Welcome to World War III

Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

Jahanshah Javid
by Jahanshah Javid
20-Nov-2007
 

In the days after September 11, 2001, I emailed a few people in Iran telling them not to get close to any major government buildings or installations. I was convinced the United States would attack not only Afghanistan and Iraq, but also Iran. You could see and feel the desire for revenge in every aspect of American society.

At the time a friend called from London and insisted that the Americans don't have the guts to invade any country in the region. Instead he believed they would only resort to firing missiles and carrying out air strikes, just as Clinton had done. I said listen, you have to be here to understand what I'm telling you; the Americans ARE coming. They will sweep through Afghanistan and get rid of Saddam and finally they will have their way with the Islamic Republic.

My prediction fell short. But what about now?

My feeling is that the Bush Administration has not entirely lost its appetite for war. Do not fool yourselves; be sure that many in Washington believe it's vital for America to finish the job it started and not allow the extremist regime in Tehran remain unscathed. From this American point view, if Iran isn't decisively challenged it would spell disaster for the U.S., Israel and every other pro-American regime in the Middle East.

Thousands of American soldiers have lost their lives and very soon the cost of the war is expected to soar to a trillion dollars (may I remind you that that is a THOUSAND billion dollars). After this astronomical investment, is the U.S. going to avoid the biggest prize of all and let the Islamic Republic continue business as usual? Taking on Iran could be decided in the White House over coffee and donuts. As simple as that. And in a matter of days, Iran's key nuclear facilities (and probably many military and industrial targets) could be hit in strategic bombings and missile attacks.

But now you have Pakistan falling apart. Afghanistan is still unstable. Iraq is a huge mess (and splitting into three countries). Turkey is feeling the heat from Kurdish separatists. And next door, Georgia is in turmoil. And I haven't even mentioned good old Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. Now step back and look at the whole region. I'm no political analyst, but goddamn... we're already experiencing World War III if you ask me. And as you can see, America does not appear to be winning. What we have here is a super power whose credibility has slipped to a point where it has lost much of its influence in the region. I don't think there's much left. Who listens to Washington these days? Who takes Bush, Cheney and Condi Rice seriously?

Under these circumstances one would think that attacking Iran and would be simply insane, especially when you don't have a good excuse for it and you've been caught lying about WMDs in Iraq. Repeated accusations that Iran is seeking an atomic bomb are even less credible than the WMD charges against Iraq under Saddam. The Iraqis at one time did possess a large arsenal of WMDs and used them in the war against Iran. So Iraq was easy to frame based on its aggressive history and Saddam's reckless adventurism, even though it turned out that the U.N. weapons' inspectors had done their job and Iraq had complied with Security Council demands to destroy its WMD stockpiles.

I have never thought that Iran -- under the Shah or the current theocracy -- has been actively and systematically seeking to build a nuclear bomb. I worked for Iranian state news organizations for more than ten years after the 1979 revolution. I was a strong supporter of the Islamic Republic. But in all those years and the years since, I personally have never felt that the Iranian people or the ayatollahs in power have shown any serious interest in building or acquiring nuclear weapons. Never.

Am I being naive (as usual)? Isn't it possible or even probable that key elements within the regime's military establishment are on a secret mission to build nuclear weapons? After all it is a fact that Iran did obtain nuclear bomb designs from Pakistan's A.K. Khan. Why would they? Obviously it would be easy to argue that since Israel, Pakistan, India and of course Russia (and the American armada in the persian Gulf) have nuclear arms, therefore it would be natural for the Islamic Republic to seek its own.

But even in the worst case scenario, I don't see how a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic could be a bigger threat than any nation that already has them. Why is it assumed that Iran under the ayatollahs would be a far more dangerous threat to the world than Stalinist Russia or Maoist China? They won't. But having the Bomb would give a sense of security to the Islamic Republic to the point where it could become ten times more belligerent than it already is. That's what the Americans, Israelis and probably Europeans fear most.

