Consult America Before Iran War!
by
Patrick
J. Buchanan
by
Patrick J. Buchanan
DIGG THIS
"To jaw-jaw
is always better than to war-war."
So Winston
Churchill is widely quoted. Those words, however, were spoken in
1954, decades after Churchill's voice had been the most bellicose
for war in 1914 and 1939, the wars that bled and broke his beloved
empire.
Yet, Churchill's
quote frames well the main question on the mind of Washington, D.C.:
Will President Bush effect the nuclear castration of Iran before
he leaves office, or has he already excluded the war option?
One school
contends that the White House has stared down the gun barrel at
the prospect of war with Iran, and backed away. The costs and potential
consequences – thousands of Iranian dead, a Shia revolt against
us in Iraq joined by Iranian "volunteers," the mining of the Straits
of Hormuz, $200-a-barrel oil, Hezbollah strikes on Americans in
Lebanon, terror attacks on our allies in the Gulf and on Americans
in the United States – are too high a price to pay for setting back
the Iranian nuclear program a decade.
Another
school argues thus: If Tehran survives the Bush era without dismantling
its nuclear program, Bush will be a failed president. He declared
in his 2002 State of the Union Address that no axis-of-evil nation
would be allowed to acquire the world's worst weapons. Iran and
North Korea will have both defied the Bush Doctrine. His legacy
would then be one of impotency in Iran and North Korea, and two
failed wars – in Iraq and Afghanistan – which will be in their sixth
and eighth years.
Those who
know him best say that George Bush is not a man to leave office
with such a legacy. He will go to war first, even if no one goes
along.
But before
America faces this question, two others need answering.
Is Iran
so close to a nuclear weapon that if we do not act now, it will
be too late? Or do we have perhaps a decade before Iran has the
capacity to build nuclear weapons?
Early this
year, Israel was warning that if Iran was not stopped by March 2006,
it would be too late. Iran would by then have acquired the knowledge
and experience needed to build nuclear weapons.
The neoconservatives,
too, have been demanding "Action this day!" and were stunned by
Bush's statement at the United Nations that America does not oppose
Iran's acquisition of peaceful nuclear power.
The other
side argues that Iran is perhaps a decade away from being able to
produce enough fissile material for a bomb, that the 164 centrifuges
Tehran has are so primitive and few in number it will take years
even to produce fuel for nuclear power plants.
While the
International Atomic Energy Agency has not given Iran a clean bill
of health, it has never concluded that Iran is working on a bomb.
Where does
this leave America? With grave questions, the answers to which should
be given not by George Bush alone, but by the American people through
their representatives in the Congress.
Lest we
forget, it is not President Bush who decides on war or peace. The
Congress is entrusted with that power in the Constitution. The Founding
Fathers wanted a clear separation between the commander in chief
who would fight the war and the legislators who would declare it.
They had had their fill of royal wars.
Congress,
when this election is over, should return to Washington to conduct
hearings on how close Iran is to a nuclear capacity, and place that
information before the nation. We do not need any more cherry-picked
and stove-piped intelligence to take us to war. But the critical
question that needs to be taken up in congressional and public debate
is this:
Even if
Tehran is seeking a nuclear capacity, should the United States wage
war to stop her? Is a nuclear-armed Iran more of an intolerable
threat than was a nuclear-armed Stalin or Mao, both of whom America
outlasted without war?
Today,
Republicans and Democrats are competing in calling Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a Hitler who will complete the Holocaust, a
terrorist with whom we cannot deal. But the Iran he leads has not
started a war since its revolution, 27 years ago, and knows that
if it attacked America, it will invite annihilation as a nation.
Bismarck
called pre-emptive war committing suicide out of fear of death –
not a bad description of what we did in invading Iraq.
Today,
President Bush does not have the constitutional authority to launch
pre-emptive war. Congress should remind him of that, and demand
that he come to them to make the case and get a declaration of war,
before he undertakes yet another war – on Iran.
Before
any air strikes are launched on Iran's nuclear facilities, every
American leader should be made to take a public stand for or against
war. No more of these "If-only-I-had-known" and "We-were-misled"
copouts.
September
26, 2006
Patrick
J. Buchanan [send
him mail] is co-founder and editor of The
American Conservative. He is also the author of seven books,
including Where
the Right Went Wrong, and A
Republic Not An Empire.
Copyright
© 2006 Creators Syndicate
Patrick
J. Buchanan Archives
|