creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Patrick Buchanan
Pat Buchanan
22 May 2012
What If Zimmerman Walks Free?

Three months ago, George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer in Sanford, Fla., shot and killed Trayvon Martin. Handcuffed,… Read More.

18 May 2012
Has the Bell Begun to Toll for the GOP?

Among the more controversial chapters in "Suicide of a Superpower," my book published last fall, … Read More.

15 May 2012
As the Boomers Head for the Barn

When the April figures on unemployment were released May 4, they were more than disappointing. They were … Read More.

Who Wants War With Iran?

Share Comment

On Sept. 21, 1976, as his car rounded Sheridan Circle on Embassy Row, former Chilean ambassador Orlando Letelier was assassinated by car bomb. Ronni Moffitt, a 25-year-old American women who worked with Letelier at the leftist Institute for Policy Studies, died with him.

Michael Townley, an ex-CIA asset in the hire of Chile's intelligence agency, confessed to using anti-Castro Cubans to murder Letelier, in what was regarded as an act of terrorism on U.S. soil.

Which raises a question: Are not the murders of four Iranian scientists associated with that nation's nuclear program, by the attachment of bombs to their cars in Tehran, also acts of terrorism?

Had the Stalin- or Khrushchev-era Soviets done this to four U.S. scientists in Washington, would we not have regarded it as acts of terrorism and war?

Iran has accused the United States and Israel of murder. But Hillary Clinton emphatically denied any U.S. complicity: "I want to categorically deny any United States involvement in any kind of act of violence inside Iran."

"The United States had absolutely nothing to do with this," added National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor, "We strongly condemn all acts of violence, including acts of violence like this."

Victoria Nuland, Clinton's spokeswoman at State, denounced "any assassination or attack on an innocent person, and we express our sympathies to the family."

The assassinated scientist was a supervisor at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility that hosts regular inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. If Iran is building a bomb, it is not at Natanz.

U.S. denial of involvement leaves Mossad as the prime suspect. Israel has not denied it, and this comes at a sensitive time in U.S.-Israeli relations.

In Foreign Policy magazine, author and historian Mark Perry, claiming CIA documentation, alleges that Mossad agents in London posed as CIA agents and contacted Jundallah, a terrorist group, to bribe and recruit them to engage in acts of terror inside Iran.

Jundallah has conducted attacks in Sistan-Baluchistan province, killing government officials, soldiers, and women and children.

According to Perry, when George W. Bush learned of the Mossad agents posing as CIA while recruiting terrorists, he "went totally ballistic."

Yet Meir Dagan, head of Mossad at the time, denies it, and, ironically, has called any Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities "the stupidest thing I have ever heard."

Who is telling the truth? We do not know for sure.

What we do know is that "Bibi" Netanyahu is desperate to have the United States launch air and missile strikes to stop Teheran from becoming the world's ninth nuclear power.

And he is echoed not only by U.S. neocons, but GOP candidates save Ron Paul.

Nor should we be surprised.

To bring America into its war with Germany, Winston Churchill set up William Stephenson, "A Man Called Intrepid," with hundreds of agents in New York to engage in everything from bribery to blackmail of U.S. senators to get the United States to enter the war and pull England's chestnuts out of the fire.

This is what desperate countries do.

And while America First kept us out of the European war until Adolf Hitler invaded Russia, ensuring that Russians, not Americans, died in the millions to defeat him, eventually America was maneuvered into war.

Whoever is assassinating these Iranian scientists, be it homegrown Iranian terrorists, Jundallah at the instigation of Israel, or Mossad, the objective is clear: Enrage the Iranians so they strike out at America, provoking a U.S.-Iranian war.

Is such a war in America's interests? Consider.

While U.S. air and naval power would prevail, Iranian civilians would die, as some of their nuclear facilities are in populated areas. Moreover, we cannot kill the nuclear knowledge Iran has gained. Thus we would only set back their nuclear program by several years. And a bloodied and beaten Iran would then go all-out for a bomb.

The regime, behind which its people would rally, would emerge even more entrenched. U.S. bombing did not cause Germans to remove Hitler or Japanese to depose their emperor. And we lack the ground troops to invade and occupy a country three times the size of Iraq.

All U.S. ships, including carriers in that bathtub the Persian Gulf, would be at risk from shore-based anti-ship missiles and the hundreds of missile boats in Iran's navy. Any sea battle would send oil prices to $200 and $300 a barrel. There goes the eurozone.

Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Shia of the Saudi oil fields and Bahrain, home port to the Fifth Fleet, and Iranian agents in Afghanistan and Iraq could set the region aflame.

As America started up the road to Baghdad in 2003, Gen. David Petraeus is said to have asked, "Tell me how this ends."

Before some agent provocateur pushes us into war with Iran, Congress should debate the wisdom of authorizing President Obama, or anyone else, to take America into her fifth war in a generation in the Middle and Near East.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of "Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?" To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM


Comments

4 Comments | Post Comment
A question in response to a question: Who wants war with Israel?
Comment: #1
Posted by: Masako
Thu Jan 19, 2012 8:14 PM
Sorry, got to get this off my chest. The thing that pisses me off about comfy cozy pukes like Mr. B, who think they can lock in the sales of their columns with the E Z solution of staying out of the world's conflicts, is that they offer nothing but empty speculation about what sounds E Z with absolutely no accountability for what they sell that doesn't work.

No money-back guarantee. All sales final. But who knows what will be on sale tomorrow.

