KG: Iran?
I know many people reading this are living outside the U.S., and I’m curious: How is the escalation of the American-Iranian conflict being covered in your country? What’s the Man/Woman-On-The-Street view of it?
Around here, I think the typical reaction would be “What escalation of the American-Iranian conflict?” But here are some links worth pondering:
From Taromeet:
“Average people I talk to here do not believe the Bush administration would attack and/or invade Iran for a variety of reasons: the U.S. military is already spread too thin; the growing public unease about the war in Iraq; lack of public support for a third war; it’s just too crazy an idea, even for these loons… I usually nod and acknowledge the logic of those arguments, which would certainly give better leaders pause. However, I do not believe this administration acts on logic. I think they have proven that time and again. While the idea of an attack on Iran has been bought up before, the tone seems to be changing from the theoretical to the inevitable. Recent weeks have brought some disturbing writings concerning a U.S. strike on Iran. These are not the rantings of wild-eyed, tin foil hat-wearing conspiracy theorists…”
Read more for the links she provides, from Juan Cole, The New Yorker, Harper’s, Salon.com, and other sources that, as she says, are not exactly those of raving lunatics.
And Howard A. Rodman from The Huffington Post:
“[T]he foreign press, which during the run-up to Iraq was far less blinkered than, say, the Gray Lady, has been over this weekend treating an attack on Iran as a fait accompli. See this from the Telegraph (UK). The Times (UK) ran today a headline with the flat declaration, Pentagon ‘three-day blitz’ plan for Iran. The blitz includes what The Times terms ‘plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran.’”
Barnett Rubin, an Afghanistan expert at NYU, writes on the Global Affairs blog of an American media campaign, planned to begin this week, which will ramp up the rhetoric against Iran: “They don’t think they’ll ever get majority support for this—they want something like 35-40 percent support, which in their book is ‘plenty.’”
If that quote’s accurate, if that’s their standard, they shouldn’t have any trouble. The Telegraph article (linked above) reports that “[t]he latest polls show that just one in five Americans would support the bombing of Iran now, but about half would do so if their government considered it necessary: clearly a position from which Mr Bush could build a case for war. Three out of four voters want to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.” *
Of course all this is unsourced speculation. Besides, even if it’s true, the prospect of a public relations campaign in favor of war does not equal STOCK UP ON DUCT TAPE AND BOTTLED WATER NOW. Though the level of detail some of these war plans go into is enough to give a person pause, it’s also true that — as one Pentagon source said — “We have a targeting list and there are plans, but then there are also plans for repelling an invasion from Canada.” So.
But I also find it a bit naive to think that the only thing keeping us out of Iran right now is public disapproval.
For one thing, as the stats above show, the public isn’t all that disapproving. For another, where is the evidence that Bu$h & Co. are above all else guided by their approval ratings?
Third, the plan as outlined is a three-day bombing attack, not a dreary commitment of Iraqi proportions. (Criticize that plan for what it is, but you must admit it’s easier to sell when they frame it that way.)
Fourth, there’s ample evidence that this PR campaign is already underway, cf. the designation of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization — the first time such a label has been applied to a government’s military, as opposed to an independent, non-state organization — or Bush’s speech last week to the American Legion in Reno, in which he invoked the specter of nuclear holocaust and said, among other things, that he has “authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran’s murderous activities.”
Fifth, none of the current presidential front-runners have their political roots in the neocon movement. For you and me this signals a dim hope that the post-election world might be a slightly less Orwellian place, but for Bush et. al. it’s call to panic. Once he’s out of office, he and Cheney will retain political influence but they’ll no longer have their fingers poised directly over The Button. I’ve heard people argue that any engagement with Iran is unlikely since it’s so late in Bush’s second term. It seems to me that’s one of the better reasons to worry: they’ve wanted this for years, but their clock is running out.
Whatever they’re up to, I wonder what they think they can accomplish in the next 16 months. If bombing’s not on the table, what is?
I’m curious to know what folks outside the United States think.
- (For an excellent article outlining the background of Iran and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, read The US and the Iranian Nuclear Impasse.)
—kufigirl
| share on delicious | digg | reddit | facebook | stumbleupon |
Related Articles
Islam, According To My Father
Do Muslims Never Get to Have an Idea of Their Own? Reinterpretating Islam In Turkey
KG: This is not a constructive use of time.
Muslims Well Integrated or Approving of Suicide Strikes?
Dil Dil Hyderabad (Pakistan)
Welcome! This site serves two main purposes: to entertain and educate the Believing and curious community, and to generate a bit of cash—God willing. But there’s a lot more about HijabMan.
Recent Articles
- I Have A Belly, And I Will Take The Steep Path To Get Rid Of It!
- CAIR Philadelphia's 2nd Annual Banquet: April 12th
- Do Muslims Never Get to Have an Idea of Their Own? Reinterpretating Islam In Turkey
- Chit Chat Chaat & Chai With Hijabman
- ABCNews messes up map of Israel & The Occupied Territories
- Islam, According To My Father
- Khuda Hafiz
- Dil Dil Hyderabad (Pakistan)
Tauqeer at 7 September 07 :: #
Besides the puppy dogs in Downing street and the media, nobody really is worried about any situation in Iran. The “Allied” governments are too hypocritical for their own good; they advocate innocent until proven guilty, but in the case of Iran, from the general perspective, there isn’t sufficient evidence present to make a credible claim that the nuclear program will support a weapons program.
The majority UK perspective is to ignore these issues because there are greater things which trouble us. The fact that our domestic agenda is completely out of place concerns us more than international affairs which don’t directly affect us.
I wouldn’t say that Iran has done the right thing by taunting and making claims against others, but every one has a right of say…. isn’t that the philosophy of the west…. I believe it’s called Human Rights (depends which way you spin it).