Glenn Greenwald wrote recently of the extraordinarily limited media debate on Iran, which seems to consist of U.S. and Israeli officials making threats–attack now or attack later–alongside clinical discussions of the difficulties of bombing Iran. There is plenty missing–actual Iranians talking about what war would mean in human terms, legal experts discussing how preventive war (or even the threat of one) violates international law, and so on.
Today’s New York Times editorial (3/6/12) offers another illustration of just how limited this media discussion is. The paper states:
Iran’s nuclear appetites are undeniable, as is its malign intent toward Israel, toward America, toward its Arab neighbors and its own people.
That rhetoric is indistinguishable from what you might hear from anyone who advocates bombing Iran. It’s also wildly misleading, since the assumption here is that Iran is pursuing a weapon, an assertion that is not yet backed by any evidence. So what makes the liberal Times different from, say, Newt Gingrich? They believe bombing would be difficult:
Still, there must be no illusions about what it would take to seriously damage Iran’s nuclear complex, the high costs and the limited returns.
This would not be a “surgical” strike like the Israeli attack in 1981 that destroyed Iraq’s Osirak reactor, or the 2007 Israeli strike on an unfinished reactor in Syria. Iran has multiple facilities, and the crucial ones are buried or “hardened.” Pentagon analysts estimate that even a sustained Israeli air campaign would set back the program by only a few years, drive it further underground and possibly unleash a wider war.
This would seem to illustrate what you might call the “liberal” position in the corporate media’s Iran debate: There is a hateful, nuke-seeking country in our midst, but attacking them would be very difficult.
It reminds me of the Time magazine debate (10/14/02) on the eve of the Iraq War, which consisted of dueling opinion pieces : Wesley Clark’s “Let’s Wait to Attack” was the dove, opposed by a more hawkish article by Kenneth Adelman headlined, “No, Let’s Not Waste Any Time.”
Why is the US at perpetual war? When the war against communism ended there seemed to be a rush to find someone else – war against drugs, war against terrorism, war against the middle east, war against China or N. Korea. Why do we have to be at perpetual war? Shouldn’t the most powerful nation be strong enough to END perpetual war, not continue it endlessly? Today the media is talking about cyber war. Add that to the list of perpetual wars that can never be resolved. This leads more and more to the ideas from George Orwell’s 1984 Ministry of Peace that is always at war, and ministry of Truth that always tells lies. Frighteningly relevant and Orwellian.
For some inexplicable reason we seem to always have to have an enemy? When communism fell we jumped to find a new threat. the real news should be, why does America, the strongest nation in the world, always have to be afraid – and live at war fear level?
War doesn’t help our country, it saps our resources and kills our young people. The benefits of these endless wars in no way compares with the cost. Those who want war are against the country they say they are trying to protec
You can´t have it both ways; if violence is an acceptable way to settle international problems it is also an acceptable way to settle domestic problems. – Richard Rohr.
“Why is the US at perpetual war?” – who benefits? Follow the money, you’ll find the answer.
Hawks and doves, at least the respectable commentators, have staked out these same positions going back at least to Vietnam, per Chomsky. The hawks said “continue bombing until we get what we want.” The doves said “it’s become too costly.” Respectable commentators never disagree on the nobility of the mission, the good will and defensive posture of the attackers. There is never any concern about legality, or more importantly, the victims of the aggression. This is nothing new, and exactly what I would have predicted from the administration of the current criminal-in-chief, when I heard him on the Charlie Rose show a few years ago saying (paraphrased here) “If I’m elected, we will not learn from the past, we’re just going to put all those devisive issues behind us so we can do the same damn things over and over again.” I came to the same conclusion about him as the great majority of my peers have, I just did it a few years earlier. The question remains the same “What can we do about the situation?” Because we’re not going to get any help from the sky gods or their earthly representatives on this one, or anything else.
to me it’s simple. as long as ‘the american people” allow the powers that be to continue their war-mongering ways, more millions of lives will be destroyed. we used to have a saying back in the day “organize and fight to destroy the monster that is america”
A little ray of truth surfaced on the 9th of March on NPR’s Morning Edition,as former CIA official Paul Pillar, now with George Washington University, was interviewed by Steve Inskeep and laid out the case against attacking Iran, both as ill considered and unjustified. He was cogent and presented the relevant countervailing facts extremely well.
I was born and raised in Iran. I feel so isolated with my anti-war beliefs even among fellow Iranian family and friends. It gives me a warm feeling to read you guys’ comments. I start believing that there are still decent human beings left in the US. You guys should be proud of yourselves. You have been bombarded by the most sophisticated propaganda and brainwash regime in history all your lives and can still see clearly through the obfuscation and the slight of hand. Kudos.