How dare he suggest that “America was maneuvered into” World War II? If he had any testicles or appreciation of what was at stake at that time, he would, as someone who purports to be a historian, highlight the fact that our Congress, then as now, was filled with a bunch of worms and shadow-fearing groundhogs who could never for one second elevate the interests of their country or their planet over their obsession to get re-elected.

President Roosevelt “maneuvered” the United States into war with Germany because too many of those knob-chewing rats in Congress didn't give a hoot about controlling the rise of Nazi Germany and couldn't get their minds off of potential lost contributions from companies in the U.S. doing business with that cash-cow monster overseas.
That is the ugly truth, or beautiful truth, depending on how you view the defeat of a nation that made sport out of turning Jews into soap.

Iran is a problem. The professed policy of its government is Nazi-like in its stance toward Israel. War may be a necessary option, but not necessarily the option that has to be. The mistake we made in the build-up to World War II was ducking our heads in the sand to avoid confronting what Hitler was obviously trying to do, which was to take over all of Europe.

The words of Neville Chamberlain, when he announced that “we have achieved peace for our time,” after agreeing gleefully that England would let Germany get away with invading Czechoslovakia on the promise that he wouldn't just roll right over some other nation again when he felt like doing it (think France, not long after), will stand forever as an illustration of what taking a spineless approach to unacceptable aggression ultimately yields.
Now let's turn our attention to Iraq. Iraq clearly was NOT a military problem, and not a candidate for invasion in any fact-based or rationality-based decision-making process.

Yet off we went in a fantasy-based invasion of that nation under GW Bush, which will stand forever as an example of what abuse of power and misuse of military force can do to destroy not only the lives of just about every ordinary citizen in a nation, but the balance of power in a powder-keg part of the world. In fact, by prosecuting that war, we destroyed the best bulwark we had against the unchecked growth of aggression by Iran we are looking at now. But we hear precious little from Mr. B about that.

Not all wars are the same, but unthinking pacifists would have us buy the notion that they are. Guess what Mr. B. has drifted into.

His pitch strongly suggests that we might be better off if we had not fought World War II, and that we were tricked into it by a "desperate" England. He further pisses all over that massive effort to stop a cancer like Nazi Germany with a silly suggestion that we should ignore what Iran is doing, just like Chamberlain tried to ignore the designs Hitler had on Chamberlain's own country. Hope he's gotten a good medical marijuana prescription for whatever it is that's ailing him.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Masako
Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:16 PM
Re: Masako

I find your responses typically amusing and frequently amazing. To think that any war in the last hundred years or so has protected U.S. interests is quite amazing. It is also amusing that you do not believe that the U.S. was cajoled in to war by those parties, foreign and domestic, that would profit from our involvement.

Regarding this statement:

"Yet off we went in a fantasy-based invasion of that nation under GW Bush, which will stand forever as an example of what abuse of power and misuse of military force can do to destroy not only the lives of just about every ordinary citizen in a nation, but the balance of power in a powder-keg part of the world. In fact, by prosecuting that war, we destroyed the best bulwark we had against the unchecked growth of aggression by Iran we are looking at now. But we hear precious little from Mr. B about that."

Pat Buchanan's position has been quite consistent on this point for many years. You may have acquired your current view on the situation from your long readership of his columns.

Kuwait War benefited Iran; not US
I did not believe Kuwait was vital to the US. Saddam, after all, had stolen Kuwait's oil to sell it, and Saudi Arabia could be defended without a war on Baghdad. The nation most likely to achieve hegemony in the Gulf is Iran. Iraq, a third as large and populous, was the Arab counter. If we destroyed it, Iran would be the beneficiary and the US would be left with the obligation to contain both nations, an open-ended commitment America would be unwilling to sustain.
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.327 , Oct 9, 1999

Pacifism is not the same non-interventionism. Non-interventionism is something we have not practiced in over 100 years and something that would do us some good both fiscally and with our standing around the world. We spend more money on defense each year than the next five countries, yet our campaigns are aggressive, offensive attacks on countries and peoples that have done nothing to us. We plod around the world trying to spread fairness and democracy, but guess what? Life is not fair, not all cultures can accept democracy.
Comment: #3
Posted by: DougMagic
Fri Jan 20, 2012 5:08 PM
Re: DougMagic: Mr. B was in favor of Viet Nam, the second greatest mistake in U.S. war mongering. He did seem to have learned his lesson from that. He offered mild criticism of the first Iraq war, but that was pretty insignificant.

He offered similar mild criticism of the build-up to the second Iraq war, but he was pretty darn quiet about exposing the utter lies we were being sold about Iraq's supposed nuclear weapons capability on the eve of the war. And I don't remember hearing or reading him falling on his sword at the time we launched the slaughter. He kept his trap shut, because he basically didn't care to upset his boss too much.

And I have yet to hear how any of that equates with World War II. So go ahead and enlighten me. Tell me how the U.S. was "cajoled" into that war "by those parties, foreign and domestic, that would profit from our involvement." Seems to me we were mostly being cajoled to stay out of it back then so we wouldn't upset our trade relations with Germany.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Masako
Sat Jan 21, 2012 6:15 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Pat Buchanan
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Roland Martin
Roland S. MartinUpdated 20 Jun 2012
Austin Bay
Austin BayUpdated 23 May 2012
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 23 May 2012

13 Jul 2010 The War on Arizona

22 Oct 2010 Tea Party Tory

10 Apr 2009 Why Europe Won't Fight