The proposal electrified the world, and arguably, led to substantial disarmament, if not the fall of the Soviet Union.

Or perhaps the fix was in on this too. We are starting to learn “the rest of the story” on many aspects of “the Gipper.” But let’s assume the best at least for a moment.

I have not heard a zero-option proposed for the Middle East: namely, Iran would not be permitted to have nukes, and in exchange, Israel would destroy all of its nukes, and permit free international inspections to verify it.

Why has a zero-option not been proposed, do you suppose?

Jennifer Connelly is a recovering alcoholic who owned the house before falling delinquent on taxes. It turns out, the taxes were almost certainly assessed in error, but by the time she seeks legal relief, the house is already sold.

Willy-nilly, these two parties become antagonists, and we can understand the point of view of each perfectly.

A truly evil cop (Ron Eldard) falls for Connelly in her moment of distress. His wretched character enters like a freight train that drives the sad situation to a conclusion that can hardly be good.

Though on the first viewing I hated the way the story ended, on further thought and discussion, I see that there was almost no other way it could end. It comes as close as any modern story could to Shakespearean grandeur.

In addition to the magnificence of the drama on its own merits, I recommend that our readers watch this to gain an insight into the Persian character. It is consistent with the Persians I have met. It is a culture that has retained many traits that once would have characterized the typical American family as well, but which are fast disappearing here: future orientation, building a clean and elegant refuge from even a very modest house, proper cultivation of both the masculine and feminine aspects, patriarchy, self-respect, honor, and piety.  This is an opportunity to learn something about a great civilization that the Republicans, in obedience to their true masters, appear to be hell-bent on destroying.

There is an unfortunate and needless skin-shot, but fortunately this is soon forgotten in the swoop of the dramatic development.

Let us look at the main arguments being given for war with Iran and dispatch them before the missiles start flying. Not that a refutation will matter to those with their fingers on the trigger. Their real agenda, which I will leave for the reader to figure out, is different from their stated one so debating them is beside the point. The justifications given on TV and newspapers are merely for PR purposes. Bush and his comrades-in-arms have their conclusion and are only in want of some premises.

Nuclear Weapons

It is claimed that Iran is clandestinely developing nuclear weapons and that, so armed, it will use them in terrorists strikes around the world. The major premise is, of course, implausible, but I pass over it and concentrate on the minor one.

(1) Despite the fact that we are told every day that Iran is secretly developing nuclear weapons, there has actually been no evidence presented that this is the case. Indeed, Just the opposite. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has searched the Iranian nuclear fuel research and production facilities, has not found any evidence Iran’s nuclear program is anything other than what it has claimed. In February 2003, for instance, Mohamed ElBaradei traveled to Iran with a team of inspectors to investigate Iran’s nuclear program. In November 2003 he stated that there was “no evidence” that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons.

ElBaradei went on to say that he was “still not in a position to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran.” The qualification is reasonable. It would be near impossible to determine that Iran or any country had no clandestine nuclear weapons program. So Iran may have such a secret program. They do seem to have the motive (counter-balancing Israel’s 500 nuclear weapons, being one) so it is not unreasonable to suspect that they have such a program. But suspicion is not evidence. And without hard evidence it is unjustified (and immoral) to conclude that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, much less launch a war against them on such a basis.

(2) On August 9, 2005 Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons. This received scant coverage in the media. As the supreme religious leader of Iran, this is considered binding on the government. Since President Ahmadinejad is a conservative leader (“fundamentalist extremists” in current jargon), there is little reason to believe he will ignore the fatwa.

Some may view this as a ruse. I do not believe, however, that Muslim leaders have ever used a fatwa as a means of deception. Since they take such pronouncement very seriously, this gives us some positive reason to believe Iran does not have a secret nuclear weapons program.

Supporting Iraqi Insurgents

A good deal of news coverage makes the innuendo that Iran is arming Iraqi insurgents (“terrorists”). Most often heard is that Iran is by providing them with “improvised explosive devices” (IED’s). But no evidence has been provided to back this claim. Indeed, it has been established that the type of IED’s used by Iraqis are of British design.

