The Folly of Invading Iran

[Emillereid]

by James Bovard, October 17, 2003


Some Bush administration officials and advisors are hankering for another war. To judge from the saber rattling and rumblings coming out of the White House, the next target could be Iran. But invading Iran would be an act of folly that would make the invasion of Iraq look almost prudent by comparison.




Almost no one alleges that Iran poses any threat to the security of the United States. There are no allegations that Iranian naval forces could seize Boston harbor, or that Iranian paratroopers could descend upon Miami, or that an Iranian army could surge across the Rio Grande. Instead, the case against Iran is based almost entirely on distant hypotheticals — and on the notion that the United States needs to completely dominate the Middle East.




Some Bush administration officials are clamoring for U.S. action against Iran. John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security affairs, declared on October 9, regarding an Iranian nuclear reactor, “The threat posed by Iran ... has to be eliminated.”




But Bolton is a poor guide for the case for going war. For many months before the United States invaded Iraq, Bush administration officials assured Americans that Saddam Hussein had vast stores of weapons of mass destruction that posed an immediate threat to Americans. Since the U.S. army captured Baghdad in early April, no WMDs have been found. But Bolton offered a bizarre vindication for a war that killed thousands of Iraqi civilians and cost the lives of hundreds of American soldiers. In a May 24, 2003, speech sponsored by the National Defense University Foundation, Bolton revealed that the war was justified because of Iraqi “intellectual capacity” — because of “the continued existence of what Saddam Hussein called the ‘nuclear mujahadeen,’ the thousand or so scientists, technicians, people who have in their own heads and in their files the intellectual property necessary at an appropriate time ... to recreate a nuclear weapons program.” With this all-inclusive standard, the U.S. government is now justified in attacking any potentially hostile nation that has a university with a good physics department. ...

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0310g.asp

Been reading more and more that the Bushits plan to attack Iran next -- I guess they'll let Israel take care of Syria. Maybe they'll let Israel hit Iran's nuclear facilities and then when Iran hits back, they'll use it as an excuse to go into Iran (since they're so close at hand anyway). I can't decide on the timing though -- will they hit next fall just in time for the election or wait til after. I keep figuring that they're saving the capture/death of Hussein or Osama for the election and then after they win big time they'll figure they have a huge mandate to continue their plan of taking over the whole middle east. If that happens I'm outa here -- anybody know of a good vacant planet?

[realFedUp]

1. No, but I think Grenada is "safe"

:eyes: