For Those Interested in Avoiding "World War III"- 5 Reasons NOT to Bomb Iran

(aside from the deeper ethical implications with bombing a people)

1) The Iranian people- the fact that Iran is a real place, not an ideological abstraction, but a place where people live their lives, is rarely acknowledged in popular discourse on Iran. Even more rarely is the diversity of the nearly 70 million people recognized. 70% of Iranians are under the age of 30 and 23% of the population is under 14 years old. When the "mad mullah" argument is pounded out, let's remember to ask the questions of who these demonized characters really represent in the context of the wider diverse and vulnerable segments of society. (I bring this up because I am about to engage in the common foreign policy crime of using the name of a country or its capital to exclusively refer to the top governing rulers in it.)

2) Ahmadinejad is not the issue- After centuries of fighting colonization, annexation, decades of foreign governments toppling their own, Tehran is very possessive of keeping the actual governing structure of Iran cloaked in secrecy. The transparency of Iran's governing structure in the past made it especially vulnerable to foreign intervention. (Rarely discussed, perhaps since being defined by a history of coup d'etats orchestrated by foreign powers is something that no post-Revolution American--- except for Native Americans--- has ever had to relate to.)
So we don't know what's really going on....and after almost 30 years of cut-off formal diplomatic relations probably doesn't help. What we do know, is that the Ayatollah Khamenei has supreme power making Iran, as the CIA puts it, a "theocratic republic." The CIA World Factbook is not one to mince words; it accurately describes North Korea's government as a "one man Communist dictatorship." Unfortunately Lee Bollinger, President of Columbia University, drew on no other source but sensationalism to label Ahmadinejad as a "petty and cruel dictator." "Petty"---perhaps the best word to describe him. "Cruel"--- even better. But dictator? He was elected by popular vote in 2005 and his term will run out in 2009. If you read Human Rights Watch's reports on Iran, it wasn't the election itself that was troubling but rather the pre-election selection, in which the unelected Guardian Council (a 12 man body accountable to the Ayatollah) has ultimate power over who can run. So the most repressive part is not that the elected president has too much power, but at how little power elected officials such as him actually have in this structure. They continue to have control throughout the presidency, so Ahmadinejad has many superiors, whereas a dictator is defined by absolute power.
The Iranians were given a choice between two different presidents- Ahmadinejad and the more pro-Western reformist Rafsanjani. While Rafsanjani lost as president, he was elected as the leader of the Assembly of Experts, which has the power to dismiss Ahmadinejad or even the Supreme Leader. Iran does not have a democracy. Iran has an authoritarian regime with a horrible human rights record (and these days things are getting much worse). However, to call anything but a Western democracy a dictatorship is to lump Ahmadinejad in the same category as Saddam Hussein, who really was in complete control of the government, or King Jong-il, which is giving him far, far more power than he was ever given by the Iranian government. We can not understand the Iranian government by understanding the psychosis of Ahmadinejad, as was the rationale with Saddam.

3) Iran does not have nuclear weapons- The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is undergoing the second round of talks with Iran, focusing on Iran's controversial centrifuges. According to the Washington Post, Iran cooperated with the IAEA to develop "a new work plan and timelines for resolving numerous questions about the history of its nuclear program." It is still in violation of UN Security Council violations by continuing to enrich uranium, however," its fuel enrichment plant has produced 'well below the expected quantity for a facility of this design.' The quality of the uranium also was lower than expected, the IAEA said." The IAEA will issue its full report in late November, when Javier Solana, the EU's Foreign Policy Chief will also issue his report on his own negotiations with Iran.
Still not convinced? It seems Pres. Bush is. He, along with the rest of the hawks who cannot wait to destroy Iran, have changed their talk. They can't prove that Iran actually has nuclear weapons as Iran continues to cooperate with the IAEA. Here is Bush's latest:

"....if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

(AFP, October 17th)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071017/pl_afp/usrussiairannuclearbush_071017222738

So does Iran have the knowledge to make a nuclear weapon? Um, there are MIT students who have the knowledge to make a nuclear bomb. I'm sure Iran does, and it's hard for me to believe that any of the dozens of countries using nuclear energy DON'T have "the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon".