But are these assumptions enough to wage a new, devastating war? Is it ultimately worth it to carry out massive strikes simply on the basis of what Iran MIGHT do with its uranium and plutonium enrichment facilities? Is it wise to provoke fresh anti-American feelings among 80 million Iranians who happen to be one of the very few nations in the world to have a soft spot for the U.S.., thanks to nearly three decades of harsh religious rule? An attack on Iran would undoubtedly reverse this balance and force people to react against an unjustified foreign attack and show solidarity with the regime under intense nationalistic feelings.

And that's not all. You think the situation in the Middle East is bad now? It's nothing compared to what WILL unfold: The Islamic Republic has threatened to retaliate in kind against American and Israeli targets. Iran does not have a strong military by any regional standard, but what it does have is the ability to mobilize millions of devout volunteers in a time of war -- most likely a war of attrition that could go on for years, and provoke greater anti-Americanism not just in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan (where general populations are sympathetic to Iran), but also in the rest of the region as well as the islamic World at large. What a sight that would be...

Meanwhile we Iranians must not forget that the Islamic Republic is not blameless in the current crisis. Instead of calming fears and building confidence, its leaders routinely make incendiary remarks that do nothing other than worsening Iran's fundamentalist image in Western countries. What is the point of calling for the destruction of Israel? What's to be gained here? Most Iranians know full well that these are empty threats. But I'm not sure if you have noticed their impact on Israeli society. If you haven't read Israeli newspapers recently, I strongly recommend that you search online and go through the articles. Reading them makes you think another Holocaust is just around the corner.

You and I may think that's ridiculous, but Israel's fear of a nuclear Iran is far greater than we imagine. What we Iranians see as mere slogans for domestic consumption, the Israelis see as a serious threat against their very existence. And that means you can be sure the Israelis are more motivated to strike at Iran's nuclear facilities than the U.S. itself.

A few months ago I asked a prominent Israeli scholar if he thought Israel would carry out a bombing raid against Iran, just as it did against Iraq's nuclear plant in 1981. He said no. He said in order for Israeli bombers to reach Iran, they would need clearance from the American forces in the region. To me that does not sound like much of an obstacle. But what do I know sitting here in Berkeley, California? Still it seems obvious that amidst all the chaos and mayhem it's the the people who will suffer most while their belligerent, unimaginative and trigger-happy governments will flourish.

Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

Recently by Jahanshah JavidCommentsDate
Hooman Samani: The Kissinger
4
Aug 31, 2012
Eric Bakhtiari: San Francisco 49er
6
Aug 26, 2012
You can help
16
Aug 23, 2012
more from Jahanshah Javid
 
ahvazi

Jang Khoob-nist

by ahvazi on Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:26 AM PST

i know "cheshm basteh-Gheyb Migam" vali war with IRI will not solve any problem, it will only make Iranians suffer more. If Iranians don't like their govt. I am sure they can get rid of it. Even if the nuclear facilities are bombed,  i am sure the Iranians will rebuild it back eventually whether IRI is there or not. Mesle Aadam Beneshineen and normalize relations chon Jang Khoob-nist!


  •  
Rosie T.

The situation is very clear

by Rosie T. on Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:25 AM PST

and it is very clearly elucidated RIGHT HERE, in a blog that unfortunately wasn't featured and has NOT been seen enough;

 //iranian.com/main/blog/sce-campaign/un-panel-passed-resolution-against-death-penalty

 My comment, my one lone comment, I really feel should be taken VERY seriously.

While we were all blabbing here this week, AOL featured for two days another UN report: predictions of massive extinction of species, floodings of major cities, and massive water shortage beginning of course in Africa, all within the next couple of decades, if nothing is done.  AOL.  NOT Z-net, not al-Ahram, not the Quakers.

The lines are VERY clearly drawn and they AREN'T what some people think they are.

Robin

(PS Frigging Flowerpot, Shahanshah David....)


  •  
default

How about rising and condemning the most barbaric regime?

by (:-)) (not verified) on Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:46 AM PST

At the time of WAR, how about rising and condemning the most barbaric regime (Islamic Republic) in our history that is foreign to us? How about Iranians list their demands as they put efforts to stop US aggression? How about demanding actively and not passively?

What about democracy in Iran?
What about a secular Iran?
What about women’s equality in Iran?
What about freedom of oppositions in Iran?
What about Freedom of press in Iran?
What about Human Rights in Iran?
What about freedom of speech in Iran?
What about having a Secular United Democratic Republic in Iran?
What about poverty in Iran?
What about political prisoners in Iran?
What about independent Judiciary in Iran?


  •  
Abarmard

No attack

by Abarmard on Tue Nov 20, 2007 09:32 AM PST

If attack does happen I would hope that the Iranian (so called) "community" condemns it and begin series of demonstrations. But I am hopeful that our beautiful Iran won't see any wars. Whatever the IRI, no war can make Iran better and we all know that. I just hope that you are totally wrong on this Not So Anonymous


  •  
default

Attack WILL happen

by Not So Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Nov 20, 2007 09:01 AM PST

JJ Joon,
Nokaretam....we all know the attack will happen....its just a matter of timing.

Attack will be in form of 50-150 "surgical" strike using laser or otherwise guided missiles as well as a half dozen or so sorties by the B2 bombers.

Of course, during this time, a shit load of naval support including carrier groups etc will be in the Gulf as just in case measure.

My money is on the period between late March to early June 2008.

This Bush guy is a Ke-Ray-Zee mother fucker!


  •  
default

Once bitten before

by Fooled before too (not verified) on Tue Nov 20, 2007 08:57 AM PST

Since you asked, you say: “I was a strong supporter of the Islamic Republic” the obvious inference is that you are not anymore. If that is the case, your views expressed here are remarkably similar to that of Islamic Republic and its supporters visa vie its long hidden dual use Atomic work, lack of reason to be specially alarmed even if it did get to develop and posses nuclear arms, American standing in the region, even the wordage used to describe the current American administration’s middle east policy. Disapproval of current US administration, in most cases well justified, should not blind one to embrace Islamic Republic's propaganda, more so those once bitten before.


  •  
Anonymouse

Chavez is a joke

by Anonymouse on Tue Nov 20, 2007 08:41 AM PST

US can always send a variety of missles to Venezuela. Easy, cheap and the latest versions from ground, air or sea. Maybe even a beta version! If it gets that far. I liked it last weekend when one of the Latin American ambassadors told him to just "shut up". It seemed he was used to hearing it before. Didn't bother him! The picture of him standing next to Ahmadinejad is priceless! A classic!


  •  
Sasha

You all what about? .............

by Sasha on Tue Nov 20, 2007 08:34 AM PST

What do you all think the effect of Chavez getting so friendly with Iran?

 

Personally I don't think Chavez gives a damn about Iran. He has his own agenda and I think he is trying to piss off the US.

 


  •  
default

It's vs. Its

by glooby gloob glooby (not verified) on Tue Nov 20, 2007 08:11 AM PST

It's: a contraction, meaning, "It is" or, if you are British, maybe, "It has."

Its: the possessive form of the pronoun it; belonging to it

Like his, hers, ours, theirs, yours, mine, its. Not an apostrophe in the bunch.

Just thought several million people could use that li'l reminder lesson about English spelling.


  •  
Anonymouse

Waste of time to argue with war supporters

by Anonymouse on Tue Nov 20, 2007 07:38 AM PST

It's just a waste of time to argue with people who have a thick vein popping out their necks. They said in the 80s and 90s that regime will fold in just a few years. Then they gave up until US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Since then a light went up for them and they now want regime change. They think human rights violations in Iran is a "secret". Or that anyone who supports peace is an IRI supporter. Or use meaningless terms like Islamo fascism. At best a strike on Iran would make Iran similar to Afghanistan and Iraq, a quagmire, stuck in mud, no victory. Don't waste your time in a slug fest with them. Let them say what they want. Save your breath! haven't you learned anything yet?!


