For Iran, no nukes is not good news
By Mark Drolette
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Oct 8, 2007, 00:52
One thing I�ve learned while researching articles is that
oftentimes, the smaller the item, the louder it speaks.
Check this 36-worder from page A3 of the September 29 San Francisco Chronicle:
Pyongyang: President Bush Friday authorized the first U.S. shipment of
heavy fuel oil to North Korea in five years, a reward to Pyongyang for moving
forward with its agreement to end its nuclear programs.�
That�s it, in its entirety. Its brevity, however, belies its
true voluminous content. �Cause:
Isn�t North Korea, like Iraq and Iran, a charter member of
Bush�s �Axis of Evil�?
And isn�t North Korea, unlike Iraq and Iran, the only one of
the three to possess nuclear weapons?
Well, gosh, that�s odd. Because why, then, did BushCo engage
in (successful) diplomacy with North Korea while Iraq lay in ruin and Iran sits
next in the crosshairs?
What on earth could be the difference? (The more accurate
query would be: �What on earth could
be the difference?�)
For Bush supporters in the audience, the ones who still
insist Iraq�s obliteration is about spreading freedom n� democracy and killing
anyone who resists such beneficence, let me spell it out for you (don�t panic,
it�s only three letters): o-i-1.
Come on, even Alan Greenspan said as much. Uh, until he didn�t,
that is. (It�s not nice to fool with motherf*****s.)
But, just as transpired before we plundered oil-rich Iraq,
we�re now told we must pummel oil-rich Iran, even as lip service is paid to
giving peace a chance.
And right on cue, bellicosity rises to muffle such phony
calls for diplomacy as Dick Cheney and his pinheaded PNAC pals paint Iran as a
grave danger, salivating over the day they can bust its chops and loot its
Calculatingly chiming in with a blustery salvo is the revoltin� John Bolton, long-time pit bull
of the American far right (so far right, in fact, he�s disdainful of those damn
feel-good neocons and their �excessively Wilsonian views about the benefits of
Bolton declared recently in Great Britain (as reported by
Ros Taylor of The Guardian, UK) that
talking with Iran was useless and �he saw no alternative to a preemptive strike
on suspected nuclear facilities in the country.�
Naturally, this saddens him. �I don�t think the use of
military force is an attractive option,� he laments, no doubt sponging away
tears that�d make a cayman proud, �but I would tell you I don�t know what the
Mmm . . . sanity?
To his credit, it�s not like he hasn�t considered
alternatives: �The US once had the capability to engineer the clandestine
overthrow of governments. I wish we could get it back.�
Yeah, those were the days. Especially when you look at how
great that sort of thing worked out in, well, Iran.
Obediently, Bolton invokes the name of the current
designated Greatest Threat to American Security Today, intoning �that any
strike should be followed by an attempt to remove the �source of the problem,�
Mr. [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad.�
Ah, Ahmadinejad. I will admit his recent controversial
appearance at Columbia University did leave me wondering why a mad dictator,
who has no regard for human rights, authorizes torture, is directly responsible
for thousands of deaths, has brought the world to the brink of nuclear
annihilation and is a narcissistic loony so ego-ridden his utterly undeserved
self-importance blinds him to seeing he�s little more than a mouthpiece for his
country�s real policymakers, is,
indeed, regularly afforded public pulpits from which to spew his fundamentalist
But enough about Bush.
True, Ahmadinejad makes Borat look like Guest of the Year
and does have particular difficulty with �H� words (e.g., �Holocaust� and
�homosexuals�), but, come now: this fool is America�s biggest fear? Personally,
I�m a lot more worried about the latest shipment of lead-based dishware from
The fact remains: If Iran weren�t awash with oil, neither
Ahmadinejad nor his nation would be even a blip on the greedmeisters� screen.
Just as I found it an ironic hoot -- in a sardonic sort of
way -- that Saddam Hussein beat Dubya hands-down in the honesty department when
it came to Iraq�s (lack of) WMD, so, too, do I give credit to the admittedly
unsavory Ahmadinejad for asking at Columbia
an entirely legitimate question of America:
�If you have created the fifth generation of atomic bombs
and are testing them already, what position are you in to question the peaceful
purposes of other people who want nuclear power?�
Whether Iran�s nuclear ambitions are entirely peaceful is
open to debate. But let�s say Iran does want to develop the bomb.
Well, then, still: By what logic can the U.S. have 10,000 nuclear warheads and Israel, a
non-signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(which, by the way, bears Iran�s endorsement), two to three hundred, and yet
Iran -- with zero -- is the bad actor?
Because we�re the good guys? Hmm . . . you may want to ask
Iraqis their view of that. (Though a response may be slow in forthcoming from
the million-plus slaughtered since the invasion.) And given that Cheney and
gang are insanely gung-ho on actually nuking
Iran, a country that�s not threatened America one iota, where doth the evil
Bolton and ilk�s broadsides notwithstanding, however, Iran�s
nuclear intentions are becoming moot anyway. The boogeyman Iranian-produced
mushroom cloud over Peoria has repeatedly been run up the flagpole of American
opinion, yet that puppy just hasn�t flown. So now it�s all about how Iran is
killing our freedom-fightin� soldier boys by providing those ubiquitously handy
�insurgents� mega-deadly weapons.
But the reason matters not. Barring a miracle, Iran will
almost assuredly be attacked and any excuse will do, no matter how far-flung.
Hell, next thing you know, Ahmadinejad will be the new Hitler for stealing
rattles from babies. (Though he could end up a new American hero if they�re
lead-based ones from China.)
�Bout the only thing that could stop this latest round of
Bushian madness is if Iran�s oil magically disappeared overnight, even if the
very next day 50 shiny new nukes rolled through Tehran on full military
If such a fantastic scenario did occur, I�d not be surprised
to read this tiny item a few months later:
�Toys from Tehran:
The White House, recognizing Iran�s commitment to stop increasing its nuclear
stockpile while also seeking to punish China, lifted sanctions yesterday
against the importation of playthings from the Middle Eastern nation. Dishware,
Copyright � 2007
Mark Drolette. All rights reserved.
Mark Drolette is a political satirist/commentator who
lives in Sacramento, California. He is currently working on his first book:
"Why Costa Rica? Why the hell not?" Mark can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor