|
Why should stop the Pentagon from bombing Iran?
By Dr. Mary Maxwell
01/02/06 "ICH" -- -- According to Scott Ritter, we Americans have
been sending aerial vehicles (unmanned drones) into the Iranian
hinterland for some months now. And, according to Kurt Nimmo, the
CIA has put Turkey on notice for “the possible US air operation
against Iran and Syria.” The fact that our newspapers and Network
television refuse to tell us about this does not absolve us of
responsibility. You must, and I repeat, must, do all you can to stop
this.
Reasons to Spare Iran
Why should we act decisively to stop the Pentagon from bombing Iran?
Of the following five reasons,
I cannot say which is the most important – they seem equally to
merit priority. Still, for practical reasons, one can be singled out
as the absolute top priority. Namely, the US should not engage in
nuclear war – whether in Iran or anywhere else in the world. True,
the US has already used bunker buster weapons and munitions with
depleted uranium in Iraq, but nuclear weapons should NEVER be used.
We must draw the line even against so-called ‘mini nukes’.
Four specific reasons why we should protect Iran are:?
-
Quite simply, a consensus has been reached since 1945 that crimes
against humanity are off-limits (not a bad consensus when you think
of it – we may be on the receiving end someday)
-
Iran should be respected for its cultural achievements that date
back to the Persian empire, and which were appropriated liberally by
European civilizations (ah, Persian carpets…ah, glazed tiles)
-
‘Regime change’ sparks recollection of the fact that the CIA
already changed Iran’s regime once – in 1953. It helped overthrow
the popular leader Mossadegh, and then trained the horrific secret
service, SAVAK, for the Shah
-
We Americans would be wrecking our own future, and our
self-esteem, by engaging in such a war
Then there is the matter of neocon authorship of the proposal to
strike Iran. Most neocons think destruction is wonderful! I ask: is
there any reason for us to click our heels in response to the orders
of the neocon dimwits? I’m reaching for my Slang Thesaurus (edited
by Jonathon Green) to find a better word, as I don’t think ‘dimwit’
does justice to the neocon situation. Let’s see, Section 431 offers
these synonyms:
airhead, boob, cementhead, clod, diphead, dork, drongo, dumbellina,
dumbski, horse’s arse, lunchbox, mental job, mule, musclehead, room
to rent, thickie, thicko.
Let me mention that I am a Johns Hopkins alumna and every time I
read that Paul Wolfowitz, a former professor at that university, has
an impressive intellect I cringe. By the way, despite my alluding to
my education, I am well aware of my own innocence and stupidity.
Part of me feels that it is entirely wrong for me to issue
recommendations such as “Hold back those bombs” or “Let Iran be
free.” Almost certainly I am in the dark about many things that
could alter my views. This explains why I relied above on five
arguments that appear unassailable: don’t nuke, eschew crimes
against humanity, respect Persia’s history, remember our role in
SAVAK, and preserve America’s self-esteem. Moreover, caution is
especially due here because I am not just offering my viewpoint, I
am explicitly urging you, dear Reader, to do what you can to
restrain America.
Hence, let me air a few more issues. We hear that a reason to
suppress Iran has to do with its audacious plan to shift oil sales
from US currency to euros. Fair enough, but does that really justify
all the risks of a war? We hear also that regime change in Teheran
would be beneficial. Go to the website called
regimechangeiran.blogspot.com and you will find a large banner in
which the red, white, and green flag of Iran merges imperceptibly
into the stars and stripes. Under that banner is the statement “The
blogosphere supports real democracy in Iran” (By the way, let’s not
forget the rumor that Paul Wolfowitz’s Iranian girlfriend favors
regime change in Teheran). Again the question arises: is war a
logical way to provide a nation with less dictatorial rule? Look at
Iraq. Saddam may yet re-attain power.
There is also a purely selfish reason for us to help Iran that
should not be overlooked. Namely, if citizens use enough muscle on
this isolated issue “Stay the hell out of Iran”, and thereby chalk
up a victory, it would bode well for when we take a stand against
domestic incursions such as the all-too-imminent threat of martial
law on our shores.
A Crucial Preliminary Obstacle: Lulling
So why is every decent American citizen not jumping to denounce the
likely invasion of Iran? (And, down the road, the threatened
invasion of Syria and North Korea?) Insularity and laziness are not
the explanation, in my opinion. Rather, we get fooled by frequent
statements that all options are still open. Sec. of State Rice has
said as much. Also, the new head of Israel’s Likud party, Benjamin
Netanyahu – Bibi – indicates that if he wins the March elections he
will ‘take out’ Iran’s nuclear reactor the same way Israel took out
Iraq’s nuclear reactor, Osiraq, in 1981 (which was a clean, non-war
move.)
