The White House is now talking about how military action against Iran is “a last resort”, which I think means the decision has already been made.
I opposed invading Iraq. I'm not sure about Iran. There are a lot of differences. To start with:
- Iran really is seeking to build nuclear weapons and has already acquired the nuclear material to do so.
- Iran's government really is a theocratic regime with ties to Islamist terrorists.
- Iran might be a lot tougher militarily—it's bigger and in better economic shape.
- If we invade Iran, we have to worry about Iraq disintegrating.
- We won't have any allies this time. Britain has already publicly and repeatedly opted out.
So: harder, but more justified. The doctrine of preemption certainly would seem to require war. Does anyone see the case for war in Iran as seriously weaker than the case for war in Iraq?
4 comments:
If overt or covert military action against Iran can be justified, the US will need a staging area to attack from.
Iraq appears to be ideal.
Is this an argument - not necessarily conclusive by itself - for the earlier invasion of Iraq?
No, our involvement in Iraq makes it harder, not easier, to act against Iran. Harder politically at home, harder diplomatically. More costly in terms of U.S. casualties, as overt action against Iran is likely to destabilize Iraq. More costly in terms of U.S. interests: a lot is at stake in Iraq.
Iraq might be great from a logistics standpoint, but it seems like a huge net negative. For staging areas, we already had Afghanistan. (And the Gulf, for air strikes at least.)
"Iran's democracy is not perfect" is an understatement. The U.S.'s democracy is "imperfect". Iran's is a sham: the unelected Guardian Council has the power to bar any candidate from running for office. Over 2,300 candidates were barred from 2004 elections. Freedom of speech is a joke in Iran. Same goes for freedom of the press: Iran ranks fourth from the bottom in that category, according to Reporters Without Borders.
Overthrowing a nominal democracy and replacing it with a real, free democracy is not something I think Bush is going to have a terribly hard time justifying.
Your point, I thought, was that the U.S. ought not invade Iran because Iran is a democracy.
In fact Iran is not much of a democracy. To think of Iran as a democracy is really very silly indeed. Besides, our reasons (such as they are) for invading have little, if anything, to do with its form of government.
Doubtless Iranian's don't want to be invaded. The Iraqis didn't either--as I pointed out to anyone who would listen, prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom--and behold they were right, it's a mess. But let's portray the situtation accurately.
Iraq is in serious trouble. But freedom of the press is not one of the major problems there. In fact all the democratic freedoms are dramatically improved since Saddam's days, and they are all much better there than in Iran. Freedom of candidacy is better. Freedom of the press is better (and it'll improve more once the U.S. military leaves). Freedom of speech is much, much better. Women's rights are much better.
Iraq's low rating in the Reporters Without Borders survey is largely due to the fact that reporters are frequently killed there. That is, it's a security problem. Iran has no such excuse.
And I find it naive to think that the Guardian Council's unsubtle efforts to crush the reformists were without effect.
Post a Comment