Beating the War Drums Again

TOM MAERTENS

The Bush administration has a problem. They meant to attack the Middle Eastern country with the WMD program, the one that had supported international terrorist attacks against the U.S., that had provided sanctuary to al-Qaeda, and that condones and finances Islamic extremists.

Instead, they attacked Iraq.

When the Neoconservatives first began agitating for an attack on Iraq back in 1992, their arguments were as follows: Iraq is a threat to Israel, a U.S. occupation would ensure our supply of oil, and we need military bases in the Middle East.

The Bush administration later came up with other reasons. They "fixed" the intelligence and hyped the WMD threat, then they implied Iraq was linked to 9/11 and was providing sanctuary for al Qaeda.

It's now clear they really meant to attack Iran.

That's the country with the nuclear weapons program and other WMD.

That's the one that has actively supported terrorism, including most likely Hezbollah suicide bombers that have attacked U.S. forces repeatedly in Lebanon and the Middle East.

Iran also provided a sanctuary for al Qaeda members fleeing Afghanistan after the U.S. invasion.

So almost every claim the Bush administration made to justify the invasion of Iraq was wrong, but would have been true if said about Iran.

There is no evidence that Iran was involved in the attack of 9/11, but then there is no evidence that Iraq was either.

There is one additional charge the administration can make against Iran: It has supported Islamic extremism and the re-establishment of the caliphate, the world-wide community of Muslims under a single authority. Iraq under Saddam, on the other hand, promoted secularism and suppressed religious extremists.

All in all, Iran is a much more attractive target than Iraq. The Neocons (like Michael Ledeen) have proposed an invasion of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon and even Saudi Arabia at various times.

We can expect that the chickenhawks will agitate for some kind of military action against Iran, like air strikes, to show that we "mean business." Unlike 1981 Iraq, where the Israeli air strike against the Osirak nuclear reactor crippled Baghdad's nuclear program, the Iranians have dispersed and buried most of the nuclear facilities specifically to avoid a repeat of the Israeli performance. Moreover, Iran has four times the population of Iraq and a serious military capability. And, no, the Iranian people won't throw flowers at the feet of our troops. There are no realistic military options in Iran.

For the record, Iran is the fourth largest producer of oil, and has the second largest reserves of natural gas in the world. Any military action could disrupt the world's supply of oil, including our own.

That hasn't stopped the Neocons and Fox News from beating the war drums. Besides the vicarious pleasure of watching U.S. troops in action, the Bush administration is looking to change the subject away from the Republican corruption scandals. There's nothing like throwing bombs around to stir up patriotic fervor before the mid-term elections. Who knows what would happen if the Democrats were to capture the House? They might actually conduct some oversight and unearth a few dead bodies.

It's unlikely that the Ledeens and Bill O'Reillys of the world are aware of Iranian realities. Armchair chickenhawks are always willing to send others to fulfill their dreams of military conquest; macho posturing is easy when there is no danger of having to serve.