The age of wrong

By: Yuram Abdullah Weiler

“This is the age of Wrong and the followers of Right have passed away… Do you not see that the Divine Commands are neglected and what is forbidden is practiced with relish?” -- Imam Hussein (AS)

At the behest of their war-profiteering corporate masters, the pseudo-scholarly pundits are once again prostituting themselves on the political streets of the United States by calling for a preemptive attack against Iran. One recent call for a “surgical strike” comes from U.S. Council on Foreign Relations scholar Matthew Kroenig, who presents his case in an essay replete with logical flaws entitled “Time to Attack Iran” published in the journal Foreign Affairs.

Kroenig argues that a military strike now would spare the Middle East and the rest of the world a Saddam-like threat and would substantially improve U.S. national security. He points out that diplomacy and sanctions have failed to stop Iran’s peaceful nuclear program, and while not specifying any names, he alleges that many countries are shifting their alliances from the U.S. to Iran and may even begin their own nuclear programs, resulting in a regional nuclear arms race. He warns that the window of opportunity for an attack will close as Iran moves its nuclear facilities into more secure locations, so if the U.S. does not act now, it will “forfeit its last opportunity” to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Emphasizing the gravity of the nonexistent threat, Kroenig warns, “A nuclear-armed Iran would immediately limit U.S. freedom of action in the Middle East.” Implicitly acknowledging that Israel is nuclear-armed and dangerous, he correctly assures us that Iran, if it had a nuclear weapon, would never use it in a first strike, but if Iran was attacked by the Zionist regime, the resulting conflict could “easily spiral out of control” and enmesh the United States in another long-term regional quagmire. In short, Kroenig opines that the best option is an immediate, carefully managed preemptive U.S. strike to avoid more costly military actions that would be needed in the future to contain a nuclear-armed Iran. Additionally, a U.S. assault now would deter unilateral Israeli action with all of its unpredictable implications for the volatile Middle East region, he wrote.

Kroenig goes on to provide the details of his battle plan. The “preventive operation” would consist of strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities at various sites in Isfahan, Arak, Natanz, and the Tehran area. He even suggests the type of bomb to be used, namely a 30,000-pound (13,608-kilo) Massive Ordnance Penetrator, which, in lauding its destructive potential, he gleefully proclaims is “capable of penetrating up to 200 feet of reinforced concrete.” Furthermore, he assures us that Washington would be able to limit civilian casualties by attacking at night, and that most of those killed in the assault would be military personnel, scientists, and engineers staffing the plants. Also, he claims that by using precision-guided missiles on targets, adjacent buildings would be “unscathed”. In conclusion, Kroenig sees only two options: Either the United States must fight a conventional war with Iran now or else confront a nuclear-armed Iran in the future. Therefore, according to him, the only sensible option is for the U.S. to strike decisively now and make sure Iran’s “entire nuclear infrastructure is reduced to rubble.”

Kroenig bases his faulty conclusion on the highly politicized IAEA Board of Governors report of November 8, 2011, which he claims shows Iran is committed to developing nuclear weapons. The fact is that Iran has eschewed nuclear weapons entirely, as evidenced by Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei’s fatwa (religious ruling) against them, and the Islamic Republic’s policy since October 2003 has been to cooperate fully with the IAEA, as stated in the report. While apparently satisfied with information provided about Iran’s nuclear activities before 2003, the IAEA seems concerned about its “ability to construct an equally good understanding of activities in Iran after the end of 2003,” and as a result, “has serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program.” In short, Kroenig bases his case for an immediate “surgical strike” against Iran on the IAEA’s lack of a good understanding of Iran’s nuclear program since 2003.

Who else is behind this irrational, unjustifiable, and immoral call for attacking Iran?

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said, “The United States does not want Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. That’s a red line for us and that’s a red line, obviously, for the Israelis.”

Norman Podhoretz, neoconservative ideologue and editor at large for Commentary magazine, writes, “As the currently main center of the Islamofascist ideology against which we have been fighting since 9/11, and as the main sponsor of the terrorism that is Islamofascism’s weapon of choice, Iran too is a front in World War IV. Moreover, its effort to build a nuclear arsenal makes it the potentially most dangerous of all.”

John Yoo, professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley, assistant U. S. attorney general from 2001 to 2003 under George W. Bush, and drafter of the Torture Memo, writes, “Because of the Obama administration’s reluctance to confront this looming threat, others -- such as the Republican presidential candidates -- must begin preparing the case for a military strike to destroy Iran’s nuclear program.”

Zionist regime Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has said that a nuclear Iran would lead to another holocaust, said, “One of those regional powers is Iran, which is continuing its efforts to obtain nuclear weapons. A nuclear Iran would constitute a grave threat to the Middle East and the entire world, and of course it is a direct and grave threat to us.”

Others fanning the flames of fear of Iran and Islam include the Islamophobic pseudo-scholars Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, David Yerushalmi of the Society of Americans for National Existence, Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum, Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch and Stop Islamization of America, and Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism. Islamophobes among the ultra-right-wing Christian-Zionists include John Hagee of Christians United for Israel, Pat Robertson of the Christian Broadcasting Network and the Center for American Law and Justice, Ralph Reed of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, and Franklin Graham of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan’s Purse.

It is common knowledge that the U.S. has sought to dominate the energy-rich Persian Gulf region for decades, but why call for an attack on Iran at this point in time? While the warmongers justify a preemptive strike by insisting Iran will soon have a nuclear weapon, perhaps the true but unspoken reason behind the current hysteria is that the Zionists fully realize world opinion is turning against them, and hence they are feverishly pushing the U.S. to take the military initiative. Moreover, with the U.S. economy in a shambles and the national debt at record levels, budget cuts loom on the horizon even for the previously sacrosanct Pentagon, making future funding for an Iranian escapade unlikely. Additionally, in an election year, starting a war would be a good means of distracting voters from the numerous economic and social problems plaguing the U.S.

Why is there no international outcry for the Zionist regime to disclose its nuclear arsenal and submit to inspections by the IAEA? Israel has an estimated arsenal of some 200 to 300 nuclear weapons and has a long history of aggression in the region. It has attacked the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981, Syria in 1967, 1997, and 2007, Tunisia in 1985 and 1988, Lebanon in 1978, 1982, 1993, 1996, and most recently in 2006, and Gaza in 2008-2009 and 2011. Iran has attacked no one, so why is belligerent Israel allowed to have nuclear weapons, but nonviolent Iran must be attacked for merely pursuing a peaceful nuclear program?

Islam, of course, permits individuals and countries to arm and defend themselves to protect their territory, rights, and dignity. However, Islam does not allow Muslims to start a defensive war based on mere suppositions or unsupported allegations. The Islamic scholar A.K. Ahmed writes, “There is no concept of a ‘preemptive strike’ in Islam. The concept of ‘preemptive strike’ was nurtured by the heathens who always struck from behind or without provocation.”

The Western Axis continues to threaten Iran and denigrate Muslims as “terrorists”, while Islam offers the concept of jihad in place of their program of endless wars, occupations, and bloodshed. Basically, jihad is the struggle to enjoin the good and forbid evil on the path of improving the human condition. By engaging in jihad, Muslims ensure that no single country will be allowed to dominate the natural resources given to us by Allah for the benefit of all humanity.