Who Wants War With Iran?
On Sept. 21, 1976, as his car rounded Sheridan Circle on Embassy Row, former Chilean ambassador Orlando Letelier was assassinated by car bomb. Ronni Moffitt, a 25-year-old American women who worked with Letelier at the leftist Institute for Policy Studies, died with him.
Michael Townley, an ex-CIA asset in the hire of Chile’s intelligence agency, confessed to using anti-Castro Cubans to murder Letelier, in what was regarded as an act of terrorism on U.S. soil. Which raises a question: Are not the murders of four Iranian scientists associated with that nation’s nuclear program, by the attachment of bombs to their cars in Tehran, also acts of terrorism?
Had the Stalin- or Khrushchev-era Soviets done this to four U.S. scientists in Washington, would we not have regarded it as acts of terrorism and war?
Iran has accused the United States and Israel of murder. But Hillary Clinton emphatically denied any U.S. complicity: “I want to categorically deny any United States involvement in any kind of act of violence inside Iran.”
“The United States had absolutely nothing to do with this,” added National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor, “We strongly condemn all acts of violence, including acts of violence like this.” Victoria Nuland, Clinton’s spokeswoman at State, denounced “any assassination or attack on an innocent person, and we express our sympathies to the family.”
The assassinated scientist was a supervisor at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility that hosts regular inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. If Iran is building a bomb, it is not at Natanz.
U.S. denial of involvement leaves Mossad as the prime suspect. Israel has not denied it, and this comes at a sensitive time in U.S.-Israeli relations.
In Foreign Policy magazine, author and historian Mark Perry, claiming CIA documentation, alleges that Mossad agents in London posed as CIA agents and contacted Jundallah, a terrorist group, to bribe and recruit them to engage in acts of terror inside Iran. Jundallah has conducted attacks in Sistan-Baluchistan province, killing government officials, soldiers, and women and children.
According to Perry, when George W. Bush learned of the Mossad agents posing as CIA while recruiting terrorists, he “went totally ballistic.” Yet Meir Dagan, head of Mossad at the time, denies it, and, ironically, has called any Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities “the stupidest thing I have ever heard.”
Who is telling the truth? We do not know for sure.
What we do know is that “Bibi” Netanyahu is desperate to have the United States launch air and missile strikes to stop Teheran from becoming the world’s ninth nuclear power. And he is echoed not only by U.S. neocons, but GOP candidates save Ron Paul.
Nor should we be surprised.
To bring America into its war with Germany, Winston Churchill set up William Stephenson, “A Man Called Intrepid,” with hundreds of agents in New York to engage in everything from bribery to blackmail of U.S. senators to get the United States to enter the war and pull England’s chestnuts out of the fire.
This is what desperate countries do.
And while America First kept us out of the European war until Adolf Hitler invaded Russia, ensuring that Russians, not Americans, died in the millions to defeat him, eventually America was maneuvered into war.
Whoever is assassinating these Iranian scientists, be it homegrown Iranian terrorists, Jundallah at the instigation of Israel, or Mossad, the objective is clear: Enrage the Iranians so they strike out at America, provoking a U.S.-Iranian war.
Is such a war in America’s interests? Consider.
While U.S. air and naval power would prevail, Iranian civilians would die, as some of their nuclear facilities are in populated areas. Moreover, we cannot kill the nuclear knowledge Iran has gained. Thus we would only set back their nuclear program by several years. And a bloodied and beaten Iran would then go all-out for a bomb.
The regime, behind which its people would rally, would emerge even more entrenched. U.S. bombing did not cause Germans to remove Hitler or Japanese to depose their emperor. And we lack the ground troops to invade and occupy a country three times the size of Iraq.
All U.S. ships, including carriers in that bathtub the Persian Gulf, would be at risk from shore-based anti-ship missiles and the hundreds of missile boats in Iran’s navy. Any sea battle would send oil prices to $200 and $300 a barrel. There goes the eurozone.
Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Shia of the Saudi oil fields and Bahrain, home port to the Fifth Fleet, and Iranian agents in Afghanistan and Iraq could set the region aflame.
As America started up the road to Baghdad in 2003, Gen. David Petraeus is said to have asked, “Tell me how this ends.” Before some agent provocateur pushes us into war with Iran, Congress should debate the wisdom of authorizing President Obama, or anyone else, to take America into her fifth war in a generation in the Middle and Near East.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?” Copyright 2012 Creators.com.
The prophetic greatness of Pat Buchanan knows no bounds. Where would we be without you?
“The prophetic greatness of Pat Buchanan knows no bounds. Where would we be without you?”
