Madness

I don't even know what to say anymore about the still-escalating "crisis" with Iran. Let's start with the language of fear, as exemplified by headlines in today's New York Times and Washington Post:

"Iran Threatens Retaliation if Attacked" shouts the Times.

"Iranian Leader Warns U.S. Of Reprisal: Khamenei Is Defiant Ahead of U.N. Report" screams the Post, in an even more frightening front-page banner.

OK, I know what you're thinking. These headlines are, after all, technically correct. The Iranian Ayatollah did in fact issue a number of strong statements, promising a swift and terrible response to any unprovoked military attack on his nation.

Nevertheless, the specific language chosen to introduce both stories is prejudicial and inflammatory, because it skirts the complete picture. It would have been still more accurate to title these articles with something like, "Iran's Highest Religious Official Responds To Continuously Exaggerated Western Provocation." And the real question we should all be asking is, "Why wouldn't he?"

As long as there is ongoing, public, official, cavalier discussion of launching pre-emptive strikes against Tehran, to solve a "crisis" that doesn't demonstrably exist, it only seems logical that Iran's leaders would pledge to hit back. And consistently lost in the heated rhetoric surrounding this issue are several undeniable facts:

1. Iran has no nuclear weapons, and by all reasonable estimates is 5 to 10 years away from even having the fledgling capability to manufacture one.

2. To this day, there is no concrete evidence to support the wild speculation of Bush Administration officials and hawkish Israeli Defense Ministers that Tehran's clandestine intention is to develop an atomic bomb and immediately launch it against Israel.

3. Unlike our "friends" Israel, Pakistan, and India, all of whom DO have nuclear arsenals that have been developed in secret, Iran is a signator of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty.

4. As such, Iran has "the inalienable right," by charter, "to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination."

Has Tehran spoken out belligerently? Sadly, yes. The Iranian President, Mamoud Ahmadinejad, has been particularly guilty of radical, threatening rhetoric, designed to appeal to his fundamentalist political base. I guess because this dynamic is so unimaginable in America, it's easy to see why we would be so unsettled, and unable to differentiate between partisan posturing and actionable threats.

Uhhhh, right.

Of course, the official Iranian position on Israel's right to exist is simply unacceptable. And reckless statements about wiping the Jewish state "off the map" are as deplorable as they come, as indefensible as... oh, say, calling for the assassination of Venezuela's popularly elected president. Tehran's attitudes must change. Period.

But does any rational human being believe that, even if Ahmadinejad had The Bomb today, he would initiate a nuclear attack on Israel? Good God, he may be offensive, but he's not suicidal. Every Iranian knows that such a move would automatically result in the complete and total obliteration of his nation. Within minutes. From a variety of sources.

Deservedly so.

At the same time, however, hyperbole like the type being shoveled by Israel's Shaul Mofaz, is doing little but fanning the flames of irrational fear while exacerbating the already tense situation. Mofaz said Monday:

"Pressure must be applied on the Iranians to ensure that they realise there is no returning from the path they are taking."

He added: "Since Hitler we have not faced such a threat."

Sounds like calm, intelligent thinking to me! So let's review, shall we?

Iran has no nuclear weapons. It has the inalienable right, by treaty, to develop a peaceful, non-military nuclear fuel cycle without interference from outside nations. It is being overtly threatened, every day, with sanctions, invasion, and even strategic nuclear attack by one nation that's developed its own nuclear arsenal in secret and refuses to sign the NPT, and one nation with the largest nuclear stockpile in the world which has A) just violated the NPT in a deal with India, and B) already demonstrated its willingness to arbitrarily invade and destroy an Islamic nation over fabricated allegations.

Who is actually the bigger threat here? Is it any wonder that Iranian leaders are raising a defiant middle finger to the West, and promising retaliation for any unwarranted action against them?

Surprisingly, one of the most rational American voices concerning this situation belongs to Pat Buchanan. Now, those of you familiar with this site know that I'd rather be hit by a speeding bus than sing the praises of Pat, but in a consistent series of essays and editorials, Mr. Buchanan has proved to be a glimmer of reason amidst the relentless insanity. Speaking recently on The McLaughlin Group, Buchanan stated:

"First, this big media hype -- Ahmadinejad -- let me tell you, putting on a show like this, I think it's phony. I don't think he's got anything over there. This 164 centrifuges -- I understand a number of them were broken. They haven't been able to gasify yellow cake. And all of a sudden, in a couple of weeks, hey, we discovered and did it...

"Ahmadinejad -- he wants to, as Eleanor said, put himself on a par. He's standing up to the Israelis. He's standing up to Bush. He's making himself a world figure. That's what this is all about. And we're playing right into his hands. They are years away from the ability to construct one bomb, and the Israelis have got hundreds of them...

"The best thing we could do is go in there ourselves, frankly, build these things ourselves, control it, monitor every single step of it -- engage with these guys."

George Bush has a historic opportunity in front of him with Iran, one which could help to salvage his legacy, win some Muslim hearts and minds, protect Israel, repair the estranged relationship we've had with Tehran since our installation and support of the Shah, and actually take a constructive step toward stabilizing the Middle East.

By following Buchanan's suggestion and actively assisting the Iranians in the development and monitoring of a peaceful nuclear program, the President could solve this "crisis" without a shot being fired, or a further voice raised in anger. And it is the responsibility of all American citizens to move past the rhetoric and hyperbole, and demand that our leaders not follow the same reckless and illegal path that put us in Iraq, especially when they have the chance to do something meaningful and fact-based for a change. Let's reject the misleading language of fear that pervades our discussions about Iran, and instead pursue a course of genuine vision, diplomacy, and long-range peace.

To do anything else is, in a word, madness.