Dear Glenn,

HI! Good post. A couple of points: first, I've already written a couple of letters to Salon expressing my views on the dangers of Iran with a nuclear bomb, so I won't repeat the argument here other than to note that Iran with a nuclear bomb is not dangerous to anyone in particular - but it does make it much less vulnerable to Western pressure, which may be the whole point. Of course, this assumes that Iran is building a bomb, which is also a debatable proposition - it's more likely Iran wants to be "one turn of the screw" from a bomb, as opposed to having an actual nuclear arsenal. But interested readers can look up my past letters on this subject. (I think my argument is very similar to Uri Avnery's, quoted earlier).

What I do want to repeat is this observation: while it is certainly justifiable to condemn Joe Lieberman for his words, it is worth noting that an attack on Iran is an option that the Democrats are also keeping alive. Both John Edwards and Hillary Clinton have been explicit about the need for the US to be able to resort to force in dealing with Iran and Edwards did so in the specific context of defending Israel. Perhaps one of the reasons that Lieberman's comments have not evoked greater outrage is that the use of force against Iran to protect Israel is an option that has considerable traction across the entire "mainstream" political spectrum in the US. It may be a favorite idea of the neocons, but what passes for the "center" and the "left" in the US would also likely jump on the bandwagon if the right kind of scaremongering could be found to provide political cover.

This is easy to see in the way that President Ahmadinejad's comments on Israel keep being misrepresented. Ahmadinejad may be an ignorant man, and I am no fan of fundamentalists. But, as far as I can tell, he has never actually threatened Israel. He keeps wishing that Israel would disappear; he keeps predicting that it will. But he seems to be saying that he thinks Israel will collapse under the weight of its own injustice and immorality, etc., etc. Similar arguments were made by the USSR about the US and vice versa during the Cold War. Given how easy it is to twist his words, Ahmadinejad is certainly doing himself and his country no favours by continually harping on Israel, but he is still far from saying that he wants to actively destroy Israel through military means - an irrational statement if there ever were one, and Ahmadinejad is not irrational. The point here, however, is that the process of constructing Iran as some kind of regional boogeyman is well-underway and may be all the excuse that the Democrats eventually need to go along with an attack on Iran.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine

Dear Glenn,

I would say that there is about a 60-40 (or maybe 55-45) chance that the US will attack Iran before the end of Bush's term. If the Iraq War had gone well for the US, there is absolutely no question that the war on Iran would have been launched by now. Right now, however, the Liebermans,Poedhertzs, neocons and others who desperately want to attack Iran are doing whatever they can to build up a case - blame Iran for enough things and hope that something sticks. Or maybe the strategy is to level so many charges against Iran that, eventually, you can go to the public with a critical mass of "provocations" and say that the US has just cause to attack.

My main reason for believing that Bush will attack, however, is that the Bush Doctrine practically screams for it. After all, the BD was clearly written with Iran in mind - i.e., launch pre-emptive wars against "terrorist" states before they have the ability to hurt you. Putting aside the obvious problem that there is absolutely no credible argument that Iran is any threat to the US, the fact remains that Bush is still deeply committed to the BD. In his mind, the failure in Iraq is a failure of execution, but the basic principles behind the invasion remain sound. If Bush honestly believes that he has a God-given mission to rid the world of evil terrorist states, then he may also believe that he has a moral obligation to use his position as Commander-in-Chief to strike a blow for good while he still can. This is an especially compelling argument given that he has nothing left to lose, at least not politically. Moreover, his entire character seems based around his certainty of the morality of his actions and the need for courage in the face of opposition from everyone else. He has surrounded himself with ideologues who have, effectively, brainwashed him into their rather twisted view of the world and who have expertly played to his moral certainties. The fact that the Congress and the press have proven completely acquiescent to the Bush Administration is also relevant - who or what, exactly, is there to stop Bush if he does decide to attack Iran? As I've mentioned before, lots of Democrats will line up behind him, particularly if he plays the Israel card (which he certainly will).

On the positive side, an attack on Iran - as catastrophic as it will be - will also break American power in the world, permanently. While that may lead to chaos and uncertainty, it will also introduce new possibilities that, hopefully, can eventually have a better outcome. After all, the US has proven that it is an irresponsible great power. It's not clear to me that the rest of us want to continue in a world where the pre-eminent power can't handle the responsibility of being the pre-eminent power.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine