Or we could just switch our emphasis from Iraq to Afghanistan, and then maybe to North Korea, Pakistan, or Iran, depending on which one acts up the most. Novelty is always appealing. So this sounds like a plan, right?
Wrong. Attacking Iran would be particularly hypocritical at this point, after many of those who advocated bombing Iran are now (apparently) so invested in the reformers’ struggle in the Iranian election:
Imagine how many of the people protesting this week would be dead if any of these bombing advocates had their way — just as those who paraded around (and still parade around) under the banner of Liberating the Iraqi People caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of them, at least. Hopefully, one of the principal benefits of the turmoil in Iran is that it humanizes whoever the latest Enemy is. Advocating a so-called “attack on Iran” or “bombing Iran” in fact means slaughtering huge numbers of the very same people who are on the streets of Tehran inspiring so many — obliterating their homes and workplaces, destroying their communities, shattering the infrastructure of their society and their lives. The same is true every time we start mulling the prospect of attacking and bombing another country as though it’s some abstract decision in a video game…
The notion that we would have harmed Iran’s nuclear capabilities with our bombing attacks without killing substantial numbers of Iranian civilians is a fantasy comparable to the claim that we could remove Saddam Hussein in a quick and easy war, with few civilian casualties, and in the face of a grateful population.
Read more on why we should leave Iran alone and (for once) mind our own business here.Published in