Tamping the Flames of War With Iran
WASHINGTON — L. Bruce Laingen was working as a senior U.S. Foreign Service officer in Tehran in 1979 when student protesters — caught up in the fervor of Iran’s Islamic Revolution — seized the U.S. embassy and irrevocably changed the course of relations between the two nations.
Laingen and 51 other U.S. diplomats endured 444 days in captivity until their release on Jan. 20, 1981. On that day, as he prepared to board the Algerian airliner that would finally take him to freedom, the U.S. charge d’affaires turned to one of his Iranian captors and said, “I look forward to the day your country and mine can have a normal diplomatic relationship.”
Next Sunday will mark 28 years exactly since the U.S. cut off diplomatic, business, and military ties with Iran in response to the hostage crisis. At a discussion sponsored by the Center for Global Justice and Reconciliation at Washington’s National Cathedral on Monday, panelists engaged in a sobering debate rarely seen on the U.S. broadcast news outlets or, it seems, in the halls of Congress and the White House.
And the current stakes, they agreed, could not be any higher.
The rhetoric has reached a noxious fever pitch: Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s bewildering Holocaust denial mixed with President George W. Bush’s warnings of an impending “World War III” should Iran acquire the means to develop nuclear weapons.
Citing the “poison rhetoric and policy paralysis that have characterized conduct of both countries,” Laingen said: “We can all agree that the wall of mistrust is damn high. It will be difficult to remove.”
Against the backdrop of U.S. failures in Iraq, Washington’s bellicosity towards Iran has intensified. The Bush administration last week imposed the most sweeping set of unilateral sanctions on Iran since 1979, and proceeded with its controversial decision to brand the Quds unit of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps as a “terrorist organization” for its alleged proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the Quds Force’s alleged support of “terrorism” in Iraq.
“The label of the word terrorist is so devoid of meaning now, it’s hypocritical,” said Stephen Kinzer, a former New York Times bureau chief and author of the book “All the Shah’s Men“, about the 1953 Central Intelligence Agency-backed coup d’etat to oust democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq.
“First we find groups around the world we don’t like, then we find ways to label them as terrorists,” he said, and referred the U.S.’s double-standard with regard to two Kurdish separatist groups that, on either side of Iraq’s borders, attack Turkish and Iranian troops.
“One [the Kurdish Workers Party] is a terrorist, the other [Party for Free Life in Kurdistan] receives support from us,” he said.
Bush’s hard line has also drawn criticism from presumed international allies, such as Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, who likened Washington’s recent sanctions to “mad people wielding razor blades.” Russia occupies a seat on the U.N. Security Council and maintains military and economic relations with Iran. Tehran remains defiant in the face of Washington’s pressure to monitor its nuclear program, a process that Washington alleges would give the Iranians the technology to develop nuclear arms.
Analysts on Monday night said the current tensions underscore Washington’s continued inability to understand Iran, its history, culture, the aspirations of its citizens, and the effects of the U.S.’s ill-fated policies on the overall psyche of Iranians.
“There is a fundamental sympathy for democracy [in Iran] … Iranians have a democratic consciousness that is unique in the Middle East,” said Kinzer.
“Had it not been for the fact that the democratic government came to power in the 1950s, and became obsessed with the great project of nationalizing the Iranian oil reserves, there wouldn’t be a 1953,” said Kinzer. “Had we [U.S.] not overthrown the Mossadeq government in 1953, we might have had a thriving democracy in the heart of the Middle East for these past 50 years.”
The CIA-backed coup, code-named Operation Ajaz, was carried out during President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s tenure and was supported by Britain. Using widespread bribery, the CIA overthrew Mossadeq and his cabinet and re-installed Iran’s unpopular pro-U.S. dictator, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
And had it not been for Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s 1981 invasion of Iran (and U.S. support for that invasion), the mullahs may not have been able to consolidate their political power, according to Iran specialist Trita Parsi.
“Khomeini survived, not in spite of, but because of the Iraqi invasion,” said Parsi. “War with Iran would result in Iranians rallying around the flag than on turning away. The government would be strengthened instead of toppled. The Iranian nuclear program would most likely accelerate than be destroyed.”
Kinzer also criticized the U.S. mainstream press, which he argued, “has played a very shameful role in helping to fan the flames of war, just as we did in Iraq.”
“We truly have failed because we have always presented the problems with the U.S. and Iran through the official U.S. paradigm,” said Kinzer. “This is a classic failure of the press, which is why people so easily leap to support policies that are fundamentally against our own country.”