  •  
Abarmard

I Agree

by Abarmard on Tue Nov 20, 2007 07:29 AM PST

I absolutely agree with your points in this article. Also I think the best scenario for the Iranians would be to have the world to begin respecting the regime of Iran and treating it like a main regional player. I do believe that the Iranian regime is adjustable and can become part of the "International Community" once the chance is given. The factions inside the regime is many, but the following the general trend of the regime can tell us that the IRI is not too unreasonable when it comes to the interest of IRI existence. The rest should be put on the shoulders of those who live inside the country. If we want to "Over throw" the IRI, first we need to have an organized opposition that has grown from the Iranian support rather than the foreign investment. Looking at the regime today, I really don't feel that they want to have the bomb for any price. But they will try to have it as long as the threat grows. With a growing pressure, the valve (supop) of the regime will be the continuous defiance towards what the west perceives as their interests.


  •  
default

America is Weak ..

by Shae'r (not verified) on Tue Nov 20, 2007 07:19 AM PST

The eagle is weak ..
Bogged down in Iraq ..
Its Masses Discontent ..
...
No end In sight ..
The Devil Mullahs Love this Situation ..
So Long as America is bogged down ..
Its People Would Not approve of an Attack ..
...
If They are Foolish enough To attack ..
No doubt ..
The "WHOLE MIDDLE EAST" Would Blow Up ..
...
Jahanshah,
You Have To Understand One Thing:
America Will "NEVER" Commit an act that It May "LOSE CONTROL" ..
For "ALL" The Reasons that You Have described Yourself ..
In a Situation Like This, They "WILL LOSE" Control ..
...
Hamas Will Be Loosened ..
Hezbollah will Come Forth ..
Israel Will Be attacked ..
The Entire Region Will Be Engulfed ..
...
And Finally,
The "Trump Card" of them All ..
Russia Will Get "INVOLVED" ..
...
This is Russia's "Backyard" ..
They Are "NOT" Going To Sit By and See America Take Over ..
You Have to Understand ..
Although "RUSSIA" is Economically Weak ..
It has Over 10,000 Nuclear Weapons ..
...
The Moral Of The Story Is This:
There Are "ENOUGH" Cool Heads In America ..
That They Will "WALK BACK" From The Abyss ..
...
I Know That some May say That This is "Naiive" ..
But I Can say "Cathegorically", That If America Attacks Iran ..
It Goes Against The Whole "GRAIN" Of American Society ..
...
Iran is "NOT" Iraq ..


  •  
default

Brovo!!

by Anon. (not verified) on Tue Nov 20, 2007 07:16 AM PST

a very clear and intelligent insight about the events unfolding around us.


  •  
default

The whole purpose of this

by USA (not verified) on Tue Nov 20, 2007 07:07 AM PST

The whole purpose of this from the very beginning was Iran. It was systematic and planned. Clinton tried when he bombed afghanistan but USA realized soon that they needed a better excuse to invade the region more formally. So 911 HAPPENED! After that, every bit started falling into place. Even the war between hezbollah and lebonan was to weaken the hezbollah so they couldn't help Iran with attacks against American interest in the region. Even the Palestinian peace process doesn't go any where because of American greed in Iran. Now, Iran is pretty much surrounded

Take a look at this: Very interesting.
//news.monstersandcritics.com/usa/news/articl...


  •  
Ben Madadi

The wisest move...

by Ben Madadi on Tue Nov 20, 2007 06:40 AM PST

I also see the fear of the Israelis. If I was an Israeli I would not have much sleep knowing that a regime that pays Hamas and Hezbollah to attack my land also has nuclear weapons. There is a serious problem at hand indeed, and there is no simple solution. Probably the best solution is to let the Iranian regime become nuclear and start finding ways to deal with a nuclear Iran. Striking Iran's nuclear facilities is more dangerous than letting Iran go nuclear, because it would rally the Iranian masses behind the regime. By the way, isn't a nuclear Pakistan also terribly dangerous? I think it may be more dangerous than a nuclear Iran. Anyway, it's a tricky situation and there is no simple solution.


  •  
« first‹ previous12