It is essential not to let ‘options’ or the promise of a delayed
timing fool us. Bibi’s mention of a March date could be a calculated
method of putting us at ease during January and February – to our
detriment. We are forever being fooled, not only by those who plant
future dates in our mind, but also by our human-nature tendency to
bank on the most favorable scenario. For example, lately I have been
unconsciously treating myself to the optimistic pretense that Iran
will be spared from the coming hell of bombs, maimed bodies, and
destroyed homes.
For us to call attention to any situation where there is a danger
that we might be lulled into inaction, it would be useful to have a
new word or concept. Just call it the ‘anti- lull signal’, or for
those who thirst for acronyms, ALS. In the lead-up to America’s
attack on Iraq, I can remember a series of televised interviews, in
2003, in which the late Professor Edward Said and other experts were
asked to predict the likely outcome of a military attack. All
interviewees came up with hopeful statements except Said. He painted
a picture that later materialized. Roughly, his words were “It would
be an absolute disaster to attack Iraq. Necessarily it would bring
about a civil war, and a destabilization of the region.” Maybe it
would have helped if someone screamed ALS! ALS! to the other
interviewees.
As a rule, as long as our personal survival is not at stake, we
unconsciously opt to be lulled. Just like a casino patron sitting in
front of the slots, our hopes are higher than they should be. Today
many people understandably entertain the hope that we will stay out
of Iran. Wayne Madsen, in his ever-juicy gossip column, mentioned a
few months ago that Iran’s leaders are in possession of an
incriminating photo of George W. Bush, taken in his younger days
that could be used to blackmail him. Who knows, maybe it is true.
Another notion that is circulating is that Russia, possibly
possessing far greater war power than it admits, will be Iran’s
protecting ally. Or that the European Union, in its desire to show
defiance of US aggression, would endorse peaceful negotiations with
Iran. Of those two bases for hope, I don’t take the latter
seriously, as I think the EU’s independence is largely feigned. The
former, however, is plausible: classic balance-of-power theory
supports the notion of a Russia-Iran alliance.
The ‘Surprise” Element
An excellent reason to be circumspect about starting a war is the
matter of unforeseen outcomes. Are you old enough to recall the
bumper sticker “Nuke Iran” that was popular in 1980? What brought on
that display of jingoism? It was the Yankee shock at the fact that
Islamic revolutionaries had taken 52 Americans hostage in Iran.
These unfortunate men were captured at the American embassy on
November 4th, 1979, and held for over a year. Pride being what it
is, we were dying to punish Iran. Of course at that time, the
American public had no inkling that the final three months of the
hostages’ ordeal was a product of the Reagan-Bush election strategy.
They wanted to prevent the incumbent president, Jimmy Carter, from
having the glory of getting the hostages freed just before the
November elections.
To deprive Carter of just such an ‘October Surprise,’ George Bush,
Sr. reportedly did a deal with the Ayatollah on October 19th, 1980
to make our 52 Americans suffer ‘bonus time’. They would not be
liberated before the election – indeed the day of their release was
the exact day of Reagan’s inauguration in January 1981. This proves,
does it not, that our patriotic lust for war against the mean old
Ayatollah was misplaced. Nuking Iran at that time (25 years ago)
would have punished the wrong wrongdoer!
Reading about Iran
Two bestsellers are worth reading simply for pleasure. One is
Lipstick Jihad: A Memoir of Growing Up Iranian in America and
American in Iran by Azadeh Moaveni. The other is Reading Lolita in
Teheran by Azar Nafisi, about a discussion group run by a teacher of
English literature for her students, in her home in Teheran. Another
old chestnut, but still riveting, is the autobiography of Sattareh
Farman Farmaian Daughter of Persia. What you will come away with
from these books, besides a sense of the inevitable role of the
female in the future development of that country, is the sense that
the people of Iran are refreshingly open to new social arrangements,
and that the world could be their oyster.
Mary Maxwell, Ph.D., P.O. Box 4307, Ann Arbor, MI, 48106, USA is a
political scientist. She can be emailed as ‘mary’ at her website:
www.marymaxwell.us She hereby permits anyone to copy or distribute this
article as long as it remains unaltered and carries this notice.
Translate
this page
(In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.
Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the
originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.) |
