Iran: A Different Perspective

With news today that "Iran shows no signs of freezing uranium enrichment, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Thursday in a report that opens the way for U.N. Security Council sanctions against Tehran," we have to be ready for the administration and their allies to heighten the war rhetoric in the next month or two. The usual suspects (read: Fox News, Drudge Report) have been laying the groundwork for months. We also know that key Republican leaders in Congress have expressed anger that the intelligence community has not given them a smoking gun to justify action.

I don't know what to make of the Iran situation, I'm no expert, but only the most deluded and/or trigger-happy crowd would believe that our current leadership knows what they're talking about here. The White House is arguing that Iran's defiance of the U.N., as well as their financial backing of Hezbollah's terrorism, makes them "a grave threat" and that "there must be consequences for Iran's defiance" (and other things sounding similar to 2002 speeches on Iraq). Should there be consequences? Sure. Is it time for some Bush-style shock and awe justice? Notsomuch.

In terms of our foreign policy, this crowd has gotten everything wrong and now they're using a mix of fear and a 'trust us' argument to try and sell another war that seems very suspiciously timed (and would likely be as ill-planned and executed as the current two). And considering those in the conservative base advocating this war lean toward a 'Hulk Smash!' approach ("wipe them out"), I don't think anything short of WWIII will satisfy them.

So with that said, I think it's important to look at the other side of all this, since the media will likely once again side with the neocons as the road to war heats up. Don't wanna appear biased now! Blogger Matthew Yglesias wrote a good piece on Talking Points Memo this week and, since he says it better than I can, I'll just quote him at length-

...[Y]ou would [expect that Teheran would feel like a garrison town] if you've been following the media's dubious, highly-spun coverage of the issue. But you wouldn't if you asked yourself some basic questions. For example, if Iran is preparing to mount a Hitler-style bid for world domination they must be engaged in a big military build-up, right? But there is no such build up. Maybe there's no need for a build-up because the Iranian military is already so vast and mighty? Well, no. Iran has a defense budget of about $6 billion a year.

...Lets compare our would-be regional hegemon to its neighbors. Well, Israel spends $9.6 billion and Saudi Arabia spends $25.2 billion. Pakistan, immediately adjacent to Iran and nuclear armed, actually has engaged in a recent defense buildup. What kind of quest for hegemony is Iran supposed to be on? Ignorant American pundits and television personalities may be unaware of these facts, but surely Iranian military and intelligence officials have noticed that Iran has no capacity whatsoever to conquer the region.

Meanwhile, the freaky and unpredictable Iranian regime has actually been in power for a very long time. Since before I was born. The regime is not only long-entrenched, but quite corrupt. Mightn't this lead you think it's being run by reasonably comfortable men who enjoy the fruits of power, intend to stay in power, and know a thing or two about maintaining their power rather than by irrational lunatics who've been waiting in the wings for 27 years preparing to spring their bid for world domination upon us without first having acquired so much as a single modern tank?

And then there's the small matter that our purported would-be Hitlers in Teheran were trying to reach a comprehensive peace agreement with the United States as recently as 2003. Their proposal was rejected by the Bush administration. Not rejected, I remind you, because the Bushies found the details of the proposal inadequate and Teheran refused to compromise further. No! It was rejected without any effort at negotiation because, at the time, the administration was busy threatening to overthrow the government of Iran as the second or third item in an ambitious plan to overthrow every government in the region.

So, here's Iran. Outgunned by its two leading religio-ideological antagonists, Israel and Saudi Arabia, in the region. One immediate neighbor is Pakistan, with a larger population base and a nuclear arsenal. Another immediate neighbor, Afghanistan, is occupied by soldiers under the command of an American president who has spurned peace offers and threatened to overthrow the Iranian government. A second immediate neighbor, Iraq, is occupied by a larger number of soldiers from the same country. The Iranian military's equipment is outdated and essentially incapable of mounting offensive operations. So Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them. Under the circumstances, wouldn't you? Don't you think a little deterrence capability would serve the country well under those circumstances?...

...Of course it would be better to find a way to persuade, cajole, whatever Iran out of going nuclear -- the spread of nuclear weapons is, as such, bad for the USA. But there's no need -- absolutely no need -- for this atmosphere of panic and paranoia.

Note that he's arguing with facts... not the emotional appeal we get from the right.

There's a diplomatic solution to this, if anyone cares to find it. And that may be a big 'if'.

[PS- Neocon all-star Charles Krauthammer really loves those Hitler analogies.]