Addition to Walt's list: More media failure in the Iran war debate

Hypocrisy, lack of principle, unreliability and capital crimes. That's what an attack on Iran would mean.

Hypocrisy because the powers involved expect peaceful behaviours (and no nukes) from others, but would become aggressors (in addition to being nuke powers) themselves.

Lack of principle because such an aggression at will does not bode well with the Western idea of how states should behave, of how democracies behave. An aggression displays a lack of principle because after all, we Westerners think of ourselves as the good guys, right? We couldn't be that if we were aggressors, not matter how much we fool ourselves with warmongering propaganda.

Unreliability: It's really simple. Aggression is outlawed (here, here and here), it's been signed and ratified many times that we are not to become aggressors. A bombing of Iran would be (yet another) gross violation of the duties of a NATO member.

Finally, it would be a participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of a crime against peace and the planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace.
These were quotes; from here.

Western major powers have defined this themselves and any government that attacks Iran under the given circumstances is going to make itself equal in this regard to the Nazi regime. Yes, I'm serious about it, it's a fact.

Neither a government in Tel Aviv nor a government in Washington DC has to decide about an attack on Iran; the only legitimate institution for this is the UNSC in New York. The media supposes the former two as if that was normal, not about crimes.

- - - - -

I have absolutely no illusion about the rejection by most of the about 50% readers from the U.S.; such thinking that one has voluntarily accepted rules and is thus bound himself to rules is quite alien there. The U.S. foreign policy is grabbing claims for power and for other's behaviour in treaties while playing the rules-disrespecting international anarchist whenever it wants.

Anyone who doesn't think that the points mentioned here by me are heavyweights should ask himself/herself: 
"Might my opinion related to the fact that my countries' media never reports on such once-set rules and conventions in the context of my countries' actions, but always in the context of some far-away countries' actions !?"


P.S.: Yes, I am pissed at the near-constant warmongering about Iran that's been going on with interruptions for three decades, including nuclear weapons program allegations for two decades. It is despicable and utterly non-helpful for actual defence. People should turn their attention to actual defence; defence against an actual attack by an actually dangerous power. This occupation with bullying weak distant countries misleads the public about the actual raison d'être of a military force and budget - and it wastes lives and resources (including a share of the short and valuable attention span).


  1. This commenter from the US agrees strongly with you on all points.

  2. Long time reader, first time comment.

    I don't always agree with you but I think you are spot on with this issue. There are so many issues with attacking Iran and we never hear any dissent. Pretty much only attacking Iran is discussed. I have yet to hear one commentator explain how Western powers think we can get away with this when the rest of the world will just see the hypocrisy.

    Another example,what about the environmental impact? There has been at best a few pages written about what the release of all this crap into atmosphere would do. I was laughed at when I brought this up but how do we explain to Iranian, Pakis,Indians or maybe even Chinese civilians that they have to glow in the dark for the rest of their shorten life's because we were so afraid of Iran, they had to pay the price???

    The list of issues is definitely longer and yet we are getting closer and closer to a strike where NOTHING is worked out. Kind of reminds me of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, so few people talked about all the problems US was going to face and we were drowned out until years later, it was : "maybe we should have listened to those people who said this was a bad idea..." sadly, it was too late then.

  3. Well spoken!

  4. Someone made a nice synthesis about this:
    "You have stuff. I want it. I'll take it if I can."

    That is all you need to know.
    Whst we'll see is how strong Iran is. And if China will allow another supplier to go down under US/UK bombs. And of course how afraid is Russia that US?UK will open another front on their southern frontier.

    If it can be done in relative safety, US/UK will destroy the country and try to take over the energy resources and the oil money. If not well reasons can be found to justify anything you want. That is why modern states have armies of well paid activists who can justify absolutely anything anyone might want.

    The problem I see is mentioned by a former russian general. He said " today they no longer beat the weak, they destroy them."
    And this I believe will create great problems in the future.
    Oposition will become greater. If you raise the stakes today you'll have a temporary advantage. But afterwards everyone will adapt to the new rules. And a new more dangerous world will be born.
    Adolf invented this nice way of doing business. Raised the stakes sky high and profited mightily from it. For a time. Of course what happened next was not so profitable anymore.
    Why the US/UK would work overtime to destroy todays international system is quite a mistery to me. Except peak oil and some very soon to come production decline no other explanation holds I believe.