Editorial: Not another war / This is no time for the U.S. to take on Iran
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
The latest developments in U.S. relations with Iran raise the appalling question that perhaps the Bush administration is steering the country into another major, unnecessary war in the Middle East.
There are alarming, not necessarily badly sourced, reports from Washington that the White House and the Department of Defense are considering air strikes -- perhaps even nuclear strikes -- against Iran. These would be supposedly targeted against Iran's alleged developing nuclear weapons capacity.
Another way to fulfill such U.S. intentions would not require the United States to carry out the strikes; it would be Israel, acting with U.S. sanction, performing the military attack. Such an action would have the same result, however -- another major Middle East war involving America.
While Americans are digesting these grim reports, the United States announces that it has postponed talks scheduled with Iran to discuss developments in Iraq.
The reports of U.S. military intentions against Iran are being denied by President Bush, but, given his words prior to the U.S. attack on Iraq in 2003, who is likely to believe his disclaimers?
To add to the eeriness of the pre-Iraq war echoes in the matter, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, is heading to Tehran this week to join an IAEA team visiting Iranian nuclear sites, which Iran maintains are devoted exclusively to developing the country's peaceful nuclear energy capacity.
The United Kingdom, America's only serious ally in the Iraq "coalition of the willing," has already stated that it does not consider the circumstances dire enough to justify war against Iran.
Some may think that the Bush administration is entirely driven by domestic political motivations and, so, is cooking up another war to try to throw the 2006 congressional elections toward Republican candidates. These are Republicans who would otherwise risk paying the price at the polls for blind loyalty to the president -- which has brought an unpopular and expensive war in Iraq, spiraling budget deficits, tax cuts for the rich and ever-increasing gas prices.
Harsher critics would say the Bush administration is afraid the legislative branch will fall into the hands of Democrats, who will then carry out damaging investigations of Republican shenanigans in the White House and Congress. This contention would be supported by recent revelations that Mr. Bush himself authorized leaks of classified information to try to put steam into a weak case for the Iraq war.
Whatever is going on in our increasingly bizarre nation's capital, one thing is clear. The United States does not need another war now, and there is no case at all for a war against Iran. In addition, such a war would be very serious given Iran's size, reach and military capacity, a good deal worse than the unsuccessful operation against Iraq, which already has U.S. forces stretched to the limit.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
The latest developments in U.S. relations with Iran raise the appalling question that perhaps the Bush administration is steering the country into another major, unnecessary war in the Middle East.
There are alarming, not necessarily badly sourced, reports from Washington that the White House and the Department of Defense are considering air strikes -- perhaps even nuclear strikes -- against Iran. These would be supposedly targeted against Iran's alleged developing nuclear weapons capacity.
Another way to fulfill such U.S. intentions would not require the United States to carry out the strikes; it would be Israel, acting with U.S. sanction, performing the military attack. Such an action would have the same result, however -- another major Middle East war involving America.
While Americans are digesting these grim reports, the United States announces that it has postponed talks scheduled with Iran to discuss developments in Iraq.
The reports of U.S. military intentions against Iran are being denied by President Bush, but, given his words prior to the U.S. attack on Iraq in 2003, who is likely to believe his disclaimers?
To add to the eeriness of the pre-Iraq war echoes in the matter, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, is heading to Tehran this week to join an IAEA team visiting Iranian nuclear sites, which Iran maintains are devoted exclusively to developing the country's peaceful nuclear energy capacity.
The United Kingdom, America's only serious ally in the Iraq "coalition of the willing," has already stated that it does not consider the circumstances dire enough to justify war against Iran.
Some may think that the Bush administration is entirely driven by domestic political motivations and, so, is cooking up another war to try to throw the 2006 congressional elections toward Republican candidates. These are Republicans who would otherwise risk paying the price at the polls for blind loyalty to the president -- which has brought an unpopular and expensive war in Iraq, spiraling budget deficits, tax cuts for the rich and ever-increasing gas prices.
Harsher critics would say the Bush administration is afraid the legislative branch will fall into the hands of Democrats, who will then carry out damaging investigations of Republican shenanigans in the White House and Congress. This contention would be supported by recent revelations that Mr. Bush himself authorized leaks of classified information to try to put steam into a weak case for the Iraq war.
Whatever is going on in our increasingly bizarre nation's capital, one thing is clear. The United States does not need another war now, and there is no case at all for a war against Iran. In addition, such a war would be very serious given Iran's size, reach and military capacity, a good deal worse than the unsuccessful operation against Iraq, which already has U.S. forces stretched to the limit.
