October 12, 2012

An Attack on Iran Will Legitimize The Islamic Republic

In the American Vice Presidential debate on Thursday, Paul Ryan repeatedly made the point that President Obama's foreign policy was "unraveling." But Ryan didn't elaborate on how Obama's foreign policy was falling apart other than point to an isolated terrorist incident against the American ambassador in Libya on the 11th anniversary of the September 11 events.

When Iran was brought up, Ryan criticized Obama's approach to that country, saying that the administration's sanctions are not tough enough, but, again, he didn't explain how tougher they could get. He also implied, quite casually, that a Romney-Ryan administration would commit to an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities if Iran attained a nuclear capability, which means they would launch the attack before tomorrow morning if they were in power.

Vice President Joe Biden refuted Ryan's shocking statements about the Obama administration's "weak" stance towards Iran and emphasized the draconian nature of the sanctions against the Iranian economy. Glenn Greenwald wrote at The Guardian, "Biden's strutting about how the Obama administration has destroyed Iran's economy with "crippling" sanctions turned my stomach, but Ryan's critique was that they had not gone far enough (without ever specifying what more should be done), so they were equally repellent on that."

The fear about Iran is totally unjustified. The nuclear issue is something out of nothing. "U.S. and Israeli intelligence communities agree that Iran's leaders have not yet made a decision to build a nuclear bomb," write Thomas Pickering, Anthony Zinni and Jim Walsh in a piece called, "What to do about Iran?"  Biden also made this point in the debate, countering Ryan's needless hardline rhetoric that, if acted upon, would drag the United States into another war during an economic collapse.

Experts say Iran would change its mind and make the decision to build a nuke if it comes under a military attack by Israel and the United States. An attack on Iran would legitimize the Islamic Republic and empower the revolutionary Islamic spirit across the Middle East, undoing recent U.S. efforts to improve its image amongst the awakening Muslim masses.

Any sane foreign policy expert in Washington knows that an attack on Iran would be counter-productive to U.S. interests, not to mention it would also be a criminal and immoral act. Here is another excerpt from the article by Pickering, Zinni, and Walsh:
"An attack on Iran could set back Iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon but not stop the program permanently. Barring a decision to deploy large numbers of troops on the ground, we doubt that U.S. military attacks from the air — plus other means, such as drones, covert operations and cyberattacks — could eliminate Iran's capability to build a nuclear weapon, bring about regime change or force Iran to capitulate to U.S. demands."
The real issue at stake for the United States is not preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, which it does not seek for both religious and strategic reasons, but maintaining its legitimacy amidst an atmosphere of revolutionary change in the Middle East.

The legitimacy of the United States empire, the racist regime in Israel, and their anti-revolutionary Arab allies would be destroyed if the decision was made to commit an unnecessary act of aggression against Iran.

Why does Washington persist on being a bully? I am at a loss for words that a nation with the most brilliant revolutionary birth like America could turn out to be the biggest tyrant in human history. Are American and Israeli war planners so anti-human that they're willing to abandon logic and launch a preemptive strike against Iran?

Regime change in Iran is a matter that should be left to the Iranian people, not the crooked and aggressive governments in the United States and Israel. It is the biggest joke in the world that U.S. and Israeli leaders are lecturing other nations about protecting freedom and international law. They have no more credibility than the Taliban and Al-Qaeda because of their defense of false flag fundamentalism.

If the leaders in Washington were honestly interested in non-proliferation of nuclear weapons then why are they silent about Israel's nuclear stockpile? Why doesn't Israel's defiance of international law and the United Nations stir the conscience of the internationalists and "humanitarian interventionists" in Washington? Are Palestinians not human? Are Iranians not human? Are Muslims not human?

Will the rulers who hijacked the United States ever learn that their bombs and drones are not wanted in the Middle East? I don't like the Mullahs of Iran for obvious reasons, but attacking Iran will only empower them and legitimize their Islamic revolution. If you are anti-Islamic fundamentalism then you must be against a war on Iran. It is as simple as that.