And then, there are the missed opportunities: the 2003 memorandum signed by Ayatollah Khamenei, a grand bargain in which the Iranians agreed to open the nuclear issue for full transparency, offered to stop support of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, agreed to make Hezbollah a political party (i.e. disarm the militia group), and promised to help support an Iraqi government that was not sectarian. The offer was presented to the White House by former Congressman Bob Ney several weeks after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, but was ignored.
“The Iranians profess this offer doesn’t exist. It’s a prime example of missed opportunities and policy paralysis that can so easily set in,” said Langain.
The evening’s moderator, Republican Congressman Wayne Gilchrest, also offered his perspective: “For the Senate or House [of Representatives] to ramp up the rhetoric on the Revolutionary Guard as being terrorists, or insurgents, or rebels, only reduces the ability of that mistrust to subside,” he said.
“It’s beyond time for us to negotiate with Iranians. It’s time for old men to talk, before they send young men to die.”
© 2007 The Inter Press Service
I’m afraid a lot of young men, old men, women and children WILL die - in Iran. They will be mudered by the U.S. in a preemptive and illegal set of air strikes supported by 52% of the U.S. population.
I hope I am dead wrong!!
( the 52% figure comes from poll results annonced Monday)
Don’t get discouraged by the Zogby poll and the 52%. You have to look at how the question was framed before you get depressed with the results.
This piece was very well presented and framed. It helped me to connect the dots. It might not be a bad idea to send this off to ALL our congress critters. They need an informed point of reference BEFORE the US starts dropping bombs.
Peace
Most polls are Bushit. You can get any answer you want by framing the question.
Question: If Iran has ICMB’s that can reach American cities and is in the process of arming them with nuclear weapons and their president has announced that he is going to attack with them, should we attack Iran? Yes____ No______ Undecided_______
UP, IP, and WeP headlines: Overwhelming support for preemptive attack on Iran!
We rarely read the phrasing when we get poll results. The above would probably say, “A poll was conducted on whether we should go to war with Iran.”
Question: Iran has a three century history of nonaggression; International and UN bodies have found no evidence of a nuclear weapons development program. No actual evidence has been found of organized supplying of resistance forces in Iraq with weapons. Bush is looking for a way to distract the people away from the Iraq debacle and wants to nuke Iran. Should he do it? Yes___ No____ Undecided______
You would never see the results of that poll on the news.
Bush will attack Iran. He has no choice now. And the media oligarchy has prepared the ground. Get ready for suspended elections and martial law.
AmeriKKKa the real threat to world peace & stability
Iran is allowed to exploit nuclear power under article VI of the non-proliferation treaty.
The United States is in criminal violation of that treaty by constructing nuclear “bunker buster” weapons and threatening to attack Iran with nuclear weapons.
A crime against peace, in international law, refers to the act of military invasion as a war crime, specifically referring to starting or waging war against the integrity, independence, or sovereignty of a territory or state, or else a military violation of relevant international treaties, agreements or legally binding assurances.
A crime against peace is a war crime. The bush adminstration waged a war of aggression against Afghanistan. They waged another war of aggression against Iraq. These are both Crimes against peace, war crimes, and are punishable in the International Court of The Hague. I am certain that within the upcoming years, there will be another “Nuremburg Trial” and the United States will have it’s dirty laundry aired out on the national stage. What an embarassment!
Adolf Hitler waged the same types of wars of aggression. Germany attacked Poland, Italy, and Russia in violation of duly signed international treaties.
These wars will never cease until the international community realizes what is going on and decides to bring it to a stop.
Heaven help us all, if this criminal cabal manges to have their way again. This article goes a very long way in explaining to me how certain imperialistic elements have been running our foreign policy for decades, maybe forever. If this article can be published still, surely we can assume that our elected representatives are fully aware of these very coghent arguments for restraint. One has to wonder if utter chaos is precisely what is intended for whatever dark and sinister reasons. Presumably power/money concentrated in a very few hands. Can the country and the world awaken to defeat this hydra-headed monster in time?
There are parallels with 9/11, Reichstag Fire (Wikipedia) and Bush/Hitler’s relationship with the church
http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm
The ceaseless repetition of the same lies repeats Goebel’s techniques. The erosion of the constitution and huge amount spent spying on US citizens…
The Crawford Tapes in which Bush admits he could have bought off Hussein. The delusional feeling of certainty despite facts this all indicates the same feeling of destiny that drove other homicidal maniacs. Hilary said on the debates she wanted action immediately to restrict the President’s actions on Iran. This should be done today like she said immediately indeed there are real concerns about his sanity as Kucinich has said. The effects of cocaine can induce feelings of invincibility and auditory hallucinations (god talking). He seems to be drinking again. Introduce legislation immediately to prevent the attack on Iraq, demand drug tests and start impeaching both of them. We ask why the Germans did not stop Hitler why are American’s
http://peacesource.net
Satire at
http://peacesource.net/blog
http://peacesource.net/blog.html
Social networking at http://peacesourcenet.ning.com/
http://www.youtube.com/group/peacesource
There is a reason the military are dragging their feet and do not want bombing in Iran.