Aside from the lack of hard evidence, the thought that Iran (a Shi’ite country) is supplying Iraqi insurgents who are predominately Sunni with IED’s borders on the ridiculous. Most of the IED’s are targeted at Shi’ite Iraqis. Why would Iran supply weapons to Sunni that they, in turn, will use against Shi’ites?

“Wipe Israel off the Map”

The Bush administration and others repeat like a mantra that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has threatened to “wipe Israel off of the map.” But this is not the case. Juan Cole, a professor of Middle Eastern studies at University of Michigan, says that Ahmadinejad actually stated (quoting the late Ayatollah Khomeini): “The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] from the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).” Cole further states, “Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian” and “He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse.”

While many would take issue with this sentiment, there is a vast difference between predicting or even hoping for the demise of a state and threatening to attack it. Iran, like other Muslim countries does not recognize the nation of Israel. They view it as an artificial state created through European mechinations by stealing land from the Palestinians. They have good reason for holding this view, but that is for another post. Since the Iranian position is that the land belongs to the Palestinians, it is hardly surprising that Ahmedinejad would hope for the demise of the state of Israel.

Note further that Ahmadinejad’s statement does not say the he hopes for or predicts the destruction the Jewish people. It is the Jewish state in Palestine he is concerned with. Jews have been living in Iran for centuries and except for a period in the 19th century have not been persecuted. Predictably, charges of “anti-Semitism” are levelled against Iranian leaders. Such accusations are easily made, but rarely proved.

But even if Ahmadinejad did threaten to “wipe Israel off the map,” what is that to us as a nation? This U.S. has no defense treaty with Israel and so it has no obligation to fight for the existence of the Israeli state. Nevertheless, since 1917 an increasing number of Americans have come to accept the theory that we are the world’s policeman and need to involve ourselves in the affairs of other nations. This shift in attitude was primarily Wilson’s doing, but there is plenty of blame to go around. Since World War I, our nation’s involvement in foreign wars has had disastrous consequences. Aside from this, Christian just war theory precludes any military action on the thin reed of justification that Americans are being fed.

A Gulf of Tonkin-type Incident?

Bush seems to want to attack Iran. The neo-cons and Israel (but I repeat myself) are on record calling for an attack. The problem Bush faces is that most Americans are sick of the wars we are already fighting (and losing) and will hardly countenance another. Not that public opinion matters much to Bush, but I do not think that even he would dare risk a populist uprising which very well may happen if there is another war. So it seems that we are safe. Or are we?

Representative Ron Paul recently wrote, “I am concerned, however, that a contrived Gulf of Tonkin- type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran.” Recall that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was what allowed the Johnson administration to openly commit hostilities against the North Vietnamese. (Johnson already had the military involved in covert activities; indeed, he was doing his best to provoke a North Vietnamese attack on U.S. forces.) With a one carrier battle group in the Persian Gulf and another on the way, Paul’s concerns are reasonable. Just image how quickly public sentiment would change if one of our carriers were sunk and Iran was blamed for it. But if such an event does happen, ask the question, who benefits?, before you too beat the war drum.

+++++++++++++++++++++

As a side note, it turns out that the Gulf of Tonkin incident did not occur as reported by Johnson. The second alleged attack by North Vietnamese torpedo boats did not even take place. (Captain Herrick of the USS Maddox, the destroyer that was allegedly attacked, blamed an “overeager sonarman” who “was hearing his ship’s own propeller beat” for the bad the faulty information.) Johnson knew that the ships were probably not attacked, but ignored the evidence and convinced Congress to authorize a military action on North Vietnam anyway. The result: over 57,000 U.S. soldiers killed, not to mention the tens of thousands of Vietnamese.

This was probably not the only time Johnson lied about an attack against a U.S. naval vessel. In 1967 the USS Liberty was attacked by Israeli jets and torpedo boats, killing 34 and wounding 174. . They claimed they misidentified the ship and that the attack was a regrettable accident. But there are good reasons to believe otherwise. Whatever the case, Captain Ward Boston, in a signed affidavit, said Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara told those heading the Navy’s inquiry into the incident to “conclude that the attack was a case of ‘mistaken identity’ despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.”