Running to Iran

Adam Trueblood Commentary	Index
Running to Iran One experiences a sense of deja vu as the government again builds its case in the media for miltary action against a Middle Eastern nation viewed as an enemy. The same president who patently lied about non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq now whips up fear over a nuclear program in a neighboring country. After miring the country in a catastrophic and illegal war in Iraq, a country that presented no threat to the United States, this president now seemingly prepares the wounded nation to do the same in neighboring Iran. Admittedly, a quest for nuclear weapons by any nation should be a grave concern to the international coummunity, let alone one by a nation with a government rooted in Muslim extremism. However, any nation deserves at least some form of due process and diplomatic engagement prior to military action by those nations suspicious of its intent. The overtures of the United Nations and European Union are far from exhausted, and the immediate and even medium term threat posed by Iran's nuclear energy program have not been conclusively proven. The Bush administration, meanwhile, refuses to engage in any diplomatic discussions whatsoever. There is no doubt Iran has engaged in egregious acts, or that the element of fanaticism in its government is a destabilizing force in the region and throughout the world. However, nations do not deserve to be punished with the horrors of military aggression due to their separate ideology or the demagoguery of their leadership. Beneath the surface, of course, the relationship between the U.S. and Iran is far more nuanced than the Bush administration would have U.S. citizens believe. Iran was invaded and partitioned by our close ally and progenitor England in the early part of the 1900's. In 1953 our very own CIA was responsible for the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian prime minister, Mossadegh. The Shah that we installed, Reza Pahlavi, ruled as an autocrat for the next twenty five years. We as Americans are responsible then to some extent for the culture of terror and extremism that has developed in Iran since the revolution of 1978. The Iranian theocracy stands in part as a rejection of the hypocrisy and repression lavished upon Iran by the United States and England over the last century. Yet at times we have had a more sympathetic relationship with Iran, as during the build-up to the first Iraq war and in the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks. Aside from the dubious legitimacy of the Bush administration's stance towards Iran, there exists the looming fact that Iran is not the weak nation that Iraq was prior to our invasions in 1991 and 2003. Iran has had almost twenty years to rebuild itself since the disastrous Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988. Iran has a military of 500,000 dedicated soldiers, and 16 million men available for military duty. Iran is four times as large as Iraq with respect to square miles of territory, and almost three times as large with respect to population. Though one can't underestimate the colossal stupidity of the Bush administration, these facts would seem to argue against a military invasion of Iran. Even an attack through the exclusive use of air and naval strikes seems certain to draw Iran into the currently raging conflict in Iraq and perhaps also into a direct conflict with Israel. It is sadly difficult to imagine a more reckless, obtuse administration leading the United States, or a more representative debacle than the coming military aggression against Iran. March 2007