In 2010, Tony Blair included Iran on a list of countries that he said Dick Cheney had aimed to overthrow. The line among the powerful in Washington in 2003 was that Iraq would be a cakewalk but that real men go to Tehran.
For many years, the United States has labeled Iran an evil nation, attacked and destroyed the other non-nuclear nation on the list of evil nations, designated part of Iran's military a terrorist organization, falsely accused Iran of crimes including the attacks of 9-11, murdered Iranian scientists, funded opposition groups in Iran (including some the U.S. also designates as terrorist), flew drones over Iran, openly and illegally threatened to attack Iran, and built up military forces all around Iran's borders, while imposing cruel sanctions on the country. The long history of the United States lying about Iranian nuclear weapons is chronicled by Gareth Porter's book Manufactured Crisis.
In 2007, we were told that Iran needed to be attacked urgently dure to false claims about nuclear weapons. Even a National Intelligence Estimate in 2007 pushed back and admitted that Iran had no nuclear weapons program.
In 2015, Republicans urged war justified by Iran's nuclear weapons program, while Democrats successfully moved for passage of an agreement with Iran, also justified by Iran's nuclear weapons program. The agreement was not a treaty, and President Trump would later throw it out. But the damage of both sides falsely claiming that Iran had a nuclear weapons program was done.
Dick and Liz Cheney's book, Exceptional, tell us we must see a "moral difference between an Iranian nuclear weapon and an American one." Must we, really? Either risks further proliferation, accidental use, use by a crazed leader, mass death and destruction, environmental disaster, retaliatory escalation, and apocalypse. One of those two nations has nuclear weapons, has used nuclear weapons, has provided the other with plans for nuclear weapons, has a policy of first-use of nuclear weapons, has leadership that sanctions the possession of nuclear weapons, and has frequently threated to use nuclear weapons. I don't think those facts would make a nuclear weapon in the hands of the other country the least bit moral, but also not the least bit more immoral. Let's focus on seeing an empirical difference between an Iranian nuclear weapon and an American one. One exists. The other doesn't.
If you're wondering, U.S. presidents who have made specific public or secret nuclear threats to other nations, that we know of, as documented in Daniel Ellsberg's The Doomsday Machine, have included Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump, while others, including Barack Obama and Donald Trump have frequently said things like "All options are on the table" in relation to Iran or another country.
Proponents of war or steps toward war (sanctions was a step toward the war on Iraq) say we urgently need a war on Iran now, but they have no argument for urgency, and they've been making the same argument with ever less credibility for years.
The Trump White House early on openly expressed a desire to claim that Iran had violated the 2015 nuclear agreement, but produced no evidence. It didn't matter. Trump tore up the agreement anyway and used his own shredding of the agreement as grounds for nuclear fearmongering about Iran.
In 2017, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations claimed that Iranian weapons had been used in a war that the U.S.., Saudi Arabia, and allies were and illegally and disastrously waging in Yemen. While that's a problem that should be corrected, it is hard to find a war anywhere on the planet without U.S. weapons in it. In fact, a report that made news the same day as the ambassador's claims, pointed to the long-known fact that many of the weapons used by ISIS had once belonged to the United States, many of them having been given by the U.S. to non-state fighters (aka terrorists) in Syria.
Fighting wars and arming others to fight wars/terrorism is a justification for indictment and prosecution, but not for war, legally, morally, or practically. The United States fights and arms wars, and no one would be justified in attacking the United States.
If Iran is guilty of a crime, and there is evidence to support that claim, the United States and the world should seek its prosecution. Instead, the United States is isolating itself by tearing down the rule of law.
President Biden came into office with the possibility wide open to restore the Iran agreement and pursue a better course. He chose not to do so, and not to even try to do so. He waited for a less amendable government to take power in Iran, and then seemingly everything he could to stir up hostitlities in the region. Now an agreement looks much more difficult to obtain.
Of course the reason why "real men go to Tehran" is that Iran is not the impoverished disarmed nation that one might find in, say, Afghanistan or Iraq, or even the disarmed nation found in Libya in 2011. Iran is much bigger and much better armed. Whether the United States launches a major assault on Iran or Israel does, Iran will retaliate against U.S. troops and probably Israel and possibly the United States itself as well. And the United States will without any doubt re-retaliate for that. Iran cannot be unaware that the U.S. government's pressure on the Israeli government not to attack Iran consists of reassuring the Israelis that the United States will attack when needed, and does not include even threatening to stop funding Israel's military or to stop vetoing measures of accountability for Israeli crimes at the United Nations.
Of course, many in the U.S. government and military oppose attacking Iran, although key figures like Admiral William Fallon have been moved out of the way. Much of the Israeli military is opposed as well, not to mention the Israeli and U.S. people. But war is not clean or precise. If the people we allow to run our nations attack another, we are all put at risk.
Most at risk, of course, are the people of Iran, people as peaceful as any other, or perhaps more so. As in any country, no matter what its government, the people of Iran are fundamentally good, decent, peaceful, just, and fundamentally like you and me. I've met people from Iran. You may have met people from Iran. They look like this. They're not a different species. They're not evil. A "surgical strike" against a "facility" in their country would cause a great many of them to die very painful and horrible deaths. Even if you imagine that Iran would not retaliate for such attacks, this is what the attacks would in themselves consist of: mass murder.
And what would that accomplish? It would unite the people of Iran and much of the world against the United States. It would justify in the eyes of much of the world an underground Iranian program to develop nuclear weapons, a program that probably does not exist at present, except to the extent that legal nuclear energy programs move a country closer to weapons development. The environmental damage would be tremendous, the precedent set incredibly dangerous, all talk of cutting the U.S. military budget would be buried in a wave of war frenzy, civil liberties and representative government would be flushed down the Potomac, a nuclear arms race would spread to additional countries, and any momentary sadistic glee would be outweighed by accelerating home foreclosures, mounting student debt, and accumulating layers of cultural stupidity.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
