I have a BAD feeling re Iran/today's Wash. Post. Question: WHAT DO WE DO?

[Brotherjohn]

Today's Washington Post article by Dafna Linzer harkens back to Judith Miller's stories making the case for an Iraqi nuclear weapons program (Strong Leads and Dead Ends in Nuclear Case Against Iran; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/07/AR2006020702126.html?sub=new).

The problem is, there is likely much more valid evidence that Iran IS pursuing nuclear weapons. At the very least, we know they have the capability to enrich uranium, and they already have long range missiles, and they have much stronger ties to terrorism. They are at least, surely, keeping their options open. Basically, one could make the case for Iran that Bush (falsely) made for Iraq in 2002.

My first response would be to say: So what? Can you blame them? We put them on the "Axis of Evil" in 2001 and then invaded another on that "Axis". Israel has nukes. We let India and Pakistan get them (and, arguably, Pakistan to help Iran get them). We have more nukes than anyone. Why shouldn't they be allowed to have nukes? Our actions practically forced them to pursue nukes!

My second response would be: Assuming they ARE pursuing nukes and not nuclear energy, even IF they posed a "threat" by some definition, why is invading them the only option? Why is it EVEN and option AT ALL? There are many more options than invading and "doing nothing". We're stretched too thin as it is, and our invasion and occupation of Iraq has proved to be a disaster on every level. It is a lesson in why military invasion and occupation is NOT the best recourse in cases like this, if nothing else.

The problem is, I'm not sure those arguments will work. Even with the American public, even after Bush has shot his credibility to hell. I'm sure the first RW talking point will be: "But you argue that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq because he didn't have a WMD-program or ties to terror. We'll, even YOU have to agree that Iran now has BOTH."

Thing is, they'd arguably be right. Sure, it's much more complicated than that (see my points above). But it's almost as though Iraq was a set-up for Iran. Go after the easier one with a weaker rationale, and you'll have a stronger rationale to go after the stronger one next.

Fear is a powerful tool. The fact that Bush was even close enough to win/steal 2004 taught me that. And if Bush could scare people into going along with the threat from balsa-wood planes and phantom mushroom clouds, imagine the more distinctly real possibility of actual warheads on actual missiles.

I fear war with Iran could doom this country. But I also fear that's where we're going.

Millions in the street didn't help last time. What can we do this time? I'm encouraged by the obvious groundswell of action in the fight against Alito. Perhaps such a groundswell of resistance, in today's atmosphere (further from 9/11, with the results of Iraq in the news every day, with Bush's credibility in the toilet), will yield better results than with Iraq. Perhaps winning in November would stop him, but I'm not so sure. I'm worried the invasion will come much sooner than that, and in any case, Bush will still control the executive no matter what happens in November.

The question is, WHAT DO WE DO... NOW?

[FloridaPat]

1. Same gov't propaganda as last time. The gov't is giving

order to Iran like it did Iraq. And they'll keep coming up with hoops to jump through until Iran refuses and then they blame everything on Iran. I can't believe this is an instant replay with no one with brains coming out and saying this is crap.

Yes, an invasion of Iran will not be pretty. Israel has already said it will bomb. * is trying to get countries behind him for the bombing too. I'm as scared as you are. What happens when 60% of our oil suply is cut off? The rest of the world that depends on oil from Iran are not going to be very happy. And the army is in bad shape and would be easy to destroy sitting in Iraq. Maybe the entire US population in the streets demanding impeachment of everyone that backs this stupid idea would do the trick. I think these people are just too stupid not to stop.

[HamdenRice]

2. Timing is everthing -- we have at least five years

Do you know how long it takes to make enough enriched uranium to make a weapon? Most estimates are that even if Iran is trying to make a weapon, they won't have one for about five years.

The reason the administration is trying to make this sound urgent is that neither the US nor Israel is willing to bomb a nuclear power plant that has an active radioactive pile, because that would spew contamination across the country.

The false deadline they are trying to impose is to bomb the plant before it is loaded with uranium.

The alternative would be to let the Iranians start the process and try to bring the regime back into the international community within the five years or so that we have before they could possess a weapon. This almost was achieved under President Khatami, but the invasion of Iraq and US saber rattling has radicalized Iran's electorate.

[Brotherjohn]

4. Five years? You're thinking way too rationally. We had much more than that

... before Iraq was capable of producing a nuclear weapon (maybe, forever?). Even accepting the (false) accusation that they were working towards one, most experts and commentators were publicly stating Iraq was still years away from making a nuke.

And a majority of Americans were still against invading (until it became imminent).

None of stopped the administration.

[Marie26]

3. Iran propaganda

I was in a restaurant yesterday where they had Fox News on in the corner. Probably the first time I've seen that channel in months. Anyway, all they were showing was Iran, Iran, Iran. About the cartoon contest, about the new wacky President, about polls on invading Iran, sanctioning Iran, or nuking Iran (all polls favorable). War drumbeats beating pretty hard right now. It worried me a little.

[wiggs]

5. Good and worthy question

Whatever needs to happen must happen soon. And I feel it has to come from the people, not the minority opposition party, for a number of reasons (i.e. opposition party is easily marginalized and their motives aren't clear anyway).

It has to be massive, clear, and bispartisan. It can be a letter-writing campaign but it would have to be the largest in history to be noticed. More effective would be action such as boycott, strike, march, protest....massive organization and participation. I don't know who can motivate and facilitate on that scale...we need a MLK or Ghandi with nightly MSM exposure....Even then.....

We are in a bad position here, against a nearly invulnerable cabal of neocons and corporatists whose work for 30 years has built a GOP fortress that is not likely to go away soon. We need help...need a surprise....need something we can't yet imagine, because politics as usual and normal opposition has already been countered and is useless.

[Brotherjohn]

6. Agree. Possible surprises are on the horizon (not that we should count...

... on them).

Fitzgerald and/or Abramoff investigations taking down Bush and/or Cheney.

NSA domestic spying scandal taking down Bush.

But we can't relay on these "ifs". We will be in Iran within months if there is no strong, vocal opposition to the idea. It needs to start NOW. I'm writing letters today.
(http://www3.capwiz.com/y/dbq/officials/)

[G_j]

7. Iran would be the ideal distraction from those scandals

then it's more of the "we are at war" answer to everything.

[Brotherjohn]

9. Yes. I meant to add that depressing possibility. (n/t)

[wiggs]

8. I'm down to two slim chances

I think there might be just one or two ways the neocon agenda gets stopped from going further (it is already wildly successful in their minds I'm sure): 1) a top level insider can't take it anymore and exposes impeachable misdeeds (Powell? Tenet?) 2) Fitzgerald nails either Bush or Cheney in a way that leads to immediate impeachment (left to courts, the case will drag on way past 2008 and will not stop them)

Either alternative is unlikely. Reasons for impeachment would have to be so clear and compelling that there is practically no choice but convict. Even then, there are reasons to think it won't succeed (Roberts presides, most House seats are safe and won't turn over to dems, many dem leaders are unwilling to oppose neocon agenda, corporate pressure for status quo will be enormous)

Abramoff and NSA issues won't remove anyone from office. They will drop poll numbers, but poll numbers don't count anymore and in any case there are any number of avenues the GOP can use to raise poll numbers right before elections.

I'll add a third possibility: 3) the public gets organized and upsets the apple cart economically or physically on a massive scale. Not likely either.

[MissMarple]

10. Scott Ritter seems to think they just want nuclear energy.

As if that's not scary enough.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11812.htm