Keep Those War Drums Inside
Before bringing out the drums for war, people need to make sure the reports they hear from the government and sources which have long desired for war are legitimate. And even then they must be careful and not assume that if what they hear is correct, it really gives cause for war.
Back at the time of the first Gulf War, so many things said about Iraq and its actions turned out to be false — propaganda created to get the US into war. The same, of course, is true with our return to Iraq under G.W. Bush: the claims of Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction were false (and I knew they were false back when the claims were being made — I specifically remember when Colin Powell was at the UN; while he was talking and making charges, I was showing people how those charges were already outdated and proven to be false)
There has been a great push for conflict with Iran. Within the last week, I’ve read several reports indicating Iran planned to do something big to “shock the West” today, the 11th of February. I even had one older gentleman in my apartment complex, seeing me taking pictures of the snow storm, motion for me to come over, and then he told me what he had heard was going to happen today.I immediately asked him about the source of his information and if he knew how accurate they were. I told him that many times in the recent past, much of what Iran has done and much of what its officials have stated have been misconstrued by Western media (such as when President Ahmadinejad’s desire for the removal of the present ruling regime in Israel has been turned into a often repeated lie about him wanting to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.).
Today, it has been reported that Iran is now a “nuclear state” with the first batch of enriched uranium enriched to the level of 20%. Already, the calls for a response are being made. Already, people are making him say things he did not say. For example, the Daily Mail is saying:
This morning Ahmadinejad told scores of cheering Iranians that the Islamic Republic is capable of producing weapons-grade uranium.
Now it is true he said they can enrich it to 80%, but that is not all he said. The implication which we got from this, that Iran is making weapons-grade uranium and its President is issuing a threat to the world, is false. There is more to the story than this. While it is probable that he will not tell the world all of his intentions, Amadinejad said that Iran has no interest in using the uranium for weapons. As reported in Al-Jazeera :
Iran announced on Tuesday that it was beginning to further enrich its uranium stockpile so that it could be made into fuel rods for use in a medical research reactor in Tehran.
[and]
But Ahmadinejad repeated his insistence that Iran’s nuclear programme was not aimed at producing a nuclear weapon.
“If we wanted to manufacture a bomb, we would announce it … our nation has the courage to explicitly say it and build it and not fear you.,” he said.
Interestingly enough, the Al-Jazeera article points out that there are issues to the credibility to Iran’s claims. It is possible they have produced what they said, but many have doubts:
An International Atomic Energy Agency memo released on Wednesday, however, also appeared to cast doubt on Ahmadinejad’s claims, saying that its efforts were only modest at the moment.
As Catholics, we need to realize, even if Iran gets weapons grade uranium, that alone does not give justification for war. Indeed, if we follow the war hawks now and do any bombing raids over Iran right now, all that would do is give Iran the possibility for a just war in response.
Do we really want to do that? Do we really want to give them cause for a holy war against the West?
Comments are closed.
Indeed, it seems to me that Ahmadinejad may be looking for a way to prod us into some type of a response in order to unite the Iranian people behind him.
With everything else going on (2 wars, weak economy, etc.) the last thing we need right now is yet another war, even if it is justified. But I wonder if the democrats, seeing the weak political position that they are in, might start to beat the drums before November rolls around.
Steve
While I am afraid that many Democrats would support such a war (and former Democrats as well), we must not think this is an issue only for them. Remember, many Republicans are pushing for such a war as well. And some, like Pat Buchanan, are not.
As for Sarah Palin? She seems quite confused; she wants the war, but confused Daniel Pipes for Pat Buchanan:
http://www.payvand.com/news/10/feb/1089.html
Yet, despite her slip up, her sentiment is quite strong in the nation among hawks, Democrat and Republican alike.
No argument. It’s just that it seems that the democrats have been traditionally against war unless, it seems, it is politically expedient. They are now in charge. It’ll be interesting how things unravel over the coming months. Rebublicans are (or at least have the reputation of being) generally more hawkish regardless of political fallout.
Steve
I do think Obama is less likely than McCain was to “bomb Iran,” for obvious reasons. But, and others, knew he was not pro-peace — just he looked less pro-war than others if you know what I mean. But it seems he is gearing up more and more of the military machine, and not just in the place we knew he would (Afghanistan). It’s why I put the missile shield as a criticism of Obama a few days ago.
Henry,
Do you think peace requires doing nothing while Iran moves closer and closer to making its own nuclear weapons? If the use of violence or force is wrong, then is threatening wrong also?
I believe the American bishops long ago condemned the idea of retaliating against the (then) Soviet Union if they launched a nuclear attack against the United States. Do you think it makes sense to let someone who might attack you that you will not retaliate?
David
You really asked many questions, and I will only give quick answers right now. Perhaps I will explore these issues further in posts. Often the questions you ask each would require a significant amount of work to respond fully and properly, and so I hope you understand that what I say might appear incomplete: for it will be.
