Make Sure the U.S. Doesn't Fool the World Again

Embassy, February 21st, 2007
OPED
By Michael D. Wallace

You've all heard the old saying, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me!" In 2003 the Bush administration fooled enough Americans–and the more credulous of its allies–with claims that Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq had of "weapons of mass destruction," and was assisting al-Qaeda. Not only were both claims false, but subsequent revelations showed that U.S. intelligence agencies knew they false at the time. If all of America's allies had spoken out strongly against this idiotic war, it might have been averted, but Britain (against the advice of its own intelligence agencies) joined the effort, while Canada and many others, to their shame, kept discretely silent. The result is a military quagmire that not only defeats American efforts to solve it, but also may well spark a general war in the region.

So, what's Bush's answer to an unwinnable war? Why, start another one, of course! The Bush administration has begun to beat the war drums against Iran and bolster U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf with two naval battle groups. The U.S. Air Force is ramping up its readiness and deploying in the region. But, totally bogged down in Iraq and with ever-increasing evidence of a complete collapse in Afghanistan, why would the Bush administration contemplate a new war against Iran, a country with three times Iraq's population and a robust military? Yet, if Bush's veiled threats are to be taken seriously, the possibility that the United States will launch an attack against Iran cannot be dismissed.

The Bush administration has continued trumpeting the fear that Iran may develop nuclear weapons. This charge, however, is not credible, at least in the near-term. International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed El-Baradei reports there is no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. The CIA indicates that it would take Iran a decade to develop nuclear weapons. Many independent experts believe Iran's nuclear claims are more bluster than substance. The Bush administration's charge and the lack of evidence to support it, is ominously similar to the claims leveled against Iraq.

What else could be behind pursuing a war against Iran? Is it that the administration wishes to support Israel, which views Iran as a significant threat? Is it that Iran, like Iraq before it, is talking about changing its currency for oil revenues to Euros? Could it be that Mr. Bush likes being a "war president," and, rather than accept defeat in Iraq, is seeking to extend the war into Iran?

There have been reports in by respected journalist Seymour Hersh that the U.S. has contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against Iran.

Even rumors of the U.S. planning to use nuclear weapons preemptively against Iran–or permitting Israel to do so–have already begun to poison relations with Russia and China, and generated near panic amongst America's allies. No one has used a nuke for 62 years, and if that firewall were broken, there would be a major transformation of international relations, wrenching our planet towards further nuclear confrontation and war.

The recent American mid-term elections provide some grounds for hope. Congress opened the door for Bush's attack against Iraq, and is now trying to close it. Whatever the administration's motives may be for threatening Iran, Congress–backed by the American people–is, in the short term, the only agency that could close the door to a U.S. attack on another country. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said, "Congress should assert itself and make it very clear that there is no previous authority for the president, any president, to go into Iran." A growing number of Americans agree.

Senator Robert Byrd has already put forward a resolution that requires Congressional approval of any offensive U.S. military action taken against another country. In doing so he stated, "I am introducing a resolution that clearly states that it is Congress–not the president–that is vested with the ultimate decision on whether to take this country to war against another country." He called his resolution "a rejection of the bankrupt, dangerous and unconstitutional doctrine of preemption, which proposes that the president–any president–may strike another country before that country threatens us."

Most Americans now believe the U.S. needs an exit strategy from Iraq, not a preemptive war against yet another country. The U.S. Congress needs to go on record now to prevent a catastrophe by ensuring that Mr. Bush understands this. But our American friends need help. Public opinion surveys of American voters show that support for military action is now contingent on allied and UN support. If the Americans perceive themselves as acting alone, or allied only with the Israelis, any remaining support for an attack on Iran collapses.

This puts a heavy responsibility on traditional allies like Canada to speak out loudly against a U.S. attack on Iran before it's too late. We may take it as read that our current prime minister is unlikely to do this. But, with enough public support, a bill could be introduced by one or more opposition parties to record that it is the "sense of this House" that an American attack on Iran would violate the UN Charter and international law. My American friends who oppose Bush and his wars tell me that such a declaration at this time would provide important moral support for their cause, and have a noticeable affect on American opinion.

Canadians forever complain that there is little they can do to affect the policies of our powerful neighbour. But historically we have seen that sometimes a window of opportunity opens, and now is one of those times. Eleanor Roosevelt famously said, "it is better to light a single candle than curse the darkness." Now is the chance for Canadians to light their candles, and shine them south through the open window.

Michael D. Wallace is a professor of political science at the University of British Columbia, a member of the Canadian Pugwash Group and senior advisor to the Rideau Institute on International Affairs.

editor@embassymag.ca