Iran, Fearmongering & Election ’08

Iran, Fearmongering & Election ’08

The essential and not surprising reality of 2008: The Republicans are desperate for a national security threat to rally their base. How else to explain McCain’s uber-adviser/ lobbyist/ Charlie Black’s “slip” about how a terrorist attack will help his candidate’s failing fortunes.

Now we have Sy Hersh, the reporter who has done more, singlehandedly, to expose the Administration’s drive to war–with Iran–than any congressional committee.

Last December, the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) found that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Barack Obama claimed that the NIE’s findings vindicated his calls for greater engagement with Iran. “By reporting that Iran halted its nuclear weapon development program four years ago because of international pressure, the new National Intelligence Estimate makes a compelling case for less saber-rattling and more direct diplomacy.” Then Presidential candidate John Edwards used the strongest language: “The new National Intelligence Estimate shows that George Bush and Dick Cheney’s rush to war with Iran is, in fact, a rush to war.”

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

The essential and not surprising reality of 2008: The Republicans are desperate for a national security threat to rally their base. How else to explain McCain’s uber-adviser/ lobbyist/ Charlie Black’s “slip” about how a terrorist attack will help his candidate’s failing fortunes.

Now we have Sy Hersh, the reporter who has done more, singlehandedly, to expose the Administration’s drive to war–with Iran–than any congressional committee.

Last December, the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) found that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Barack Obama claimed that the NIE’s findings vindicated his calls for greater engagement with Iran. “By reporting that Iran halted its nuclear weapon development program four years ago because of international pressure, the new National Intelligence Estimate makes a compelling case for less saber-rattling and more direct diplomacy.” Then Presidential candidate John Edwards used the strongest language: “The new National Intelligence Estimate shows that George Bush and Dick Cheney’s rush to war with Iran is, in fact, a rush to war.”

Defiant when confronted by fact-based reporting, Bush stated: ” I view this report as a warning signal that they had the program, they halted the program. The reason why it’s a warning signal is they could restart it.”

Fast forward. The Bush-Cheney machine has ousted military men like Admiral William Fallon — whose open and outspoken resistance to the idea of war with Iran gave voice to others in the Pentagon. “Another war is just not where we want to go,” Fallon told the FInancial Times a few weeks before he “resigned.” The resistance to military action seems to be shared by Defense Secretary Robert Gates. But as the neocon/Cheney camp vents over the decision to de-list North Korea from the terrorism blacklist, that same faction seems even more determined to stoke the Iran fear machine.

These hardliners are endangering the very people they claim to be supporting. Consider the testimony of Shirin Ebadi, the Nobel Peace prizewinning lawyer and dissident who has warned that US support for regime change and US covert funding of Iranian dissidents taints them as foreign proxies undercutting their legitimacy in their own country and endangering their lives.

Congress must reassert its role: Review the 1982 Boland Amendment. Shut down any preemptive military act –covert or overt– without the consent of Congress.

If that seems a weak reed, given the spinelessness of too many members of congress, and the gullibility of the mainstream media, consider that the rising price of oil is already threatening the world’s economy –and military action will almost certainly push oil to $200 a barrel. Consider that we are already bogged down in two wars, stretched thin militarily, and spending $12 billion a month in Iraq. Isn’t it time to talk about relying on non-military means to resolve political problems?

Support The Nation’s June Fundraising Campaign

With the midterm elections now firmly upon us, the question is whether Democratic candidates will do more than merely occupy ballot lines as mild alternatives to the red-hot crisis that is Donald Trump.

As Trump spends over $1 billion a day on a globally destabilizing war on Iran and admits that he doesn’t “think about Americans’ financial situation,” millions across the country are struggling with the surging costs of essentials. Democrats must seize this moment and advance bold, small-“d” populist ideas—not settle for cynical caution that once again snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.

The Nation elevates progressive ideas, movements, and elected officials achieving real change across the country into the national conversation. At the same time, our journalists are exposing how crypto and AI-funded super PACs are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to knock out candidates they oppose, reporting on the devastating impact of the Supreme Court’s evisceration of the Voting Rights Act, and sounding the alarm on attempts by red states to quickly redraw electoral maps, disenfranchising Southern Black voters.

We can play this critical role because of support from readers like you. This June, we’re raising $20,000 to power The Nation’s independent journalism in the run-up to November’s immensely consequential elections.

It’s in our power to build a more just society, and your support at this critical moment brings us closer to that bold vision. I hope you’ll donate today.

Onward,

Katrina vanden Heuvel
Editor and Publisher, The Nation

Ad Policy
x