Why we went to war with Iran: Tales from the future
June 17, 2007 | Filed Under 00Publius Contributor, Democrats/Leftists, Islam, Islamofascism, Media Bias, Military, Security/Safety, Society/Culture, Uncategorized, War on Terror, Warner Todd Huston | 3 Comments
Here is a great editorial from a paper called the Daily Inter Lake explaining (as if it were an editorial written 5 years from now) on why we will end up in a nuclear war with Iran around “2012.” The author, Frank Miele, gives us a great probable explanation of why a nuclear war with Iran is destined to occur.
Why we went to war with Iran: Tales from the future
Probably some people think the reason we went to war against Iran is because they dropped several nuclear bombs on Israel in 2012.
That makes sense in a simple, straight-forward cause and effect universe. When President Ahmadinejad finally made good on his promise to obliterate Israel, what choice did we have?
It was either attack Iran or wait for the next strike, this time against the United States.
But what most people don’t remember is that there was a good chance to use non-military intervention in Iran before Ahmadinejad had solidified his power base and before he controlled the nuclear technology that he eventually unleashed on the world.
Indeed, back in 2007, the Bush administration had engaged in a classic political war against the tyrant by beginning to encourage his country’s oppressed millions to weigh the cost in human dignity, economic stability and intellectual freedom of living in the shadow of a madman.
This involved the typical three-pronged approach of all such destabilization efforts:
1) a propaganda campaign to counter the government-approved media with stories that expose government lies, honor government victims and inspire government opposition;
2) the cultivation of sources in the media in Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East to run negative stories about the regime, in order to encourage a groundswell of opposition; and
3) the use of international forces responsive to the United States to manipulate Iran’s currency and weaken the Iranian economy in order to provoke dissatisfaction and eventually rebellion.
Of course, such measures are only undertaken as a last resort to avoid confrontation and war, and the Bush administration clearly did not want another war after its disastrous entry into Iraq four years before.
Likewise, the Democrats were theoretically eager to avoid another war — one which was widely understood to have the potential to be much more deadly than the U.S.-Iraq War — so there were reasons to hope that a united national policy would indeed destabilize the Ahmadinejad government before it acquired nuclear weapons and became a world threat.
Unfortunately, what no one counted on was Brian Ross, and the toll that naked ambition charges to innocent bystanders when they cross the bridge from ignorance to knowledge.
Ross, you see, was the always unforeseen fly in the ointment. The ABC newsman had learned about the non-military campaign against Iran and reported it to the world as if it were completely just and justified to reveal secret American foreign-policy plans to not only the American public, but to what can only be termed our enemy.
Here is a little of what he said that fateful day back in May 2007:
“Current and former intelligence officials tell ABC News that Mr. Bush has signed an official presidential finding authorizing the CIA to carry out what is known as a black or covert operation against Iran.” He then went on to describe the three-part plan outlined above.
Of course, those of us who know about the history of TV in those days are not surprised that an American reporter would take actions to subvert the foreign policy of his country. And it was one more clear sign of the virtual collapse of American civilization that there was no arrest of Ross, and virtually no public discussion of why treason is a bad thing.
If such a thing had happened 75 years before, there is no doubt that Ross would have been thrown in jail, either under arrest himself as a traitor or to be questioned about the identities of the “current and former intelligence officials” who had betrayed their oath of office.
Ironically, there was another television show being aired in the same era as Brian Ross’s report which offered the perfect formula for how to deal with spies and traitors. It was called “To Catch a Predator,” and featured NBC news reporter Chris Hansen setting up sting operations to trap men who were illegally plotting to have sex with children.
It’s too bad that no network in those days had thought to establish a show called “To Catch a Traitor.” Hansen or some other suave host could have lured “current and former intelligence officials” out of the shadows of their anonymity and into the light of day so that we citizens could watch them spilling their guts about top-secret government policies.
Perhaps if someone had rounded up the criminals in the CIA and other intelligence agencies before Ross got hold of them back in 2007, the country could have avoided a devastating war in which millions lost their lives. Or maybe such a show could have targeted reporters who put their own careers ahead of the good of the country.
Because what Ross seems to not have noticed is that as soon as he reported on a “covert” operation against Iran, it ceased to be covert. And as soon as it ceased to be covert, it ceased to be of any value. The enemy took the necessary steps to avoid destabilization, Ahmadinejad remained in power, and Iran continued to develop nuclear technology.
President Bush certainly could have taken military action against Iran in the final year of his presidency, but he was already weakened politically by attacks on his Iraq policy. So consciously or unconsciously, he opted in 2008 to leave the Iran mess for the next president to deal with.
Probably, the next president could have taken military action in 2009 or early 2010 that would have put Iran on notice that its nuclear ambitions would not be tolerated. But the next president was just as afraid of the media as President Bush was. Instead of military intervention, negotiation was the course of the day.
And that gave Ahmadinejad all the time he needed to complete the manufacture of enriched uranium and weapons-grade plutonium.
Was there an alternative to war?
Yes, but Brian Ross decided not to allow it.
Leave a Comment
If you would like to make a comment, please register to do so. I hate to do that but there are so many spam-bots out there that deleting spam comments would be a full time job if I were to just open it up for anyone without asking them to jump through a few hoops first.
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment. Anyone can register. No registrant's information is kept, used, or sold. CLICK HERE TO REGISTER
Social Networking
Help the Soldiers!
American Genius
Our Founding Ideas- The Declaration of Independence
- The Federalist Papers
- The U.S. Constitution
- Debates of 1787
- The Anti-Federalist Papers
- The Writing of John Locke
"Governments are instituted among men,deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776
Recently Written
Featured Sites
What THEY Say:
Foreign News In English
Illini Alliance
Blogroll
of Thinking
Political Parties
Contact Us
Email Publius' ForumArchives
Links
Other Blogs
MilBlogs
Religion
Gun Rights
Education
Separation of School
from State
Radio Hosts
| Blog: |
| Publius' Forum |
Topics: |
| Politics, News, Commentary |
