Bush strategy working? So why attack Iran?

Were the US hawks correct about the effect of regime change and elections in Iraq on its larger neighbor? If so, why do they want to bomb Iran? Such an attack would destroy the Iranian reform movement.


Excellent reporting from Iran by PBS Newshour correspondent Elizabeth Farnsworth broadcast last Friday (2/25) included interviews with Iranian reformers (Newshour screen pictures, Dr. Mohammad Reza Khatami and Nobel Laureate Shirin Ebadi)

The reports the PBS Newshour's Elizabeth Farnsworth has filed from Iran are very worthwhile. (Transcript from 2/25/2005 here) There is one strong message for the American War Party Farnsworth carried from Iranian reformers, especially this comment from the Reformist vice presidential candidate and brother of the current Iranian president, also named Mohammed Khatami:

DR. MOHAMMAD REZA KHATAMI: One thing that is very clear - that the plan of the U.S. Government is change of regime in Iran. And I think people here in Iran also are against many activities of behavior of the government; they do not want a change of regime, because we have an example here that one revolution is enough for us.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: This was a theme we heard over and over: That Iranians had suffered enough in the past quarter century....

Farnsworth also quoted and then heard a strong message against US intervention from Nobel Laureate Shirin Ebadi:

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Attorney Shirin Ebadi has also been outspoken in opposing American intervention in Iran. In a Feb. 8 op-ed article, she and Hadi Ghaemi of Human Rights Watch insisted that what they call "civil society activists" are the best hope for change in Iran. They warned that: "The threat of foreign military intervention will provide a powerful excuse for authoritarian elements to uproot these groups and put an end to their growth."

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Why would an invasion hurt human rights?

SHIRIN EBADI (Translated): It's very natural for them to use the excuse of national security to crush all of those who are fighting for freedom.

The Iranian reformers clearly are taking the election in Iraq as a positive sign! Is this not what President Bush wants? It must be clear to the ultrahawks in Washington that a June attack, timed to strike right in the midst of the Iranian election, would in fact disrupt this chance for reform, and bring on a hard-line security reaction.

And the administration did follow up with a signal that June will be the time for an attack, saying that the EU would have until then to come up with a nuke deal.

But earlier in Brussels, Bush said he had no plans to attack Iran. "Ridiculous," he said last week, even though "All options are on the table."

For observers of President Bush, such duplicitous statements should through experience tell us that what he really means is that an attack is being planned -- the case in point remarks Bush gave during a visit with German Chancellor Schroeder in Berlin on May 23, 2002.

PRESIDENT BUSH: ...And I told the Chancellor that I have no war plans on my desk, which is the truth, and that we've got to use all means at our disposal to deal with Saddam Hussein. And I appreciate the German Chancellor's understanding of the threats of weapons of mass destruction. And they're real.

The world has since learned, of course, that plans for the invasion of Iraq to occur in ten months were well underway on that day in May 2002, and that the weapons were not real. Bush is shameless in his lying about US intentions.

It all looks so similar. And it is not just Fox News that is playing the fear mongering game. The New York Times is out today with this agitative, stenographic story:

U.S. Accuses Iran of Deceiving U.N. Inspectors

VIENNA, March 2 - The United States and other members of the board of the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency intensified the pressure on Iran today, accusing the nation of numerous failures to abide by its own promise to suspend all its uranium enrichment activities.

Déjà Vu all over again. I'll have to save for another post analysis of the question of why they want to attack Iran now and pull the rug out from under reformers there. I believe this policy to be quite intentional.