggled to accentuate the positive. The negotiations, noted one source weakly, were held in a "good atmosphere." But the bottom line remains resolutely fixed: Iran is determined to continue enriching uranium and reprocessing plutonium.”

Is this really about nuclear proliferation? Probably not. Is it all about oil? It could be but I cannot say for sure. Is it the hubris of a “unipolar moment?” More than likely it is indeed. Is there something more to it? Well, according to Antony Loewenstein in his paper, “Pushing War In Iran,” “The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is arguably Washington's most powerful lobby group. The organisation holds extreme views on the Israel/Palestine conflict and has been a long-time opponent of negotiation with the Palestinians. Indeed, AIPAC's public and private persona couldn't be more different. Jeffrey Blankfort reported in 2003: "It [AIPAC] wanted to appear to be supportive of the 'road map,' while working to derail it." The uniformity of consensus within Washington towards Israel is partly due to the effectiveness of AIPAC's intense lobbying. Any Congressman or woman who dares speak out against Israel or its policies will find a better-funded opponent next election…AIPAC supports "regime change" in Iran. The removal of the mullahs in Tehran would eradicate another regional enemy of Israel, so the thinking goes. A number of senior members of the Bush administration are also opposed to Iran and support military action against the country's supposed nuclear capabilities. The involvement of a lobby group in the formulation of government policy strikes at the heart of America's faltering democracy…A major goal of the Israeli government is military action against Iran. AIPAC, an American proxy of the Israeli government, with Franklin's help, has been pressuring members of Congress to support military strikes against Iran… It is quite possible that the Jewish lobby group would be exposed as leading the charge against Iraq.”

I have no idea if any of this is true but the events transpiring right now are eerily similar to those that came to pass in the months and days before the invasion of Iraq. I’ve said before that as much as I want the Mullahs taken down and replaced with a representative democracy that truly speaks for the great people of Iran, I do not think outsiders at gunpoint can establish it. Iran needs to have a revolution that much is certain. America might want to spend its money more wisely by instigating said revolution instead of yet another exercise in nation building via MOAB.

There are plenty of folks out there who feel this is will be an awful mistake and lord knows I’ve written about the unintended consequences of starting a war with Iran on numerous occasions. Like Lynyrd Skynyrd, all I can do is keep writing about it and hope more people take the time to read. For those who like to take to the streets, this time, instead of “die-ins” and “human shields” like there were in the days before we invaded Iraq, would the good people of this country please start making cogent arguments for not invading Iran and offer up viable alternatives instead of the usual quasi-hate speech that tends to pass for American leftist protests. Become a salesperson and go out in to your neighborhood or where you work and try to sell something other than bombardment. I truly believe one of the reasons Bush, Blair and Co. got away with what they did in Iraq was because the opposition looked ridiculous and sounded too shrill and immature to take seriously. Let’s not make that same mistake again. If this administration is serious about bombing Iranian nuclear facilities in June then you’ve got about 3-4 weeks to come up with better ideas that dressing up like the Grim Reaper and laying in the street blocking Manhattan traffic.