Talk of Iran brings back personal memories

I mentioned in the discussion following a recent blog post that I have personal reasons to feel queasy about the Bush administration’s saber rattling with Iran.

In late 2002 and early 2003, in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, I was torn over what I should say - either in my own column or on the newspaper’s editorial pages.

I should quickly add that I was not employed by The Monroe Evening News at the time. I was at the Zanesville, Ohio, Times Recorder.

My newspaper had endorsed George Bush for president and supported the invasion of Afghanistan. But I was convinced that attacking Iraq - without a plan for what we would do with the country once we conquered it - was a mistake.

As the inevitability of the attack grew near, I several times sat down to write about why I thought it was the wrong thing to do, both for moral reasons and as national policy.

I didn’t want America to lose the moral high ground by becoming the aggressor - the country that started a war. I grew up thinking of America as the white knight, the country that came in when needed to save the day. Invading Iraq just didn’t feel right.

Further, and more important, I didn’t think it would work. I thought it would just give radical Muslims another reason to hate us, and more ammunition to recruit. And there was the huge question of what would we do with Iraq once we drove Sadaam out?

But I didn’t write that column. I stayed silent. And I have regretted it over and over during the last five years. It’s not that my column would have changed the president’s mind. It probably wouldn’t have changed the mind of a dozen readers of my newspaper. But it would have mattered to me. I would have done what I could.

Now, I feel the deja vu. The president is rattling swords about Iran, just like five-plus years ago with Iraq. He’s trying to convince the world that this is a black and white issue - either Iran gives up its nuclear program or …. or what? Another invasion of a country we can’t hope to change? Another example of the United States as the biggest bully on the block?

I hope not. This time, anyway, I won’t stay silent.

In my view, U.S. policy on Iran makes no sense. The president says he won’t negotiate until Iran halts its nuclear enrichment program. He’s drawing a line in the sand and giving Iran only two choices - even though he knows that Iran is not going to allow itself to be bullied.

He’s marching down a path that can only lead to war. And that’s absolutely the wrong path.

One Response to “Talk of Iran brings back personal memories”

  1. Hass Says:

    “This whole conflict with Iran has NOTHING to do with nuclear weapons … The ‘Iranian nuclear threat’ debate is a pretext, a distraction and a smokescreeen … Instead, what we are witnessing is an effort by some countries to essentially deprive other countries of independent access to the future’s sole source of energy, under the guise of preventing nuclear weapons proliferation.”
    See: http://www.iranaffairs.com

Leave a Reply