By Steve Hynd
I'd like to give a hearty "me too" to Daniel Larison's latest:
For the last several years, American politicians and pundits have been engaged in a prolonged public discussion over whether and how to best launch an unprovoked attack on Iran on the still-unproven assumption that it is in the process of developing nuclear weapons. Whether or not they support an attack, most speak and write about the issue as though the U.S. and Israel obviously have every right to start a war with Iran if they so desire. On the whole, the main questions Americans ask about attacking Iran are technical (can it be done?) and political (will it happen?), as if it were already taken for granted that it is the right thing to do. Clearly, our political/media class has not yet learned enough from the Iraq war debacle to correct one of its most glaring flaws -- the presumption and arrogance that the U.S. and its allies are free to take military action whenever we perceive potential threats.
Once again, we have the spectacle of the world�s superpower and its allies considering starting a war against a vastly weaker opponent that may or may not be building a handful of weapons that the former have in abundance. Goldberg�s article refers at one point to �counterproliferation by force� when there is no solid evidence that any proliferation of nuclear weapons is taking place at all. As it was in the year before the invasion of Iraq, we continue to treat the significantly weaker state as the irrational aggressor that must be stopped. Meanwhile, we calmly ponder how the U.S. or Israel will launch aerial sneak attacks.
Iran says it wants a "Japan Option" - the capacity to create a weapon without actually ever doing so, an essentially defensive stance. The IAEA's former chief says Iran wants the "Japan Option". The consensus of 16 US intelligence agencies is that Iran wants the "Japan Option". Can we please consider what Iran wants a settled question?
And, since it should be a settled question, so should the question of attacking Iran. Larison again:
Preventive war is nothing other than wanton aggression, and the governments that wage such wars are committing grave crimes.
Which brings me neatly to Andrew Bacevich on Iraq....
No comments:
Post a Comment