Iran: Lessons never learned
The recent passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) codified into law the disturbing notion that the United States should approach the entire world, including its own territory, as a battlefield. Our sprawling international military reach, our loose regard for national borders, and the fading of our own Constitutional rights continues, because our politicians claim that these steps away from our freedom are necessary to prevent future terrorist attacks...against our freedom!
But has this policy, the diplomatic equivalent of shooting first and asking questions later, really resulted in the lessening of violent Islamic extremism in the Middle East? Though the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan went well in their early stages, it soon became clear that the plan for the reconstruction of those nations ignored the complex political arrangements lost in the simplified presentation of a single enemy in the case for war.
Now the same false premise of a monolithic enemy is again being sold in the case against Iran. The media always portrays Iran as a monolithic Islamic regime under the firm rule of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Yet Ahmadinejad is himself the target of aggressive censorship by Iran's supreme religious leaders, who openly regard him as a political rival. [See New York Times' article here]
Ignoring Iran’s internal political conflicts allows the certain assumption that Iran would embark on a suicidal mission to annihilate Israel. Against this view, informed officials see the motives of the Iranian regime as more nuanced. General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, who recently stated in an interview that he believes Iran to be a rational actor.
Read more: http://www.joplinindependent.com/display_article.php/ctobin1330629607