They know that there are 900,000 soldiers in iran and any bobms will not kill them all and they will fan out and stop the supply line from Basra to baghdad and they will cause a lot of trouble in Afghanistan too.
Meanwhile the Mucharef government in Pakistan is very weak and hey do have the bomb. They also have the Taliban and Osama right there and we all know that Osama is more likely to abuse the bomb than Amahdinijad.
So why all this trash talk about WW3 as the new York times describes? Probably because the Israelis are scared about that hollocaust denier and think that this issue is more critical than pakistans bomb being stolen from them.
These Israelis are dumb: they attacked Lebanon in 2006 and that will be regretted. Condi Rice never stopped it. These are dumb moves. We have stupid people in office. They are incompetent and we must impeach for about 10 reasons- lets roll.
I’d like to see the poll results on a pre-emptive strike on Iran when the likely impact on the price of oil and gasoline was factored into the equation. Pollsters should phrase the question something like this:
Would you favor a strike against Iran if it resulted in a $4/gallon increase at the gas pump?
I’m guessing only 5% of Americans would continue to be in favor.
Why do you suppose no Dem candidates have raised this point?
I still believe Iran is being set-up as a ‘red-herring’ and no actual US/Israel ‘attack’ is imminent. [To think otherwise is the same as assuming that ‘those in-charge’ during the ColdWar would really want to attack/defeat the USSR — in-fact, their saddest-day was when the USSR ‘quit playing ball’].
Those who have drank-too-deeply of the neo-Con kool-aid would, of course, love to see such an attack — but it would NOT serve the actual ‘Interests’ at-play here…not Israeli, not the US, not Russia’s/China’s, not the multi-nationals — no one’s.
After the ColdWar, these Interests had the remarkably-difficult challenge of continuing their ideological/militaristic/Geo-political/Globalist-pursuits of-and-for Control&Wealth — without any credible ‘enemy’ to justify the excesses/’sacrifices’/acquiescence of their ‘host-citizens’ (who enable/pay for it all). Zionism offered the ‘excuse’ as well as the supposed ‘Enemy’, as planned-for — as far back as the late 19th-century. Short of a False-Flag ‘attack from Aliens’, the so-called Global War on Terror was an ideal ‘Casus Belli’ and Rationale for these varied ‘Interests’. Some entity (other than a tall-nutcase living in an unknown-cave while strapped to a dialysis-machine) is going to be an absolute-requirement for continuing on this expensive-Path. Iran is best-positioned to serve that continuing-Role.
Compare the Project for a New American Century objectives with the accomplishments of the Busheviks - then think about 9/11.
As I recall, there was talk of recalling Bush on 9/10.
Metamorph makes good connections.
“Bush will attack Iran. He has no choice now. And the media oligarchy has prepared the ground. Get ready for suspended elections and martial law.”
No way they’ll suspend the elections. As much as Bush and friends don’t want to leave, I think even the most ignorant American would be against more Bush crusades. Bush is simply not in everyones mind anymore of a good leader. The Neocon’s can have their fun with Guilianni and continue their war company machines.
Bush may-not attack Iran — but almost-certainly will attack ’someone’ before elections (and the elections will certainly take-place — the majority of Dems will use GWoT and the ‘terrible-Threat’ of Iran to continue the process/project abroad for American-Interests, and are uniquely-able to reverse Domestic ‘progressive-gains’ (as did Clinton re: welfare, NAFTA, killing-on-vine true single-payer health-care, etc.). The next President/Congress will be Dem’s — so as to target the Sacred-Cows [like SocSec and MedicAid] that GOP’s can’t achieve directly.
Syria/S.Lebanon are ‘likely candidates’, while the world’s attentions are focused on “saving Iran”. [Unless circumstances change soon, regards Turkey/Kurds and/or mid-Caspian ‘targeting’ — or interventions in that-area by China/Russia dictate a military-response in thwarting-development there]
Bush has to drum up the fears of another war because he has failed miserably safeguarding America. At this moment Georgia is running out of water, the leevies need attending in the Gulf states, our infrastructure is crumbling, and ad infin. This joke of a President has totally ignored America’s problems and has taken the stance to make his administsration all about “terrorism” and “war”. With all news bent on drumming up war with Iran, he is able to avoid questions about his failure as a President who first looks after his Nation. Bush should have been impeached years ago and his power just keeps on building and our news is blocked.