Now. Let’s go through what you asked.
Do I think peace requires doing nothing? No. There are many things we can do. We can actually engage Iran instead of turn it into the next imaginary threat that becomes a real threat. How we treat them with our power and force has them responding in kind. But let’s turn this around — does peace require Iran to do nothing when Israel wants to bomb them and many people in the US want to turn their land into glass? As you said, the threatening of force is wrong (though of a different level of evil than actual use of force, which we will both agree) — but the point is, the US and Israel and many others have the threat of force on Iran. What should they do? So I would agree, doing nothing doesn’t help, because we are at such a point where we are increasing the cycle of distrust; instead, we need to be proactive and work with Iran in such a way that we turn an enemy into a friend. That is the Christian response, but more important, it is the way which works (look to the history with England and France).
So you fail to know how much our own weapons, our own forces throughout the world (especially in the Middle East and Iraq) is itself a threat against Iran. If threats are wrong, and people who are threatened should have a right to respond, what is wrong with Iran responding?
Of course I don’t agree with that sentiment — I understand why Iran does what it does, for it follows the logic you provided and the logic the US follows. But it is the logic which leads to blindness and increase hostilities. While I don’t believe either side wants it to be more than that, people in either side could make it worse. It just takes one hothead from either side.
But again, we must remember how the US is in the one in control of the situation. So we have more responsibility, for ourselves, and how others act to us.
So — here goes. 1) I don’t think Iran should have nuclear weapons. But do I know for sure they are going after them? No. It makes sense, however because 2) they see the US and its dominance as a threat and as long as they don’t have it, we pressure them through ours. So 3) I think the US needs to do something about its own to help create the peace. This is also what the Church has said. But until them, the mere threat of someone else does not justify an attack. Preemptive wars are not just wars. But the thing is, if we attack Iran now, we give them just cause for a just war — just because one has a just cause does not mean it will end up as a just war. But the invader almost always find “national security” as an excuse. And it really is because we have already used our arms to be king of the hill, and use it to dictate to others what they can or cannot do, that someone like an Iran will respond. So we need to change our own ways. That is the answer.
There is absolutely no possibility of stopping Iran from eventually developing nuclear capacity even if she were attacked now. To attack Iran when China and Russia would be likely to oppose the attack and to help Iran rebuild her nuclear capabilities would be insane. It would also re-unite the Iranian people behind their repressive and theocratic regime at the very moment when the Iranian opposition is surging. The only hope of defusing the situation is to attempt, temporarily, to “contain” Iran’s nuclear threat and to bid for time for a more democratic force to take charge in the country. Even then, however, there will be a nuclear capacity for Iran, because the people of Iran want it, as a matter of national pride and aspiration. America and Israel threaten Iran, right now, with a military strike at their own peril.
We shouldn’t attack Iran because it would be wrong for us to attack Iran.
Why would a war against the U.S. in retaliation for bombing their fissile materials enrichment facilities be a holy war, specifically?
I can see how it’d be a war. And I don’t deny that any war carried out by a cabal of theocrats, however licentious their private lives, would be accompanied by a lot of religious rhetoric.
But do the Iranians actually hold that their possession of weapons grade material is a religious duty? That a strike against their enrichment facilities is a strike against Islam?
To make the point in a facetious and exaggerated way: Where in the Koran does it say that ayatollahs are required to have nukes?
If a foreign power nuked the Vatican, I think the response would be a holy war, because holy things were attacked.
And I suppose any attack which is motivated by obvious religious zeal — anything in which the attackers are shouting Allahu Akbar as the plane hits the building, for example — qualifies as an instance of holy war.
But is a war still a holy war when the thing attacked is a non-religious thing attacked for non-religious reasons? The connection then seems tenuous, however theocratic the regime.
A small point in the grand scheme of things, but it bugged me.
Because the war would begin with a just cause (defense) and would end with Iran’s Ayatollahs’ finding all kinds of reasons for the war, including the decadence of the West. We have to understand the ramifications of our actions and the kind of sentiment already held against us.
We shouldn’t attack Iran because it would be wrong for us to attack Iran.
Would it be wrong of the United States or some other country to bomb key nuclear facilities in Iran without “attacking Iran”? Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor, and no war followed. I don’t think it’s possible in this case, but would it be wrong in principle? A case can be made, its seems to me, that no one has the right to nuclear weapons. The fact that some countries have them does not mean that every other country should have them, too.
David
Such an attack would be an act of war.
“Would it be wrong of the United States or some other country to bomb key nuclear facilities in Iran without “attacking Iran”?”
Is it wrong, then, to understand that al-Qaeda “bombing” the World Trade Center constitutes “attacking the United States?” How do you figure that you can bomb anything in a sovereign nation without ipso facto “attacking that nation”?
Such an attack would be an act of war.
Absolutely, and it better be understood, by both Israel and America, that Iran is not Iraq and that she has far greater capacity to retaliate.