Pretty much where we are with him. Buchanan is our Cassandra, cursed with the gift of prophecy which too few believe. Everything PJB predicted in his presidential campaigns in ’92 and ’96 has come to pass. Think how much better off America would be now if it had listened to him then.
For sane analysis, I always turn to PB’s calm assessments. As my grandfather used to say, “Nothing is more uncommon than common sense.” What my grandfather didn’t suspect was that America would someday give itself over to spreading chaos in ever widening circles and be thrilled by it.
I ‘m waiting for Rick Santorum to start calling iran “the great satan” and burn their flag at his rallies.
I’ve never really heard any of the neocons/neoliberals/imperialists provide any sort of articulation of what the US could gain through a war with Iran. All arguments in favor of attacking Iran seem to begin and end with poorly reasoned fears over an Iranian bomb, which probably isn’t even being built right now. The push for war with Iran is even dumber than the push for war with Iraq. Having said that, I will fully support the war, and go back into the army myself, if Bill Kristol, David Frum, and the rest of the National Review/WSJ/WaPo/neocon crowd will enlist and go fight in the great Iran war as infantry.
Pat Buchanan: “Congress should debate the wisdom of authorizing…”
Congress is the same body that spent a whole year debating non-existent evidence in favor of the Iraq War.
“”"Pat Buchanan: “Congress should debate the wisdom of authorizing…”
Congress is the same body that spent a whole year debating non-existent evidence in favor of the Iraq War.”"”"”
In case you have forgotten, the Senate recently voted 100-0 to tighten economic sanctions on Iran, and I don’t think Congress will stand in the way of a war against Iran. Just as our oil embargo on Japan (preventing Japan from buying oil) led to Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor and our entry into WWII, I fear our embargo on Iran (preventing Iran from selling oil) will result in some desperate action by Iran that will lead to war with Iran. But isn’t that the whole purpose of the ever tighter sanctions on Iran: to force Iran in taking a step that justifies an attack on Iran? I have the same sickening feeling I experienced after hearing Bush’s “axis of evil” speech to Congress in early 2002 up to the start of the war against Iraq in March 2003. I hope I’m wrong because I agree with Pat that war with Iran will produce disastrous results.
When I discuss Iran with War Hawks, often I state that good faith diplomacy is worthwhile and should be pursued.
(America hasn’t engaged in good faith diplomacy with Iran for many years, if at all, since 1979.)
You would be surprised (maybe you wouldn’t if you have had talks with War Hawks) that most War Hawks don’t want to engage in diplomacy, and will be incredulous and even state that diplomacy is “appeasement”.
It seems all the War Hawks want to do is saber rattle or bomb Iran. They just want to muscle Iran into knuckling under, but most evidence suggests that doesn’t work, it just makes Iran “bow their neck” even harder in a more determined fashion.
(Now, I would acknowledge that saber rattling is a crude form of diplomacy, but in my mind it usually isn’t particularly effective, if it isn’t part and parcel of a serious diplomatic strategy.)
Sometimes, mention of diplomacy brings a response like, “You want to talk to Iran?”, with the tone of voice implying it’s ridiculous and if you admit the desire for diplomacy and negotiation, you have no credibility — it’s even shameful to talk to Iran, showing weakness.
Many of these folks already have war fever, they don’t want to hear facts & evidence, or knowlegable expert’s analysis, which contradict their desire for war with Iran.
But almost all bristle at being called a warmonger.
I find identifying them as War Hawks, accurately identifies what they want to do, and they know it and they con’t brush it off as a smear like the term, “warmonger”.
That said: I think the best strategy is to turn the question around at the War Hawks and affirmatively ask: “Do you want to attack Iran?”
How would you do it? When would you do it? Do we make it a sneak attack? (That one makes War Hawks uncomfortable.)
Do you want a vote in the Congress first? (I suspect many War Hawks just want to wake up one morning and hear on the radio or see on T. V. that we have attacked Iran. Or even better, wake up and find Israel has attacked Iran and now we must support Israel — by attacking Iran.)
What about all the consequences?
(Even War Hawks know the consequences would be severe and long lasting — even economic disaster, but due to their war fever, don’t care — it’s a “damn the torpedoes” mentality.)
But, there is a difference between supporting what others say, “let’s attack Iran”, in a slightly abstract way, and openly admitting they personally want to attack Iran.
That seems to put them on their heals somewhat because once they affirmatively declare, “I want to attack Iran”, they know very full well, the label they bristle at, “warmonger”, is just around the corner.
(That is why they cling to the idea of “necessity” — it justifies being a warmonger. Very few War Hawks will admit they want perpetual war because it is “good for the America” — politically, they know better than to admit to that.)
