Home >> Middle East >> Iran

     Email   Print 

Anti-War War Mongering

Dillon Freed - 2/14/2012

Without exception, every intellectual that I have spoken to about, or heard speak about, Iran’s nuclear program are absolutely opposed to any sort of war against the country.

Good. We agree. No war on Iran, no war on the Iranian people, no war on the stunning and irreplaceable Persian culture. And without question, no invasion of Iran.

But I declare – and so should they – without equivocation, total and merciless military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities along with sabotage against any enablers of the program and harsh sanctions on the country. More than that, these covert and overt efforts must continue until Iran has a responsible secular government in power (and we must realize – this may never happen).

Now let’s be clear, a missile striking a non-living, inanimate object does not constitute war – at all. A computer virus to crash a computer system does not describe war. A targeted assassination is not war. At least not the types of conventional war most intellectuals are envisioning and flailing about. They seem to be picturing something like Korea, Vietnam, or, you must have guessed by now, Iraq.

To adduce, a recent article in the Huffington Post by Maryam Zar began, “Ever confuse Iran and Iraq? Well, you may begin to -- if history repeats itself in the way it looks to be headed at the moment.”

First, no I have never confused the two, and second, if I get her drift, she believes that after spending one trillion dollars in Iraq and loosing thousands of soldiers, the economically strapped United States is going to invade Iran.

Really? Please just stop. This war mongering by the anti-war movement is ridiculous.

The United States will not go to war with Iran unless it is absolutely and totally unavoidable, and unless Iran forces it upon America. And if there is to be “war” with Iran, it will probably be more like the Cold War with Russia – that is, more or less, a spy war – than a major ground offensive. And of course, the vital difference in such a Cold War would be that instead of monitoring a nuclear Russia, the United States (and its allies) would keep Iran anuclear.

An honest, objective person can see that there are many reasons for a military strike on Iran’s facilities, targeted assassinations and sabotage. Some of these reasons, yes, if we are not going to be childish, involve (gasp) American self-interest (such as the need to protect the American investment in Iraq, and oil prices at home). For those too pure of spirit to even consider the real world, fear not, there are non-selfish, shall we say Kantian, reasons as well, most salient of these is that if one cares anything about the young Iranians who have been fighting for freedom against the theocracy (c.f. many in the Green Wave Movement of 2009) then one cannot, under any circumstance, let the authoritarian theocrats attain nuclear power atop of their already expansive political power. For if Iran were to get the bomb, how in the world could the United States – or anyone for that matter – ever help the pro-democracy and pro-freedom and pro-secular groups (who often cry out for such help) in that country if they ever rise up again? Would the United States invade a nuclear Iran on the side of those people? Would the United States even risk airstrikes to assist? Would the United States even arm the rebels?

Doubtful in all cases – it would be far too dangerous. And this worry of being helpless is not merely hypothetically. Ask yourself this: Regardless of what you think of Operation Odyssey Dawn in Libya, do you think the United States could have or would have helped the rebelling Libyans had Gaddafi not given up his nuclear weapons in 2003?

It is plan to see that to allow the Iranians to acquire nuclear weapons would be to almost guarantee an oppressive and repressive Iran for decades to come.

Some people will claim I am being hysterical about a nuclear Iran – they will say that this outcome would not be as “bad” as I make it sound. But to those who say as much, I ask: if Iran with an atomic bomb would not be bad, do they think the Iranian leadership will use it for good? If such a nuclear Persia would not be bad, then why do bad men chase after it with fiendish smiles, flouting and ignoring every international law on the books as well as bankrupting their nation in the pursuit? Or do they think that Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollahs are not that bad after all?

There are others who admit Iran bad, but declare that military action merely delays the inevitable, and further, evokes anti-American sentiment in the region. To the under-reaction in the first, I refuse to accept this atomic fatalism, for it seems to me impossible that Iran can replenish its scientists if we take them out fast enough, and there is no way that Iran can continue rebuild its nuclear facilities if we keep destroying them. There are not enough minds to replace those that are taken away; there is not enough money in Iran to handle constant facility setbacks. To the overreaction in the second, there is already anti-American sentiment in that part of the world so not much will be lost in those terms, and more importantly, more than likely, the entire Middle East will take a collective sigh of relief that Iran will not be the nation in their neighborhood with the best weapons (even if they publically attack the U.S.)

In short, it is clear that it is time to bomb Iran. But alas, I may see the source of the confusion and panic… I suppose just as you must say “Muslim radical” and not simply “Muslim” when speaking about terrorists (which is very fair and proper); I suppose people should not say “Bomb Iran” but “Bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities.” Maybe that will calm the anti-war crowd’s hysteria over a war with Iran.