Threatening War with Iran
By Anthony Gregory • Wednesday February 10, 2010 10:27 AM PDT • 9 Comments
Obama, having acted in his early presidency like he would depart from his predecessor’s Iran policy, and having actually provided gestures of actual change in his diplomatic tone, has reverted back to the standard establishment approach. His administration is promising a new round of crushing sanctions.
Of course, so much of the propaganda in the mainstream media and coming from both parties, implicit in Obama’s entire posture, concerns the fictional threat Iran poses to the United States, its allies and interests. There is misinformation, for example, that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons in violation of international agreements, even though there is no credible evidence of this. The press echoes such completely debunked propaganda time and again without any relent. Obama went hysterical when Iran announced a new nuclear site, well before the nation had to, and claimed Iran had been “caught,” even though nothing it was doing was inconsistent with its pursuit of nuclear energy as allowed under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory.
All of this ratcheting up of propaganda against Iran is very reminiscent of the case for war with Iraq—WMD, and ties to terrorists—and it is just as hollow. Even more important, none of the claims, even if true, would justify the U.S. widening its wars of aggression to the Iranian people, and sanctions are properly seen as traditional acts of war and belligerence.
Obama seems to be a true believer in progressive warmongering, but he probably also sees the political angle here. The neoconservative National Review recently called on Obama to bomb Iran if he wants to save his presidency. Sarah Palin has also been saying, explicitly, that if Obama gets “tougher” against Iran and in the war on terror, the conservative opposition to his administration will largely subside. I’m not sure if that is true, but Obama does have a lot to win, politically, from more war—at least in the short term. In the long term, wars tend to become unpopular, but not enough for Americans to swear off the foul poison next time the propaganda machine churns out “reasons” to bomb, invade, occupy and shed blood once again.
Tags: Iran 
I know, Iran is run by a bunch of nice guys. A few hours from now we will see just how nice they are.
Norm | Feb 10, 2010 | Reply
No one is even coming close to suggesting, by any reasonable interpretation, that Iran is run by a bunch of nice guys. This is a strawman if ever there was one.
Anthony Gregory | Feb 10, 2010 | Reply
What’s going to happen in a few hours? Another onslaught of propaganda from the neocon war machine? Perhaps Israel now has secret intelligence that Iran will invade America on flying carpets and use their nuclear magic lanterns on us.
Tom Blanton | Feb 10, 2010 | Reply
Anthony,
Spot-on as usual. Just as Clinton enabled the Iraq War by sustaining WMD hysteria during his presidency, Obama will prove essential to the future Iran War.
Bob Weber | Feb 10, 2010 | Reply
Any critique of U.S. policy has to begin with a statement that Iran’s regime is reckless, anti-Semitic, brutal to its own people, and stifles religious freedom, much less the freedom of women who do not accept the State’s imposition of sharia. If Iran were the USA, we would be making those arguments.
The alternative to American warmongering isn’t nothing. It is arguing against the very real constraints on individual freedom in Iran. There were members of the Old Right who argued for less war, more assertion of principle. The Voice-of-America-type warfare (or, perhaps today, breaching the cyber-firewall around Iran—very real as I found out from an Iranian friend who recently got back from the country).
Jonathan Bean | Feb 10, 2010 | Reply
Is there a particular statute requiring that a statement against Iran be made before one can criticize U.S. policy toward Iran?
Is there a similar requirement that a statement against Israel be made prior to criticizing U.S. policy regarding Israel?
I believe that the best alternative to everything the American government does is nothing. But, that’s just me. It would be unrealistic of me to expect Americans to mind their own business and demand their government do the same.
Tom Blanton | Feb 10, 2010 | Reply
The power elite want and get continuous war. It is profitable and risk-free. And with the power elite neo-cons grip on finance and foreign policy, I expect an attack on Iran.Mills had it right, and over 60 years ago!
richard | Feb 11, 2010 | Reply
Jonathan, I respectfully disagree that “any critique of U.S. policy has to begin with a statement that Iran’s regime is reckless, anti-Semitic, brutal to its own people, and stifles religious freedom, much less the freedom of women who do not accept the State’s imposition of sharia.”
We all know this is true. This is a stipulation of practically all Americans.
An argument against aggressive war against a nation ruled by an authoritarian regime should stand on its own. And as an American, I have more potential influence over my own government than that of one of the many dozens of regimes that are brutal. I don’t think it necessary to constantly say the obvious about Iran’s evils when we are debating American foreign policy.
Anthony Gregory | Feb 11, 2010 | Reply
I understand that we don’t want Iran to have the weapons we already have because they are an authoritarian regime that is anti-USA and anti-Israel. What I have problems understanding is what makes us think that we automatically have the right to tell any other country what they can and cannot do.
shill | Feb 17, 2010 | Reply