Opinions of Peter Belmont
Speaking Truth to Power
| Must USA go to war—or engage in terror—against Iran? |
|
by Peter A. Belmont / 2011-12-03
Roger Cohen’s written a column which concludes that the USA is justified to conduct a silent war , a war of terror, against Iran. He begins the column well enough with an important observation: that Obama has quite cleverly and diabolically (my words, not Cohen’s) pursued a “silent” counter-terror policy by which the U.S. has gone to war with its enemies in the Middle East without declaring it.Silverstein asks—is there another policy choice between [1] American/Israeli terror as a weapon against Iran or [2] an actual Israeli or American war (bombing, maybe boots on the ground) against Iran?The Obama administration has a doctrine. It’s called the doctrine of silence. A radical shift from President Bush’s war on terror, it has never been set out to the American people. There has seldom been so big a change in approach to U.S. strategic policy with so little explanation. And the answer is—YES!—Let USA and Israel simply back away from the nonsensical and wholly unsupported idea that Iran is an enemy. Let the whole government of the USA and of Israel simply repeat 6 times before breakfast for 10 days in a row, “Iran is not my enemy.” (As with many exercises, it helps if you breathe in before saying this and breathe out while saying it.) If you think this is silly, ask yourself where we got after George W. Bush repeated to himself 6 times for 10 days that Iraq was the USA’s enemy! (What? You think Iran *IS* our enemy? Before you make up your mind, see these two footnotes.[1][2]) The logic of the DOCTRINE “I have decided, for no particular reason, that you are my enemy and now (having so persuaded myself) I have a right and a duty to kill you” would not make it even on the grammar school playground. Even if some kids actually behave that way, most’d never agree to that form of words!. Why is this nonsensical doctrine so attractive to politicians? Is it (only) because they are intrinsically stupid? Is it (only) because they love the macho-destructive use of power? Is it (only) because of the typically corrupt reason—the enrichment of the military-industrial-complex that comes from making war, whether justified or not? And why is support for this nonsensical doctrine so attractive to journalists? Is it (only) because they like to appear macho, to appear ready to face up to the tough questions? Is it (only) because there is a particular whiz that they get from publishing an opinion which recommends terrorism and war-crimes to their own or to a so-called “friendly” government? Is it (only) a matter of corruption—because they feel they must cozy-up to politicians or lose their “access”? To conclude: I ask you! Really, I ask you! Someone should ask a bunch of kids of various ages if this makes any sense at all I have decided, for no particular reason, that you are my enemy and now (having so persuaded myself) I have a right and a duty to kill you. I wonder what President Obama’s kids would say. Would they like drone-aircraft from Iran to target the White House with bombs? Would they like drone-aircraft from USA to target the Iran’s equivalent of the White House with bombs? I think kids are honest and “fair” enough to see the right answers to these questions. If only our politicians would wake up and behave sensibly, like children when they’re sensible! News of Interest I don’t know if it matters, but Amnesty International has requested that George W. Bush be arrested (outside the USA, I suppose) and tried for torture. This is a positive step, whatever comes of it. Maybe the USA, President Obama included, can be persuaded to back away from their free-and-easy adoption of what certainly look like war-crimes and crimes against humanity, terrorism, etc., by contemplating AI’s praise-worthy action. ----------- [1] Some argue that Iran’s presumed attempt to acquire nuclear weapons makes it an enemy of the USA or of Israel. This is nonsense, if by “enemy” is meant a country which might attack. Iran’s leaders would have to be mad, which they are not, to attack either the USA or Israel with nuclear weapons. Even tiny Israel is equipped with nuclear-weapons-armed submarines which would not be destroyed in any Iranian first strike. Moreover, Iran is a Muslim country which would not, in my opinion, attack Israel with a nuclear weapon with the assured result of damaging the Dome of the Rock, the third holiest site of Islam. Indeed, one wonders what would be the utility of nuclear weapons for Iran or for any state, but that is a different question. As for the danger of Iran’s letting a nuclear weapon “loose” to terrorists, I’d say that that danger is a good deal worse with respect to Pakistan,a much more fragile and unstable country than Iran! ----------- [2] HuffPo/M.J.Rosenberg has another view, Suddenly the struggle to stop Iran is not about saving Israel from nuclear annihilation. After a decade of scare-mongering about the second coming of Nazi Germany, the Iran hawks are admitting that they have other reasons for wanting to take out Iran, and saving Israeli lives may not be one of them. Suddenly the neoconservatives have discovered the concept of truth-telling, although, no doubt, the change will be ephemeral.quoting Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute: The biggest problem for the United States is not Iran getting a nuclear weapon and testing it, it’s Iran getting a nuclear weapon and not using it. Because the second that they have one and they don’t do anything bad, all of the naysayers are going to come back and say, “See, we told you Iran is a responsible power. We told you that Iran wasn’t getting nuclear weapons in order to use them immediately...” And they will eventually define Iran with nuclear weapons as not a problem. |
Comments:
Submit a comment, subject to review:
|
123pab.com | Top
©2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 www.123pab.com |