The war the reality-based community didn’t notice

February 20, 2007

Last week, Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds caused a bit of a stir when he recommended that U.S. assassins infiltrate Iran and kill some of the country’s “mullahs and atomic scientists.” University of Colorado law professor Paul Campos took Reynolds to task for the idea.

“Of course Iran is not at war with America,” Campos explained, “but just as Reynolds spent years repeating Bush administration propaganda about Iraq’s nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, he’s now dutifully repeating the administration’s claims about supposed Iranian government involvement in Iraq’s civil war.”

Reynolds responded quickly. Campos, Reynolds said, “hurts his credibility up front by saying that Iran is not at war with us — when, in fact, it has been since 1979, with the deaths of many Americans, soldiers and otherwise, on its hands.”

Now, I keep up fairly well on the news, and I don’t recall noticing a 28-year war against Iran. Indeed, Bush included Iran in his “axis of evil,” not because we’re at war with the country, but because it sounded good in a speech. For that matter, Iranian officials reached out to U.S. officials with a diplomatic overture in 2003, which the administration rebuffed, suggesting the “war” could be over now, if only the White House wanted it to be.

But the best response came from my friend, the Anonymous Liberal.

[I]f we’ve been at war with Iran since 1979, then President Reagan, then-Vice President Bush, and the rest of the Reagan administration are necessarily guilty of high treason. During the Iran-Contra affair, they illegally sold arms to Iran (via Israel), including thousands of BGM-71 TOW (Tube-launched, Optically-tracked, Wire-guided) anti-tank missiles. Iran subsequently reverse-engineered these missiles and now produces its own version, called the Toophan, which Hezbollah reportedly used against Israeli tanks in the recent conflict in Lebanon. If we were “at war” with Iran at the time of these arms sales, is there any non-treasonous interpretation of this conduct?

Maybe the arms deals came during a brief cessation to our ongoing war?

I have tried and tried to understand what it is that motivates these right wing hacks. Why were they so eager to go into Iraq? An why are they so eager to stay? Why are the letting loose the dogs of war on Iran? What can possibly be their motivation? Oil profits? Armeggedon? Paranoia? Please, someone help me understand!

  • “President Reagan, then-Vice President Bush, and the rest of the Reagan administration are necessarily guilty of high treason.”

    Agreed. They conspired with “the enemy” to keep our hostages imprisoned until the moment of the Geezer’s inauguration.

  • citizen_pain (#1), ong-range geopolitical power to keep the mostly oil-based profits rolling in long after this “war” is forgotten by the MSM.

  • citizen_pain,

    Why were they so eager to go into Iraq? An why are they so eager to stay?

    PNAC lays it out pretty comprehensively. Given the players involved I truly don’t think accusations of conspiracy theory are valid. Read all about PNAC and decide for yourself.

  • Whoops … not sure what happened to the rest of my post at #6 but “Eurasia” should have followed.

    Although, it does kinda work the way it is, doesn’t it?

  • I have tried and tried to understand what it is that motivates these right wing hacks. Why were they so eager to go into Iraq? An why are they so eager to stay? Why are the letting loose the dogs of war on Iran? What can possibly be their motivation? Oil profits? Armeggedon? Paranoia? Please, someone help me understand!

    Here it is: Politics.

    All the reasons you mention have some salience, but it really is mostly about the “Mayberry Machiavellis” and their unique brand of insane chutzpah politics. They thought the war with Iraq would win elections in 2002 (and it did) but of course they failed to see how badly BushCo would screw it up. And now they can’t turn on Bush because of… politics.

    These people would rather shoot themselves in the foot than admit that the Democrats are better managers of the public trust than they are. And now they’re in the corner, foaming at the mouth.

    They need to be put down before they do any more damage.

  • I guess I should have indicated I was waxing rhetorical… I’m fully aware of PNAC and their motivations. I guess the thrust of my question would be: Given the state of Iraq, the utter failure of the neoconservative policy, the gross incompetence of the Bu$h administration, any and all arguments for the continued presence and buildup of troops have been resoundingly rebutted by so many informed individuals that to continue towing the GOP and Bu$h line should be considered madness. Having said that, and giving at least some benefit of doubt to the right wing hacks in that they all can’t be insane or just plain stupid, what on earth is their motivation to stay the course, and even start another war with Iran???

  • What about the F-14 surplus parts that ended up being sold to Iran? Rummy let that happen on his watch… Strange as how no one would think that Iran would benefit from a sale of surplus parts as it is the only military outside of the US Navy to fly the Tomcat.

    Also, it should be noted that besides TOWs, the Iranians got a lot of spare parts for its F-4 Phantoms which were the backbone of the IIRAF till the 1990s.

  • you know, if we are going to go back to 1979 and say that we have been at war with Iran since that time, then we should be honest and acknowledge that the war began in 1953 when the CIA overthrew Mosadeq, the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, who wanted to renegotiate BP’s oil production agreement with Iran. It should also be noted that the 1953 coup was orchestrated from the American Embassy, which was the justification for the takeover of the American Embassy in 1979 since there was a fear that the U.S. would lead a counter-revolution from the Embassy.

  • :…what it is that motivates these right wing hacks. Why were they so eager to go into Iraq? An why are they so eager to stay? Why are the letting loose the dogs of war on Iran?”

    Boy, that’s easy:

    THEY DON’T HAVE TO GO AND FIGHT!!!

    And they don’t, because they are cowards.

  • a declared war is clear and a formal surrender is clear, but the world is no longer so black & white … coalitions come & go, declared wars are few even though fighting is not, our friends today are not our friends tomorrow … diplomacy & politics often result in strange bedfellows … the world is full of gray
    … but the color is orange!

  • To think all of this escalated from a fairly small, loosely knit group of stateless Muslims who thought they’d get back at the US for perceived and real transgressions into the right wing of the US being at war with every nation with a mosque since time immemorial in the battle royale of the greatest ideological struggle evah. Instead of battling an idependent group of terrorists, these right wing knuckleheads now want to pick fights with every single person on the planet who calls their god Allah. Talk about a bad case of mission creep. And talk about taking your eye off the ball.

  • The only thing propping up the oil-futures market—thus propping up Big Oil—is the “let’s-get-iran” sabre-rattling. If it weren’t for that, we’d be seeing US crude under $30 a barrel.

    And Bu$hCo knows it….

  • citizen_pain,

    …what on earth is their motivation to stay the course, and even start another war with Iran???

    Fear. They are terrified of another 9/11 attack. I think they actually believe their own rhetoric: that the terrorists (and Iran) constitute an existential threat to the USA.

    And that’s why we have such a hard time taking them seriously.

  • The muslims have been at war with all infidels ( their definition for everybody, not a muslim) since the mid 7th century. It’s called jihad. It does not just mean a religious experience, it means war, and politics. The Western world just does not get it.

    • Comments are closed.