War on Iran in OD

Coalition of the Willing

Countries in the coalition:
Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Spain, Tonga, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States and Uzbekistan

Taken from The White House website

NY Times article of June 14th, 2004 discusses the continued tension with Iran over allegations that it is secretly developing a nuclear weapons program. The article reads, in part:

“Frustrated with Iran’s “changing and at times contradictory” stories about its nuclear program, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency demanded Monday that Tehran provide a full accounting “within the next few months.”…The Bush administration welcomed the director general’s statement, and officials expressed hope that it would add to pressure from Europe and Russia – as well as the United States – to force Iran to disclose its nuclear activities. They said they would leave open the possibility of seeking action at the United Nations Security Council if current efforts failed.”

This standoff about WMDs sounds very similar to the Iraqi situation back in 2003. Do you think Iran is developing nuclear weapons? Do you think the UN and/or US should intervene diplomatically to stop them? Do you think the UN and/or US will intervene militarily to stop them? Finally, what do you think should happen in this situation?
From The Pundits

I’m not going to go on here about how it’s hypocritical for Britain and America to decide who has the right to WMDs when we have them (and America is the only country to use them in anger). This is not the question that has been asked.

This current standoff is amazingly a case of history repeating. There is an old saying that those who do not learn from the mistakes of the past are condemned to repeat them.

Do either Bush or Blair want a war at the moment? Well, with the job of stabilizing Iraq not yet accomplished (despite the hand over of power), do you think the people would support it this time? Yes, we have the possibility of Iran developing WMDs and of course we still have the worlds bogeyman Osama Bin Laden who could possibly be tied to the country as well.

However, with Bush facing an election in November and Blair an election next year I cannot see them wanting it. The Iraq invasion took place when it took place in order for the revisionist historians to spin things in Bush’s favour. The fact that they have not been able to is all credit to the likes of Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, Greg Palast, et al.

But here’s the problem for Bush and Blair. After invading Iraq (with the support of the “Coalition of the Willing (see panel)) on the grounds that Saddam was developing WMDs and had ties to Al Qaida, they should be compelled to invade Iran. Otherwise it will be seen as one rule for some and a different rule for the rest.

But I believe that the coalition will shrink as less and less countries would support them. Indeed, the coalition has already shrunk in Iraq with Spain’s new Prime Minister pulling his troops out of the country as soon as he took office.

Bush and Blair could, of course, turn to the UN. But the UN would be justified in saying ‘you didn’t need our help with Iraq, so you’re on your own’. (Chances are they wouldn’t but it would be kinda cool if they did.)

Do I want an invasion of Iran? Hell no. I’m a pacifist. I took part in the protest against the Iraq war.

Will there be an invasion? That’ll all depend on what happens in November.