I’ve meant to link to this for a couple of days, but I wanted to get my own two cents in as well. As I’m not having any luck getting the time to do that, just head on over and check it out. Excellent summary and analysis by Steve Schippert.
When will the “rush to war” cries begin?
UPDATE: Sheesh. A Reuters Alert dated yesterday:
UNITED NATIONS, Jan 29 (Reuters) – The United States appeared to rule out on Monday a proposal by the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency aimed at helping the West and Iran avert a rush to war over Tehran’s nuclear program. [emphasis Murdoc’s]
I spent a lot of time, much of it before I opened Murdoc Online for business, arguing that the whole “rush to war” accusation about Iraq was a verifiable crock of spit. And we’d only been at war with Iraq since 1991. Iran has been at war with us since 1979.
Remember all those victorious “Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam” and “the US gave Saddam weapons” and “we gave the Iraqis satellite intel in the 1980s” from the anti-Bush and anti-war crowd? What do they think that was all about?
Well, okay, they think it was because Bush is a Nazi and we loved Saddam, but doesn’t most everyone else accept, whether they agree with the policy or not, that we were helping Iraq contain Iran? I mean, isn’t that pretty much a given?
So I’m not understanding this whole “rush to war” thing. They openly declared war in 1979. We less-openly (but not terribly secretly in many cases) started fighting back in the early 1980s.
Iran is a key piece in the War on Terror and everyone knows it. Nuclear weapons or not.
My guess is that nuclear weapon development is going to play a similar role in the justification for our Iranian policy that WMD played in our justification for our Iraqi policy. A real, justified concern, but only one of many and not even necessarily the most important. But one that critics of other reasons will have trouble ignoring.