SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
The risk of war with Iran has increased.
The US
rejection of the nuclear swap arranged by Brazil and Turkey, the recent
arrival
of Israeli and American nuclear armed submarines in the Persian Gulf,
Obama's
exclusion of Iran from previous agreements that nuclear states would not
use
nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states, the impending doubling of US
carrier
task forces in the Gulf, and the upgrading of an U.S. airbase in
Afghanistan 30
km from the Iranian border -- all signal or increase the likelihood of an
intentional or unintentional clash.
In addition, Israeli officials have said
that if
there was no progress in stopping Iran's uranium enrichment by this
summer or
fall, they would consider an attack. Since hardly a single Iran expert
expects
sanctions to stop Iran from enriching uranium, this redline moment is
bound to
arrive unless cooler heads prevail. The failure of the President or
Congress to
back an impartial UN investigation of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla events,
assures
Israel that the US would likewise treat an attack on Iran as
"self-defense".
There is almost no media discussion of
the
inevitability of US forces being involved in the aftermath of an Israeli
attack,
or the price in lives and treasure we would pay (this raises a seemingly
taboo
subject, that Israel's and the United States' interests are not
necessarily
always identical). Lastly, Congress may well pass legislation which
would cut
gasoline supplies to Iran -- hurting civilians, forcing reformist
Iranians to
unite with the hardliners, and further increasing tensions.
How did we arrive at this tinderbox
moment? Whether
the risk of a disastrous war is 10% or 40%, what can we do to
de-escalate and
still move toward the goal of preventing Iran from developing a nuclear
weapon?
As in the run-up to the Iraq war, the
American
mainstream media persist in presenting one "common wisdom" view about
Iran,
regardless of the real facts and options. As a result, most Americans do
not
know:
sanctions, war, deterrence, or acceptance of an Iranian nuclear
weapon;
Afghanistan, which could save American and civilian lives and reduce
our
expenditures, if only there could be a nuclear agreement as well,
and
Perhaps the most important lasting
solution, which
might well have other benefits in the realm of peace-building, would be
the
establishment of a nuclear weapons-free, indeed a weapons of mass
destruction-free, zone in the Middle East. Israel's unacknowledged
nuclear
arsenal of at least 200 warheads will likely not be disposed in any
other, less
comprehensive fashion. While we advocate the global elimination of
nuclear
weapons, ridding one of the world's most troubled regions of the world's
worst
weapons should be an urgent, near-term priority. The consensus report
from last
month's Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference called for a
conference on a Middle East Nuclear Weapons Free Zone to be held in
2012. The
U.S. complained, and Israel was mum, as it is not a party to the treaty,
but
both countries should seize the opportunity presented by this call,
rather than
continue to block progress toward this long-sought goal.
Here's what we can do to prevent a
disastrous war
with Iran, and still respect the security interests of all parties:
Political revenge. Mass deportations. Project 2025. Unfathomable corruption. Attacks on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Pardons for insurrectionists. An all-out assault on democracy. Republicans in Congress are scrambling to give Trump broad new powers to strip the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit he doesn’t like by declaring it a “terrorist-supporting organization.” Trump has already begun filing lawsuits against news outlets that criticize him. At Common Dreams, we won’t back down, but we must get ready for whatever Trump and his thugs throw at us. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. By donating today, please help us fight the dangers of a second Trump presidency. |
The risk of war with Iran has increased.
The US
rejection of the nuclear swap arranged by Brazil and Turkey, the recent
arrival
of Israeli and American nuclear armed submarines in the Persian Gulf,
Obama's
exclusion of Iran from previous agreements that nuclear states would not
use
nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states, the impending doubling of US
carrier
task forces in the Gulf, and the upgrading of an U.S. airbase in
Afghanistan 30
km from the Iranian border -- all signal or increase the likelihood of an
intentional or unintentional clash.
In addition, Israeli officials have said
that if
there was no progress in stopping Iran's uranium enrichment by this
summer or
fall, they would consider an attack. Since hardly a single Iran expert
expects
sanctions to stop Iran from enriching uranium, this redline moment is
bound to
arrive unless cooler heads prevail. The failure of the President or
Congress to
back an impartial UN investigation of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla events,
assures
Israel that the US would likewise treat an attack on Iran as
"self-defense".
There is almost no media discussion of
the
inevitability of US forces being involved in the aftermath of an Israeli
attack,
or the price in lives and treasure we would pay (this raises a seemingly
taboo
subject, that Israel's and the United States' interests are not
necessarily
always identical). Lastly, Congress may well pass legislation which
would cut
gasoline supplies to Iran -- hurting civilians, forcing reformist
Iranians to
unite with the hardliners, and further increasing tensions.
