Brinson says "Attack Iran" in Morning Call

      John Brinson, on October 6, published a column in the Morning Call that attacked the anti-war movement and proposed an attack on Iran as a necessary foreign policy initiative. His call for more war is justified by fictional anti-war straw figures that he constructs out of his fantasies, using terms like, “liberals”, “anti-war folks”, “anti-war left”, “fearful”. Brinson never bothers to quote or mention one anti-war person, yet he spends a large part of his article opposing his mythic anti-war constructions. He speaks of the threat of Hitler, conflates him with Ahmedinejad, and ends with the necessity of bombing another sovereign nation, pre-emptively, illegally,in violation of domestic and international law. It is astonishing, really, that a reputable paper prints such drivel. 

     In reality, the anti-war movement is very broad, with a good representation of veterans, as well as conservatives, such as Ron Paul and John Murtha. 

     The reasons for opposing a war in Iraq are not contingent on a pacifist or anti-war philosophy. There are political, social and military arguments for resolving the conflict with Iran through diplomacy and negotiation, as will be the final result with or without military conflict. Militarily, we cannot defeat Iran. Socially, the war with Iran will strike a severe blow against the global economy, with repercussions for all societies. It does not require an anti-war philosophy to reach the conclusion that there are better ways, in this case, to proceed. 

      I submitted this op-ed piece to the Morning Call 10/9/2007. It has not been published as of this writing, 10/16/2007.

     The drumbeat for a war against Iran is increasing in pulse and intensity. Those who favor such a war argue, first, that Iran is aiding the insurgency in Iraq against the US occupation force. General Petraeus pointed his finger at Iran, stating, ” The Iranian influence has been very, very harmful to Iraq. There is absolutely no question that Iranians are funding, arming, training, and even in some cases, directing the activities of extremists and militia elements.“ 

     George Bush stated, ”All options are on the table", when asked about military action against Iran. His administration calls a nuclear Iran “unacceptable”. \

     The United States Senate recently passed two resolutions castigating Iran’s Kudz Guard, and Iran’s actions in Iraq. In the Morning Call, on October 6, columnist John Brinson noted another rationale for an attack, “I think we should destroy Iran's capacity for developing nuclear weapons now, with precision air strikes, avoiding innocent civilian casualties. We can do it. We should do it. I think we must do it.” 

     I believe it is important to examine both the arguments used to justify a United States military attack against Iran, and the likely consequences of such an attack. As to the argument about Iran aiding the insurgency, let us recognize that the country that has gained the most power in the region due to the US invasion and occupation has been Iran. This Shi’ite nation is closely linked to the current Shi’ite Iraqi government that our troops are shedding blood to support. The Iraqi Prime Minister, a Shi’ite, Nouri Al-Maliki, spent years in exile in Iran. Every year, over one million Iranians visit Iraq on pilgrimages. Iran is Iraq’s closest ally. The people to people links between these neighbors mean that the US will never be able to fight an anti-insurgency war in Iraq without dealing with Iranian influence. Further, I believe that the US military and the Bush administration are cherry picking data to exaggerate the military importance of Iran in the anti-insurgency effort. 

     A huge contradiction does confront the US: how does an occupying force gain by attacking the closest ally of the government it is attempting to legitimize? 

     We have heard the nuclear argument before. It has been raised by the Bush administration, just as in the buildup to the Iraq War, when Condeleeza Rice stated, “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.“ However, now it appears that Iran is years away from a nuclear weapon. Furthermore, they are proceeding under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. We have years to work with Iran to ensure that their nuclear ambitions remain within internationally accepted parameters. 

     Brinson speaks of a swift, surgical strike that would limit civilian casualties and destroy Iran’s capability to produce weapons of mass destruction. This is exactly what we heard about the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The first component of the attack would be the air bombardment called “Shock and Awe”. The invasion was a cakewalk. The United States was liberating a nation. What has been gained by the US war against Iraq? 

     Iraq has been devastated. Its infrastructure was destroyed and has never recovered. There are over two million refugees who have fled Iraq for Syria, Jordan, and Kuwait, and over two million internally displaced. The Bush administration promises to pursue the conflict to victory, but constantly changes its definition of victory. The United States military is bogged down in an endless anti-insurgency struggle against a nationalist foe determined to reject a foreign dominator. 

     I believe we should learn from the failed Iraq policy of the Bush administration and not seek a military solution to a political problem with Iran. 

     Furthermore, an attack against Iran would have brutal consequences for the United States. The blundering Bush administration has given months and years of warning of their hostile intentions. Iran is ready to respond. The Straits of Hormuz will be blocked, oil fields within reach of Iran’s military will be disabled, and the war in Iraq will be extended throughout the Middle East. 

     There are alternatives. Iran has not invaded another country in their modern history. They have fought fiercely when attacked, as during the Iraq War, but they have not sought to expand their territory. The population does not want war, and is hungry for the fruits of a modern economy, as the due of an oil-rich nation. I believe that Iran could be a partner in seeking a Middle East peace. As the Baker Commission suggested, let us talk with them about the situation. By opposing negotiations with Iran, the United States only strengthens the hardliners of the region. By attacking Iran, the United States would reap a blowback that will leave Usama Bin-Laden gloating in his cave. -Joe DeRaymond, an anti-Iraq War activist