Nobody wants to be called a warmonger and have the label stick. How many people say, “I’m a warmonger, and I’m proud of it.”?
So, flush them out, ask them directly, then it is up to them to justify and address the consequences — that is key.
This approach, among many, may stop the march to war with Iran.
Those who claim Iran is intent on building nukes, usually cite the fact Iran enriches uranium to 20%, which is a good part of the way to 90% in terms of difficulty. So, when Iran offered to stop enriching uranium to 20%, did the US respond? No. The reason? Israel lobby.
“The push for war with Iran is even dumber than the push for war with Iraq.”– Nick K.
That’s not true. In the case of Iran, there is at least SOME credible evidence that they are about to acquire a nuclear warhead; whereas, with Iraq, there was never any such evidence.
However, it is also the case that we are in undergoing an unprecedented debt crisis that was not present at the outset of the Iraq War. Pehraps that’s what you are referring to?
“That’s not true. In the case of Iran, there is at least SOME credible evidence that they are about to acquire a nuclear warhead;”
And what “credible evidence” can you point to that shows Iran is “about to acquire a nuclear warhead”?
The whole debate on Iran just changed with the stern warming from the Russian Foreign Minister that Russia would regard any attack on Iran as a threat to it’s national security/
It would he said have gave consequences for the entire world(sounds like 1914 !!) he said
Now let’s see some politican foolish enough to order an attack on Iran(but there is
of course there is Netanyahu and Libermann)The Rjussian statement is a real challenge to the USA …and the super power in Tel Aviv
“And what “credible evidence” can you point to that shows Iran is “about to acquire a nuclear warhead”?”–tbraton
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15648166
And yes, I’m well aware that the crusty old Marxists over at “Democracy Now!” (and similarly oriented outlets) have reflexively dubbed the IAEA’s report to be “propaganda”; that is, of course, meaningless. It always amazes me how much of the paleoconservative crowd believes anything — nay, everything — the far-left spouts when it comes to something even remotely related to foreign policy (on everything else, of course, paleocons disagree with these mourners of the Soviet empire).
I’m a paleolibertarian myself; I recognize that war with Iran may not be in America’s national interest, and the neocons are still pushing for war with Iran — consequences for America be damned. However, integrity requires that paleos concede certain points. Namely, just because the neocons are coopting America’s foreign policy goals in the interests of Israel; this does not mean that Israel has nothing to worry about in terms of the threat Iran’s nuclear program poses to Israel’s security.
Israel should handle this herself, though, if need be. That is why Ron Paul must be elected president: he will be the best president for America (and, coincidentally, for Israel as well).
War with Iran will be a disaster. As usual Pat is right on the money, that’s why I voted for him 3 times. There is a strong case of our losing major naval ships, not excluding a carrier, in a conflict with Iran. Supposedly Iran, believe it or not, has small electric ferro- cement submarines that can’t be identified by sonar or penetrating radar. They look like coral or rock formations as they rest on the bottom. They have vertical and horizontal torpedo tubes. The torpedoes are rocket propelled and travel 4 to 5 times faster than conventional ones(200-240mph). They will be placed in the straits of Hormuz and areas of the Persian gulf. They were described in one of the popular science magazines in the 1990′s.
Jacob, there is little to no evidence that they are on the cusp of getting nukes, although they are arguably building that capacity now. Anyway, in my opinion Iran’s possession of a nuke is a moot point. As much as I do not think that Iran should have nukes, I am not overly worried about it; they will find themselves hard-pressed to actually use it on anyone, even the bellicose Israelis without having the US turn Tehran into a sheet of glass. They want their deterrent, and frankly, given the non-stop saber rattling from the US and Israel, I hardly blame them. Anyway, nuke or no nuke, there is still no legitimate cassus belli, just like there wasn’t with Iraq. It’s dumber this time around because we have a stinking fresh example of how poorly these kinds of military ventures work out.
“Before some agent provocateur pushes us into war with Iran…”
In a January 9 op-ed in the Jerusalem Post magazine, Avi Perry, a former intelligence expert for the Israeli government, appears to be hinting how this might happen:
‘Iran, just like Nazi Germany in the 1940s, will take the initiative and “help” the US president and the American public make up their mind by making the first move, by attacking a US aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf …. However, under this “Pearl Harbor” scenario, in which Iran had launched a “surprise” attack on the US navy, the US would have the perfect rationalization to finish them off, to put an end to this ugly game …. The greatest irony behind this most significant episode in 2012 is that the Iranian regime would affect their own demise. Attacking the US navy in the open seas is equivalent to carrying out a suicide bombing.’
Looks like this is the war I’m going to be fighting. Israel might attack Iran as early as spring. Possibly dragging the US into the war.