What I Wrote 10 Years Ago About Iran

We now have a stronger basis for invading Iran than Iraq than now. Of course, we don’t have a basis for regime change there, necessarily. We can just go wipe out these bases.

I wondered why, if we were fighting the war on terror, why we weren’t more interested in Iran. (I also argued against lowering interest rates which would just inflate another bubble.) Somehow, my stupid ideas never got heard by anyone and we fought a stupid war and killed the middle class.

Five years ago, I put this into the context of nuclear proliferation. And, as an aside, I also argued contra Rachel Maddow that Obama is not adopting the “Bush Doctrine” because the Bush Doctrine is not what it says it is. The real Bush Doctrine is an ill-conceived war of choice to line the pockets of cronies. The purported Bush Doctrine of preemptive war is not really all that controversial if coupled with an imminent threat, but Bush fraudulently convinced us of an imminent threat which didn’t exist.

The IAEA is telling us loud and clear that the Iranians are enriching Uranium beyond the point of peaceful uses. The EU is also imposing sanctions on them. There is no Hans Blix telling us he can’t find anything there. There’s stuff there.

The reason Iran can’t have the bomb isn’t that I don’t want smelly olive skinned Muslims to have nukes. I’m pretty sure that, coupled with lost property by big corps, is why the Republicans want to attack them, but it has nothing to do with me.

I’m worried about nuclear proliferation. Even if Iran only had a few weapons, it would trigger proliferation in the world’s most conflict-ridden area, probably forcing the Saudis, Turks, and Egyptians (at least) into producing nuclear weapons, and would force the Israelis to increase their arsenal, so too with India and Pakistan.

This is not good.

It’s true that we lived with the Soviets pointing thousands at us for decades—but how many different times do you think the Cold War could have been gone through that cleanly? There were times where only sheer luck prevented a nuclear exchange. Why is that proof of anything?

So, Michael Moore is now calling on the New York Times not to “lie us into another war.” And I agree, they should not. I agree that the facts must be solid, the international consensus must be strong, and there must be no occupation. Diplomacy must run its course, but there can be no nuclear Iran.

Invading Iraq and continuing the occupation in Afghanistan long beyond its freshness date have seriously impacted our ability to pull this kind of thing off both operationally, financially, and politically.

The tale of the boy who cried wolf is why you do permanent damage to a country’s security when you lie it into a war. When an entire generation cannot remember a major war that didn’t have bullshit as its basis, how do you fight the war that is real?

And I certainly don’t think nuclear proliferation is about oil, either. We all think terrorism is a problem, or the Israel/Palestine problem, or whatever. But we won’t think that when there’s a new nuclear cold war because the obvious facts are that since 1945, humanity has had the power to destroy itself in a fiery nightmare and we’ve walked on the knife edge too many times in that regard.