Time once again for the highest government officials in the US and UK to keep the pressure on the general public Iran over its purported nuclear weapons program. Yesterday, President Bush and John Bolton took their shots:
WASHINGTON — U.S. President George W. Bush has called Iran an issue of “grave national security concern” but said he wanted a diplomatic solution to the Islamic republic’s nuclear ambitions. […]
“We’re going to press for as vigorous a response in the council as we can get, and hope that gets the Iranians’ attention,” John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., said Thursday.
“This is a test for the council. If the Iranians do not back off from their continued aggressive pursuit of nuclear weapons, we’ll have to make a decision of what the next step will be.”
Ah yes. I remember it well. Didn’t Bush want a “diplomatic solution” to the threat posed by Iraq a few years back? And didn’t the danger posed to the world by Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction pose a test for the UN Security Council? Not that I see any parallels mind you. Just asking.
But wait. There’s more. The British government also had its piece to say about the danger Iran poses to the world. And it’s a lot scarier:
Iran is only months from bomb technology, says Britain
Simon Tisdall and Ian Traynor
Friday March 10, 2006
The GuardianThe west’s confrontation with Iran over its nuclear activities intensified yesterday after Britain claimed that Tehran could acquire the technological capability to build a bomb by the end of the year.
A day after the International Atomic Energy Agency referred the dispute to the United Nations security council, British officials also indicated that London would back Washington’s efforts to impose a UN deadline of about 30 days for Iran’s compliance with international demands.
Until now, European diplomats have referred to a period of five to 10 years during which Iran might potentially build a bomb, while conceding that hard evidence is lacking. By publicly focusing on the level of Iran’s technical capabilities, Britain may have shortened the timeframe for a peaceful resolution of the crisis.
Now, admittedly, it’s nowhere near as scary as claiming Iran could launch an attack with weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes, like Tony Blair did back in September, 2002 regarding Iraq, a claim he was later forced to retract. But there is a sort of perverse symmetry to the manner in which the Bush administration has us slouching toward war with Iran. Once again, Bush administration attack dogs like Vice President Cheney, John Bolton and Condoleeza Rice provide the harsh rhetoric, while Der Leader President Bush gets to speak of “diplomatic efforts” to resolve the situation.
And once again, Tony Blair’s government is being used to make the threat posed by those “crazy Muslims” appear more imminent than anyone else seems to think it is.
Meanwhile, our President has given away the store to India, allowing them to make as many nukes as they wish and effectively fueling a nuclear arms race between them and Pakistan. I need not remind anyone, that Pakistan was the source of the nuclear technology which was surreptiously provided to Libya, North Korea and Iran (that we know of).
Pakistan, the home of Islamic jihadists and the purported hiding place of Osama bin Laden and other Al Qaida and Taliban leaders, is also a state perpetually teetering on the edge of a coup or revolution that could bring supporters of Islamic fundamentalism to power. The new leaders of Pakistan, in the event of a coup or other “regime change,” are likely sympathize far more with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida than they do with the United States and its “War on Terror.”
Yet we are officially more worried with Iran’s nascent uranium enrichment program. One which employs a small number of centrifuges that everyone admits will produce insignificant quantities of highy processed uranium, far, far less than what would be needed to make even one single nuclear bomb.
Let me be clear: I see the potential acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran as very troublesome. Indeed, I see nuclear weapons proliferation to any country, regardless of geography, as a very serious matter. But the threat posed by Iran is not imminent, and does not justify, at this point, a military attack to “resolve the crisis.” As we have learned in Iraq, military solutions to foreign policy concerns are likely to create far more negative consequences for the attacker than positive results. Can anyone foresee all of the consequences that would result from a military attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities? Can anyone rule out the potential for a much larger conflict, possibly even a global war, as the result of such an attack?
I think not. And I cerainly don’t trust the Bush administration to make a prudent, rational decision on how to address Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Every step they have taken leads me to believe that they are manufacturing this atmosphere of “crisis” in order to engage in further military adventures in the Middle East. They have already sabotaged peace efforts by the EU and by Russia. They are clamoring for the UN to impose a 30 day deadline for Iran to halt all it’s nuclear program. These are not the actions of a government bent on making every diplomatic effort to seek a peaceful resolution.
No, this is a government and a President bent on war. War not just as a foreign policy prerogative, but also in order to assist its domestic political agenda as well. Andy Card, Bush’s Chief of Staff, once famously compared the buildup to the Iraq war in the Fall of 2002, during the height of that year’s mid-term Congressional election campaign, as a “new product” to be marketed to the American people.
Well the old model (i.e., Iraq) is showing a lot of wear and tear, and starting to break down. No one’s very happy with it anymore. Time for a new product: Americans, welcome to this mid-term election year’s new war national security threat from the Bush administration: Iran.
And they only had to change one letter (q to n) from the previous one. How convenient.
