War is coming in Iran. Most people have heard that British soldiers were seized by Iranian forces recently, and the hard-core Republican pundits are beginning to strategize. For example, NRO is firmly on the Iran War bandwagon with this article:
Israel was placed in this dilemma last summer, when Iranian agents — the Hezbollah of Lebanon — crossed the border, killed some soldiers, and took two others hostage. Israel treated this aggression as a declaration of war, and its repeat in the Gulf waters has to be met with the same firmness. The making of any sort of deal whereby personnel legally arrested are exchanged for personnel illegally snatched — never mind anything that might compromise sanctions — would mean unconditional victory for Iran, and the admission of impotence and humiliation for Britain, and therefore the West.
So, we have the propaganda wing spouting in full force - however, it will be much tougher to convince the American public after the debacle in Iraq. There is already plenty of literature alluding to this fact, like this article from Z Magazine. This is further complicated by the fact that we don't actually know very much about the situation in Iran. We think, we surmise, but we don't know. A well-researched account of our "think vs. know" dilemma can be found in this article. If this case was presented to the American public as shown in the article, public support for armed intervention is unlikely. Therefore, the propaganda machine is brought to bear.
There is another interesting aspect to this debate: the Iranian resistance. Internal resistance, as well as local external (from Iraq, Syria, etc.) pressure seems to me to be the most effective way to deal with the Iran situation. We could also provide aid to these resistance groups without directly intervening. This tactic has been used extensively by the US government before in famous instances, such as Iran-Contra. This type of involvement caries risks, however, because we may be supporting people who will become our eventual enemy. (Afghanistan against the Soviets or Saddam in the Iran-Iraq conflict ? The now infamous Rumsfeld-Saddam handshake seems like a poor idea in retrospect.) Some of this seems to be already occurring, as referenced in this article. This situation may become even more politically charged because of the nature of the current Iranian resistance.
In this article, the author spends time reviewing a group of resistance fighters. The issue that our government will have with this group? They are Communists. The Communists have been demonized in this country for so long that supporting a Communist group, even against a potentially nuclear Iran, will be a difficult pill for the American public.
What will we do? |
1 Responses - Click Here to Comment:
Yay! Something to read! I'm so freaking bored right now.
I think that no matter how much posturing the west can muster, the allied forces are spread to thin already, and the Iranians know this, taking full advantage by posing and pretending to stand firm against the infidels from the west, to the great joy of much of the middle east.
Let's say that Bush/Cheney and Co. actually believe that they possess enough firepower to administer some tough love to Iran, while simultaneously holding down Afghanistan and Iraq, what are the possibilities that it could be the final straw that polarizes the entire middle east against the west?
Post a Comment