How did we arrive at this tinderbox
moment? Whether
the risk of a disastrous war is 10% or 40%, what can we do to
de-escalate and
still move toward the goal of preventing Iran from developing a nuclear
weapon?
As in the run-up to the Iraq war, the
American
mainstream media persist in presenting one "common wisdom" view about
Iran,
regardless of the real facts and options. As a result, most Americans do
not
know:
sanctions, war, deterrence, or acceptance of an Iranian nuclear
weapon;
Afghanistan, which could save American and civilian lives and reduce
our
expenditures, if only there could be a nuclear agreement as well,
and
Perhaps the most important lasting
solution, which
might well have other benefits in the realm of peace-building, would be
the
establishment of a nuclear weapons-free, indeed a weapons of mass
destruction-free, zone in the Middle East. Israel's unacknowledged
nuclear
arsenal of at least 200 warheads will likely not be disposed in any
other, less
comprehensive fashion. While we advocate the global elimination of
nuclear
weapons, ridding one of the world's most troubled regions of the world's
worst
weapons should be an urgent, near-term priority. The consensus report
from last
month's Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference called for a
conference on a Middle East Nuclear Weapons Free Zone to be held in
2012. The
U.S. complained, and Israel was mum, as it is not a party to the treaty,
but
both countries should seize the opportunity presented by this call,
rather than
continue to block progress toward this long-sought goal.
Here's what we can do to prevent a
disastrous war
with Iran, and still respect the security interests of all parties:
The risk of war with Iran has increased.
The US
rejection of the nuclear swap arranged by Brazil and Turkey, the recent
arrival
of Israeli and American nuclear armed submarines in the Persian Gulf,
Obama's
exclusion of Iran from previous agreements that nuclear states would not
use
nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states, the impending doubling of US
carrier
task forces in the Gulf, and the upgrading of an U.S. airbase in
Afghanistan 30
km from the Iranian border -- all signal or increase the likelihood of an
intentional or unintentional clash.
In addition, Israeli officials have said
that if
there was no progress in stopping Iran's uranium enrichment by this
summer or
fall, they would consider an attack. Since hardly a single Iran expert
expects
sanctions to stop Iran from enriching uranium, this redline moment is
bound to
arrive unless cooler heads prevail. The failure of the President or
Congress to
back an impartial UN investigation of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla events,
assures
Israel that the US would likewise treat an attack on Iran as
"self-defense".
There is almost no media discussion of
the
inevitability of US forces being involved in the aftermath of an Israeli
attack,
or the price in lives and treasure we would pay (this raises a seemingly
taboo
subject, that Israel's and the United States' interests are not
necessarily
always identical). Lastly, Congress may well pass legislation which
would cut
gasoline supplies to Iran -- hurting civilians, forcing reformist
Iranians to
unite with the hardliners, and further increasing tensions.
How did we arrive at this tinderbox
moment? Whether
the risk of a disastrous war is 10% or 40%, what can we do to
de-escalate and
still move toward the goal of preventing Iran from developing a nuclear
weapon?
As in the run-up to the Iraq war, the
American
mainstream media persist in presenting one "common wisdom" view about
Iran,
regardless of the real facts and options. As a result, most Americans do
not
know:
sanctions, war, deterrence, or acceptance of an Iranian nuclear
weapon;
Afghanistan, which could save American and civilian lives and reduce
our
expenditures, if only there could be a nuclear agreement as well,
and
Perhaps the most important lasting
solution, which
might well have other benefits in the realm of peace-building, would be
the
establishment of a nuclear weapons-free, indeed a weapons of mass
destruction-free, zone in the Middle East. Israel's unacknowledged
nuclear
arsenal of at least 200 warheads will likely not be disposed in any
other, less
comprehensive fashion. While we advocate the global elimination of
nuclear
weapons, ridding one of the world's most troubled regions of the world's
worst
weapons should be an urgent, near-term priority. The consensus report
from last
month's Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference called for a
conference on a Middle East Nuclear Weapons Free Zone to be held in
2012. The
U.S. complained, and Israel was mum, as it is not a party to the treaty,
but
both countries should seize the opportunity presented by this call,
rather than
continue to block progress toward this long-sought goal.
Here's what we can do to prevent a
disastrous war
with Iran, and still respect the security interests of all parties: