Here we go again . . .

May 25, 2003 4:05 AM

Pentagon officials are pushing for action they believe could destabilize the government of Iran. Why? Intelligence reports suggesting al Qaeda operatives in Iran played a role in the May 12 suicide bombings in Saudi Arabia. Sound familiar? Time to brush up on Iran's history and change the Q to an N on your No War With Iraq signs?
posted by Outlawyr (17 comments total)

some days i despair for the world. and some days i just despair...
posted by kaibutsu at 4:37 AM on May 25, 2003

"Democracies don't start wars with other democracies."
-- Richard Perle on BBC Newsnight, April 30th 2003
posted by Bletch at 5:19 AM on May 25, 2003

The threat towards Iran saddens me greatly, not least because a colleague and friend of mine is visiting from Iran - he's spending three years in Australia to complete his PhD then returning to his home land (assuming it's still there when he returns). He's really into dates.

A lot of progress has been happening in Iran. There is a reasonably strong, vocal and vibrant movement pushing for reforms, and the reforms are happening slowly but surely. I view Iran as a greater hope for a democracy in that region than Iraq. It would be criminal for this progress to be interrupted with another extremist-inspiring war.
posted by Jimbob at 5:35 AM on May 25, 2003

I seriously doubt there will be a war with Iran. Bush knows that the American public won't stomach another war so quickly (note the White House kibosh on plans for war with Syria), and to start one with Iran (or anyone else) would probably sign a death warrant in the 2004 election. This is probably an attempt to prove the assertions many of the neocons made about how toppling Hussein's government would start a democracy chain reaction of sorts in the region. Nevermind that Iran was already apparently on the road to reform; we want results now, dammit, so we can point to them in 2004.
posted by UKnowForKids at 7:30 AM on May 25, 2003

From this article:

The US has suspended contacts with Tehran and appears ready to consider "public and private actions" to "destabilise" the Iranian government,

Yee Hawwwwww!!!!!! For fuck's sake, a terrorist attack happens immediately following a war to prevent terror attacks? What does this say to the admin.? That we need more wars! Obviously the first one worked so goddamn well. It is too bad that the only person in congress with a backbone is an elderly klansman, or maybe they could try to take back the unlimited unconstitutional warmaking power that they gave to the executive branch.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 8:19 AM on May 25, 2003

UKnowForKids - I hope you're right, but don't forget that the Bush Administration PR campaign for the invasion of Iraq began over a year before the invasion - points to the possibility of a US invasion of Iran a month or so before the November 2004 presidential election, after a long PR buildup [a media diet of terror alerts, and maybe a small terrorist incident or two which just might be tied to Iran in some vagye way] The first media commentors who suggested that an invasion of Iraq was in the works were dismissed as insane. But with a carefuly managed propaganda campaign, anything is possible.

Then again, I think the neocons are hedging their bets. Saudi Arabia might be next (if not Iran)....it depends on how things play out. But I suspect these guys want the whole enchilada - control of ALL the Mideast oil. I wouldn't be surprised to see US invasions of Iran, Saudi Arabia AND Syria. Give it some time.
posted by troutfishing at 8:37 AM on May 25, 2003

At some point, someone's going to get so fucking sick of the US aggression towards any and all non-G7 countries that they're going to nuke Washington.

It sure would be nice if the government would catch a clue before that happens, because a nuked Washington will be a very, very ugly thing.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:57 AM on May 25, 2003

Inevitably, The Politics Of Terror
posted by homunculus at 11:13 AM on May 25, 2003

Thanks homunculus, good article.
posted by elwoodwiles at 11:57 AM on May 25, 2003

"Qo War With Iran"
I said change, not exchange
posted by Outlawyr at 12:01 PM on May 25, 2003

You also said change the Q to an N, not the N to a Q.
posted by David Dark at 12:23 PM on May 25, 2003

Democrats Question Whether Bush 'Hyped' Iraq Threat

It's morning in America...
posted by owillis at 1:18 PM on May 25, 2003

Iranian reformists' plea gagged
posted by homunculus at 3:37 PM on May 25, 2003

"Iran won rare praise ... from senior US officials who complimented the Islamic republic on its "constructive role" in talks on the future of Afghanistan and providing the Afghan people with humanitarian aid. "

Sure would be a positive development to shift the Iran agenda to a more constructive focus on what stabilization really means in this new situation ... After the invasions, destabilization, and disasters are over, we're still stuck with the bad apples of networked terrorist organizations seeking to take root all over again. Stabilization and rule of law can go a long ways to making it harder for these shady characters to operate.
posted by sheauga at 9:38 PM on May 25, 2003

"You also said change the Q to an N, not the N to a Q"
Ok, let's take this a step at a time.
Take the phrase "No war with Iraq"
How many Q's do you see? One, it's the last letter.
Now here comes the instruction I gave:
"change the Q to an N"
What does that mean. That means where there is a Q, change it to an N.
The result would then be, "No war with Iran."

We now return you to Metafilter, already in progress.
posted by Outlawyr at 3:59 AM on May 26, 2003

Rumsfeld: U.S. Won't Let Iraq Be Made Into New Iran
" . . . interference in Iraq by its neighbors or their proxies -- including those whose objective is to remake Iraq in Iran's image -- will not be accepted or permitted," he said."

Yet another pretext for invasion of Iran being floated? If we accuse Iran of tampering with the founding of a government of Iraq, can we then invade/liberate them too?
posted by Outlawyr at 3:26 AM on May 27, 2003

"The heat on Iran is likely to be turned up even further on June 16 if, as Washington hopes, the International Atomic Energy Agency signals grave doubts that Iran's ambitious network of nuclear facilities are merely designed for power generation."
http://news.myway.com/politics/article/id/328683|politics|05-26-2003::14:46|reuters.html
posted by Outlawyr at 5:54 AM on May 27, 2003