Wed 9 Jan 2008
Fool us once shame on you (iraq), fool me twice shame on me (iran)
Posted by Mike Biglan under eForeign EffairsWhere the majority rules, the country was fooled the first time. Though many of us were against any preemptive war from the beginning, our country chose differently. We are nearing a similar juncture, part Iraq, part Vietnam. When you can’t get a green flag for war, do two things: (1) get permission to attack if they attack us at any level (2) make it as likely as possible for some attack to occur.
This is the same thing i wrote about five months ago in august. And it referenced that step one was already basically complete.
Step 2 got a little further in the last few days. Iran boats ‘harass’ US Navy. If they had done anything whether sanctioned or not, that likely would have triggered a counterattack, and the start of the Iran war. If we had attacked out of uncertainty, that likely would have triggered the start of the Iran war. With step 1, we already have the permission because the iran revolutionary guard is a terrorist organization.
Lastly Bush talked about the incident today more like a game of chicken than our United States delicate foreign policy.
Bush called the incident “a very dangerous gesture” by Iran and warned the Islamic republic against any escalation.
“We have made it very clear, and they know our position, and that is: There will be serious consequences if they attack our ships, pure and simple.” “My advice to them is: Don’t do it.”
January 9th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Under international law, an unprovoked attack in international waters is a legitimate causus belli. However, I suspect that, if there is a response, it would be limited. There’s no political support for an involved attack on inland targets, and an attack on the nuclear facilities would create more problems than it solves. We should not forget that there are literally tens of thousands of US troops well within range of Iranian naval forces and potentially missiles. It would not be an unreasonable response to attack naval or air base targets in response to an attack.
However, the real question is whether attacks other than disarming attacks would serve a larger purpose. I suspect that they would not. Attacks against targets with civilian casualties would simply give the Iranian government what it wants - a way of cementing themselves in power. “My country, right or wrong” is not an exclusively American sentiment.
January 9th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Thanks for the post Mike, and for your perspective Marty.
Following up on Marty’s line of thinking in the second paragraph, it is true that attacks against Iran that cause civilian casualties would provide the Iranian government with a great excuse to consolidate power further and crack down on civil liberties.
Which is exactly what has been happening at an accelerated pace in the US since 9-11 (beginning well before, of course).
Secondly, it isn’t clear to me that our US government values or prioritizes peace anyway. We’ve debated many times about the profits associated with war. And not just traditional war profiteering (weapons, fuel, scare resources needed for military, etc.) but ways to continue the trend toward greater concentration of wealth in the highest incomes.
So, I think that SOME in our government and businesses stand to gain a great deal by keeping the US in a perpetual state of war.
(But I don’t think it is a vast government conspiracy, but rather a much smaller group, who in outside of, but influence, the government.)