4) Iran bluffing on its power, nuclear and otherwise, is to be expected- So if Iran has nothing to hide, why don't they just come clean and bring in the Bush administration's own weapons inspectors? Right...as to follow in the footsteps of when Bush's weapons inspectors came into Iraq, failed to find any evidence of WMD stockpiles, and then the US decided to go ahead and carpet bomb the country anyway? Perhaps I shouldn't say "anyway"... after watching the peaceful negotiations with North Korea, a much more self-isolating government with more concerning nuclear progress, and watching one of the greatest humanitarian crises in the world today accelerate in Iraq and US massive bombing raids continue on for four and a half years (or 16 depending on how you count "massive"), it seems that Iraq wasn't attacked because it had WMD's, but precisely because it didn't.
Iran saw the international community at best ignore (UN), and at worst complicit in (US, EU chemical manufacturing companies), Saddam's relentless assault on the Iranian people. The most extensive chemical attacks in the world used since WWI were used by Saddam during the Iraq-Iran War. Iran lost 100,000 military and civilian casualties from chemical attacks, and to this day, tens of thousands suffer from injuries. One would think that a history of its tenuous relationships with its Arab neighbors, and a nuclear Israel (that refuses to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty) would give it reason to seek "the bomb". However, Iran has a deterrent to its neighbors including Israel--- which the world now knows about from its proud display of its long range (1,800 km) missles.
It has no such deterrent to US- and what would be a better deterrent than having a nuclear bomb (or even better- simply convincing the US that it has a nuclear bomb without having to invest the enormous amount of capital and wait for the 3-5 years the IAEA takes for it to acquire one).
The more we step up threats on Iran, the more incentive there is for Iran to step up its own incentives to get going on its nuclear program (regardless of what capability it actually has to do so), and to step up its threats as well as part of the bluffing strategy. (Same reason why Saddam was never clear on nuclear weapons use.)

5) Bombing Iran won't bring peace, democracy, human rights, womens' rights, gay rights, make the future of Israel more secure, or cause an outpouring of previously repressed global love for the US as 'the great protector of humanity'.
I don't say this in jest---- the notion that escalating hostilities with Iran could be justified on these grounds is the message underlying American press reports on a daily basis. Attacking Iran would crush the potential for all of these aspirations. Other prospects that might actually bring about some of these changes in time (except for the last part on redeeming the US in global opinion... I give up on that one) :

* The Iranian parlimentary elections, slated for this upcoming February. (Guess what the best way is for foreign powers to ensure Ahmadinejad's pals would be brought to power? Hint...the same sorts of events work to get hard-liners elected in any country, including in the US of A)

* The upcoming presidential elections for mid-2009. (And yes, I believe January 20, 2009 in a different country will enhance these prospects as well)

* The Iranian people - In spite of, or perhaps because of, a long history of horrific attacks and repressive regimes, Iranian social movements broke the iron grip of colonial-backed monarchs through the courageous and democratic election of Mossadegh. Iran enjoyed the first democratically elected government in the Middle East, outside of Israel. Less than 2 years after TIME Magazine chose Mossadegh as man of the year (over Winston Churchill, Dwight Eisenhower, and Harry Truman), the US overthrew him to install the "pro-Western" Shah. I write "pro-Western" in quotes because the Shah was pro-Western in terms of giving the US good oil contracts, not living up to the ideals of the Enlightenment. To the contrary, the Shah, with the help of his secret police, went on to murder and torture Iranians for 26 years. In 1976 Amnesty International declared on Iran as having the single worst human rights record on the planet.

Yet, the Iranian people have survived centuries of abuse and its vibrant human rights movement continues to grow strong despite the recent crackdowns on civil society organizations.

The best way--- the only way--- to support the Iranian people is to convince our government that it is not in America's interests to attack Iran. To every extent that we have a democracy, the sort that the Iranian people and others the world over are fighting for, we are responsible to do just that.

SOURCES Bits and pieces are pulled from the incredible Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the US by Trita Parsi, the only writer who has had access to senior American, Israeli, and Iranian officials. This is an absolute MUST READ for anyone interested in Iran (or Israel or the US). He writes brilliantly about why Iran has had to make inflammatory remarks about Israel to get the support of its Arab allies, even while it deliberately supports Israel at the same time.
*Powers Set New Deadling for Iran (09/29/07)
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/72a4e8ce-6e62-11dc-b818-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1
*Washington Post (08/30/07): "Iran Cooperating in Nuclear Investigation"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/30/AR2007083000460.html
*The IAEA Daily News:
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Dpr/pressreview.html
*Rafsanjani to Lead Key Iran Body (09/04/07)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6977451.stm