Worldview Blog

Why Not To Bomb Iran
28 November 2007

For my second post, I thought I'd briefly recapitulate my reasons for not bombing Iran. The reasons for bombing Iran seem all too airtight to the hawkish mind: (i) Iran is about to get a nuclear weapon; (ii) it is run by an evil 'Islamofascist' regime similar to Nazi Germany, whose 'leader' has denied the holocaust and called for the destruction of Israel; and (iii) therefore they are unlikely to be rational and deterred in the usual way from using their bomb. With such views, one is easily persuaded that it is 1938 all over again, and 'appeasement' can only lead to catastrophe. The American Enterprise Institute and the Weekly Standard may have programmed their brains in this way, but you and I can still think, thank God. (I will not fully document the following. Please refer to the copious links on my Iran Page.)

First, some historical context. In 1953, the CIA and their British counterparts engineered a coup against the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, who had threatened to nationalize Britain's oil companies. The Shah was put in place, who ruled with an iron fist, backed by a secret police that tortured. Whatever one thinks of the Islamic regime that followed, one cannot simply sweep this outrage under the rug, nor deny the Iranians their right to hate and fear the United States.

Add to this our other machinations in the region, the latest being an invasion of neighboring Iraq, based on bogus reasons. As one commentator said, the Iranians would be irresponsible not to be pursuing a nuclear weapon for their own protection. Yet it is important to stress that, according to the IAEA and others, there is no evidence that Iran is pursuing a bomb, nor that they are trying to hide anything (e.g. see here). They have the right to pursue nuclear research under the NPT (Nuclear Proliferation Treaty). We do not have the right to deny them this research simply based on our suspicions. Pre-emptive invasions based on suspicions would wreak havoc in the world. We would never tolerate this from others. We invaded Iraq based on suspicions and bogus evidence, and look at the result.

Iran's alleged hatred of Israel and Jews is cited as evidence that the regime is fundamentally evil (like Nazi Germany) and thus cannot be treated by the normal rules between nations (if there are any). Regarding the Arab animosity towards Israel in general, it is time that we start being a bit honest with ourselves. We tend to support Israel uncritically, and I do support Israel's right to exist, but I also realize that the Palestinians are human beings too, who have been dealt a terrible injustice by history. Briefly, I think that Israel should return to its 1967 borders (approximately), as no Arab nation now seriously threatens her. The ever-creeping settlements, under both Labor and Likud, make clear that Israel basically expects to take over the West Bank eventually and push the Palestinians out. Why shouldn't their Arab and Muslim brothers be outraged and consider Israel an 'evil' regime. Is the slow strangulation of the Palestinians any better that the harsh domestic policies of the mullahs? As for Ahmadinejad, his words have been distorted in translation, and he has no power anyway. And how many American newspapers have pointed out that there are Jews in the Iranian parliament? By the way, Israel has some 200+ nuclear weapons.

So already, it is clear that we should get off of our high and self-righteous horse and realize that the Iranians have some legitimate grievances against us. Yet how remarkable that they cooperated with us against the Taliban in Afghanistan and made peace overtures to us in 2003! They even offered to put their nuclear program on the table in exchange for guarantees of security (see here see here). How does the US government react? By arrogantly dismissing these tentative feelers from Tehran, rather than cautiously pursuing them, as any responsible superpower would do. Why should the Iranians not feel that we are out to get them no matter what? Why should they not want a nuclear weapon? It worked for North Korea.

Finally, bombing the Iranian nuclear facilities is probably futile and will only further inflame an already volatile region. The Iranians have had plenty of time to disperse or bury their program. If our intelligence was so poor on Iraq, why should we believe that it is any better on Iran? Further, many known facilities are in populated areas, not that any qualms about collateral damage ever stopped us from dropping tons of bombs on civilians. The idea that the Iranians would rally to the side of the invaders against the hated government is as fallacious as it was when we attacked Iraq. As in Vietnam and so many other places, we simply cannot grasp that other nations are as patriotic as we are (and don't like having bombs dropped on their heads).

I think this covers the main reasons not to attack Iran. One might add that the experts predict that any secret bomb program that might exist is still years from fruition. Obviously, what we should do is talk to the Iranians, admit our past faults, and work towards establishing mutual trust. They are a civilized and intelligent people who want to be integrated into the world economy. Their regime may not be entirely to our liking, but the same could be said of the Chinese, not that that stopped American businessmen from rushing to make a profit. What should matter in international relations is how countries treat each other. Internal politics should be off limits, except in the most egregious cases, like Rwanda. Even then, any intervention should be through the UN, which should be allowed to operate according to its charter, rather than being bullied and manipulated by its most powerful member.

Ed Herman: Great & Little Satan (Dec 07)

Akiva Eldar: On Israel, the Mideast and the Lobby

Stephen Zunes: Interview on the US and Iran

Ismael Hossein-Zadeh: Distorting Fascism to Demonize Iran

Worldview: My evolving views of 'Islamofascism'

Rand Beers et al: The Myth of 'Islamofascism'

BBC: Iran Holocaust drama is a big hit

Max Blumenthal: Rapture Ready (video)

BBC: US report plays down Iran threat

WP: A Blow to Bush's Tehran Policy

Norman Podhoretz: Dark Suspicions about the NIE

A MIRACLE: HONEST INTEL ON IRAN NUKES
Ray McGovern, Antiwar, 4 Dec 07

The main points of the NIE:

"We judge that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program...

"We assess with moderate confidence Tehran has not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007.

"We do not have sufficient intelligence to judge confidently whether Tehran is willing to maintain the halt of its nuclear weapons program indefinitely...

"We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame.

"We judge with high confidence that Iran will not be technically capable of producing and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015."

Having reached these conclusions, it is not surprising that the NIE's authors make a point of saying up front (in bold type), "This NIE does not [italics in original] assume that Iran intends to acquire nuclear weapons."

Justin Raimondo: No Iran Attack? Don't Be So Sure...

David Hackworth: Do your homework or flunk the war

Back to the Home Page