It's Deja Vu All Over Again

In all history there is no war which was not hatched
by the governments, the governments alone,
independent of the interests of the people,
to whom war is always pernicious even when successful
--Leo Tolstoy

You were my pills, you were my thrills
You were my hope baby, you were my smoke
You dropped a bomb on me, hey baby
You dropped a bomb on me, baby
--You Dropped a Bomb on Me, The Gap band
__________

The Bush administration's latest shell game to hide the realities of the pointless Phony War on Terro is the elevation of Iran to Code Red (or whatever is the highest color in Mr. Ridge's elementary school color scheme.)

Everywhere is the call to war with Iran, often with a feigned ruefulness; "Unfortunately. . ." It is the run up to Iraq, all over again. Secretary of State Rice is emplaced, uttering her practically verbatim rhetoric about WMDs in the hands of bad men. The Chicken Little mentality-as-U.S. national policy is once again rolled out. Again, GWB is propped up as our gunslingin' savior.

Gregory Scoblete wrote Friday in RealClearPolitics ("Would Tehran Do the Unthinkable?"):

"The case for a war against the Iranian regime draws on many arguments: Iran's use of terrorist proxies, the regime's evident desire for regional hegemony, the risks that a nuclear Iran might spark a regional arms race, and the country's proximity to the Strait of Hormuz, where nearly a quarter of the world's oil supply transits daily."

While the Iranians occupy key terrain that could be used to disrupt the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz, having the U.S. Navy in the same waters does not neutralize or diminish this likelihood. The presence of U.S. carrier groups only ups the ante. And both GWB and Ahmadinejad are inveterate gamblers.

We do not find GWB's posture any more reassuring than Ahmadinejad's. They strike us as willful 6-year-olds acting out. If only both could be sent to time out.

Scoblete claims that "[the possession of] nuclear weapons tend[s] to have a stabilizing effect on the countries involved."

"The doctrines of deterrence and mutually assured destruction have successfully transcended cultural, political, ideological and religious boundaries, sobering the minds of even the most belligerent adversaries." The old intelligence yardstick of capabilities versus intent is a helpful one to employ here. Even if they possessed a nuclear capability, would they act on the rhetoric of their most fanatic elements? Rational minds would realize that the reaction from the U.S. would be swift and devastating, and mitigate such self-destructive impulses.

However, opposing the historical precedent of nuclear checks is a conservative U.S. bloc which portrays Iran as a nuclear suicide bomb -- a scare-tactic personification Scoblete calls "the nation-as-suicide bomber."

In a less hysterical assessment, Scoblete writes of past Iranian aggression against U.S. interests:

"The fact that Iran has wielded force through proxies and not through its conventional military, however, is a strong indication that the regime understands its strengths and weaknesses. What's more, these signature acts of Iranian violence against the United States were aimed at military targets with the political goal of reducing America's influence in the Middle East. The regime's support for anti-American insurgent elements inside Iraq has a similar purpose. Despicable as this violence is, it differs from al Qaeda's genocidal ambition to kill as many Americans as possible in mass casualty attacks against civilian infrastructure inside the U.S.

"What's more, since the Iran/Iraq war, Iran has developed a chemical and biological weapons capability, according to GlobalSecurity.org. Such weapons, while not as singularly destructive as an A-bomb, are much better suited to surreptitious deployment. An Iranian-instigated chemical or biological attack against Israel or the United States has been within the capability of the Iranian regime for at least a decade, and yet they have not launched one. Nor have the Iranians committed 9/11-style terrorist spectaculars against the U.S. homeland despite the relative ease and low cost of such attacks."

"All this suggests that Iran understands, and respects, the limits of its aggression. Despite the end times rhetoric issuing forth from its demagogic president, the country has assiduously avoided acts that would invite a massive military retaliation. This is not indicative of a nation longing for a nuclear conflagration."

Meanwhile, back on the ranch, the End Times Fundamentalist belief system of our demagogic president may be the very thing striking the match that is igniting the tinder box which is the Middle East. While a nuclear-capable Iran is not cause for a happy day, neither is it a "harbinger of the apocalypse."

The U.S. has a successful history of containing larger and more hostile threats to America than Iran. Preemptive discretionary wars of regime change are not based in the reality of the U.S. democratic system. In order to begin to get back on track, America must eschew wars that are not essential.

Feel-good wars have left the health and welfare of America ailing.