Hey, Free Spirit, you’re welcome to visit friend me on my Facebook site, which is 99% political commentary, and 1% comments to various family members. There, you will read the comments of many Southerners, a surprising number of whom are tired of US’ reflexive support of all things Israeli and want to see the US adopt a balanced approached to Mideast problems. You might be surprised at the depth of opposition to a US war with Iran. Have a great day, Free spirit. The Facebook Site is under the name “John Wolfe”. Add “Chattanooga” if at first you get too many wolves.
Last week, Israel’s prime minister, spook-terrorist Benji Netanyahu (Bibi), dedicated his entire speech at the Israel Lobby Conference 2012 in Washington DC against the Islamic Republic. He did not mention any other anti-Israel neighbors, Syria or Palestine, not even once. Bibi used Holocaust-Auschwitz-Nazis analogy to fool American public and urged Obama to attack Iran immediately. Watch AIPAC speech spoof from Bibi’s official Facebook page below.
Some of Jewish leaders’ reaction to Netanyahu Iran-Auschwitz analogy.
â┚¬Ã…“I don’t like his repeated comparisons with the Holocaust. Israel is not Auschwitz,â┚¬Ã‚ Tzipi Livni, Israeli opposition leader (The Jerusalem Post).
â┚¬Ã…“Israel is not about to be destroyed. Not every enemy is Hitler and not every problem is Auschwitz. With his crazy analogies, the prime minister is diverting attention from Iran to his fear-mongering,â┚¬Ã‚ said Zehava Gal-On, leader of Meretz Party.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2012/03/10/israeli-leaders-slam-bibi-for-iran-auschwitz-analogy/
The U.S. is the wealthiest nation on the planet, and it has the mightiest military.
Not a coincidence – for 5000 years, stronger nations have used this advantage to accumulate wealth…
Given that post WWII U.S. designed most of the UN – and houses the UN Headquarters in NYC – it had to come up with increasingly convoluted cover stories every decade to “justify” attacking and threatening small nations that stood in the way of some goal or another.
Voila – the “they are working on nukes” loophole. The UN Charter is pretty clear about the circumstances under which it is OK to invade another nation, and the US couldn’t get those in 2003, even with spying on the other countries in the Security Council (oh wait, did the corporate media forget to trumpet that whole episode in the lead up to the illegal Iraq invastion ?)
Now, with Iran following not only the letter of the law in the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), but also agreeing to voluntarily suspending uranium enrichment for many years after 2003 (not that the corporate media mentions that anymore…), the NEW “loophole” is “we SUSPECT this country is very close to DEVELOPING nuclear weapons CAPABILITY”. So now, scientific and engineering know-how is enough justification for an illegal invasion – because hey, WHAT IF, someday, maybe soon …
Remember, in 50 years when China is the unquestioned economic/military superpower of the planet, and Iran is a close ally, all this cr@p will come back to haunt the impoverished descendants of the present arrogant ‘national security state’ elites – and the rest of Americans.
They question is not whether Iran is developing nuclear weapons, rather, why not? Why should US, Israel, India, and Pakistan have nuclear weapons? These countries have acted far more crazy than Iran has, with the US being the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons. This is the pinnacle of hypocrisy!
Prepare to be lectured here, FreeSpirit, sooner or later, by certain trolls. Ignore them. Please. Your perceptions about the depth of skepticism involving Israel/Iran is correct. Unfortunately, many of us in the US will wake up one day, maybe soon, and find our country at war. Again. With another “middle east” country that’s done nothing to us to even remotely call for war. And many of us will go, “Huh? Who? Now what?” There is abundant evidence that Israel’s leaders are irrational, paranoid, and maybe even bonifide crazy. Witness Netanyahu’s “gift” to the president–a sly, childish and provactive statement on his lunatic desire to start a major war with Iran, with the US backing up Israel 100 percent of the way.
P.S.: You know, Ashurbanipal, Glenn Greenwald has said that the USA violates international law by even threatening Iran with war. He’s right, and of course, Israel’s threats are illegal as well. Yet we’re supposed to just take this like it’s perfectly well within the bounds of what’s right and just. And the Iranians are supposed to just deal with this lawlessness like it’s their fault.
Tim….Do you believe the threats made by the leaders of Iran?Or is it just a comedy team that is lost in the translation?
Iran is now being accused of collaboration with the syrian leaders war against his populace.