The Coming War in Iran
With the November elections in the past and the inauguration upon us, the Bush administration is letting everyone know that their three million vote lead is a mandate to stay the course. In fact, they say, not only is it a mandate for what he is doing in Iraq but also a mandate to continue on to Iran.
This startling claim is in a New Yorker article here that says US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said
This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign...Next, we're going to have the Iranian campaign. We've declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah-we've got four years, and want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism.
While I agree the Bush administration won the election and that the majority of the voters voted to keep him in office. I'm not so sure about a mandate on his running of the war in Iraq nor adventures in Iran. Congress and the public was fooled by a bunch of hand waving about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq but what will the administration come up with in Iran? Times up. The answer is, now wait for it, weapons of mass destruction.
I'm not making this up. Weapons of mass destruction. Again. Expect to see a lot of additional hand waving, satellite pictures of milk tanker trucks, fertilizer factories, and aluminum pipes. Is it possible Iran is working on nuclear weapons? Probably. But then, so are most industrialized nations (if they don't have it already). The question is, do we invade every country that we think may try to get such weapons?
Apparently, the Bush administration is saying yes. But remember, Iran is a country, not a quasi multi-national religious group. It has a border, government, and people who aren't usually implicated in suicide bombings. If they have any rationality about them, then a policy of containment and assured massive relation, could work. Just like it worked for 40 years against Russia. Is it worth the chance we would take versus multi-nation wars? You decide.
Aloha!
Comments
The majority op Americans are -rightly- in favour of continuing the adventure in Iraq. Pulling out before things are at least stable would be a mistake. All the lives lost in the action would have been lost in vain.
Iran is another case entirely. Much more dangerous than Iraq ever was.
Posted by: sjon | January 19, 2005 09:19 PM
Coming up with daft reasons for starting war with a country isn't good. Especially if they are made up reasons. No country has any right to tell another country what to do, in the same way I've no right to tell me neighbour what to do.
The only sane way of going about these things is if the US actually invades these countries, takes them for it's own, and then surely it has the right to decide what, when, where and how.
But rampaging around the world invading is something of the past.
Posted by: Phil | January 20, 2005 12:19 AM