COLUMN: From the Left
In George Orwell’s dystopian novel “1984,” the citizens of the fictional state of Oceania are kept in a state of perpetual war. Thanks to powerful propaganda, their war hysteria is maintained at a fever pitch.
Since the end of World War II, the U.S. has been involved in a seemingly unending series of conflicts around the world. And today, the drums of war are bearing to a tune eerily similar to that in the buildup of the war in Iraq.
During Bush’s first term, we were told how much of a threat Iraq posed to the U.S.
We were told that Saddam Hussein was manufacturing “weapons of mass destruction.”
Secretary of State Colin Powell even went before the U.N. Security Council to make the case for the need of a pre-emptive U.S. strike in Iraq.
Despite the testimony of numerous opposing U.N. weapons inspectors, U.S. flouted international consensus and invaded.
Nearly 10 years and millions of dead Iraqi civilians later, the U.S. is just now taking its military out of the country but not out of the region.
In his last State of the Union address, President Barack Obama talked tough on Iran, saying that he’s taking “no options off the table” in order to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon — eliciting a standing ovation from both houses of Congress.
The Republican presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney speak similarly about a military option in solving the Iranian standoff. The only presidential candidate — Democrat or Republican — who provides an alternative to past and current foreign policy is Ron Paul.
Maybe we should try looking at the situation from Iran’s perspective.
U.S. involvement in Iran goes back at least to 1953, when, after similarly enacting an oil embargo, the CIA openly assassinated a democratically elected and popular prime minister and installed the brutal and repressive Shah, whose rule ended in the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
In the 1980s, up to a million Iranians were killed by U.S.-made chemical weapons, which we gave Saddam Hussein in support of his war against Iran.
Iran recently captured a U.S. attack drone and several of its top nuclear scientists have been suspiciously and brazenly assassinated — including the adviser to their missile program.
It would seem then that Iran, given its history, has much more reason to fear from the United States than the United States has to fear from Iran.
No one wants Iran to posses a nuclear weapon, but why does the U.S. always resort to such heavy-handed and provocative responses that are bound to lead to conflict?
During the Cold War, up to 30,000 nuclear warheads were pointed at the U.S., but we successfully avoided a nuclear holocaust by using diplomacy, trading and building bridges of trust. Why the hysteria over a nonexistent one?
We don’t need another war or more dead young soldiers. We can’t afford it, and, more importantly, we don’t have the authority to police the world the way we do.
We are on a dangerous trajectory for war unless the U.S. ratchets down its rhetoric. Otherwise, we may not be as far from Orwell’s nightmare as we thought.