 |
|
| January 2, 2008 | ||||
Experts Agree: Iran Is Not Iraq |
||||
| by Arash Norouzi | ||||
|
Have you heard the news? Iran is not Iraq. On the surface, the two neighboring countries seem similar enough. Iran and Iraq hold the world's 2nd and 3rd largest oil reserves respectively, have Shi'ite majorities, share a long border, and fought a pointless, bloody eight-year war that cost over a million lives. Prior to the illegal invasion of Iraq, both countries were bitter enemies of the United States, which selected them for the elite "Axis of Evil" club in 2002. Everyone knew Iran was next. In recent years, U.S. pronouncements against Iran have been uncannily similar to the Iraq war propaganda – weapons of mass destruction, "grave threat to world peace," human rights violations, defying the "international community," etc. One of the latest arguments conjured up for continuing the war in Iraq is that retreating would "embolden" Iran; and with constant accusations that Iran is arming Shi'ite and Sunni militias that are killing Americans, the line between the Iraq war theater and a possible Iran theater becomes increasingly blurry. It all appears to be the makings of an unwelcome, big-budget, poorly scripted sequel to a movie that bombed to begin with. There are distinctions, of course. Iraq is a mostly Arab country, and Iran has a largely Persian population. Geographically, Iran is about 3.75 times the size of Iraq with a more diverse, mountainous terrain, and Iran has nearly 2.5 times the population of Iraq. Tragically, Iraq is now a nation with a broken political and civil infrastructure, weakened by years of war, cruel sanctions, and rampant sectarian violence. Iran, while struggling with unemployment, fuel shortages, increasing international isolation, and other domestic problems, has a stable government, a formidable military, and a very strong influence in the region. So why the confusion between Iran and Iraq? Much of it can simply be attributed to their nearly identical, frequently mispronounced names. And no one, from Joe Sixpack to the world's biggest leaders, is immune from getting them mixed up. While speaking at a Fredericksburg, Va., Holiday Inn on Dec. 17, 2007, a local man told President Bush he was "concerned about the nations like Iraq, who now have nuclear weapons." "Iran," Bush corrected. "Iran, and Iraq both," replied the questioner. "Not Iraq," reminded Bush, as the room erupted in laughter. The question typifies the image many Americans have developed of the two nations. The names Iraq and Iran are spoken so frequently, so interchangeably, that a perception of parity becomes almost involuntary… it's as if they were twins. Misunderstanding is inevitable. The mix-ups are not necessarily unintentional. Saddam's one-time enabler and a chief architect of the Iraq war, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, is reported to have written internal memos to his staff with directives such as "link Iraq to Iran." During his first press conference of 2007, in February, President Bush got confused while discussing Iran with reporters: "Now, let me step back on Iran, itself. We have a comprehensive strategy to deal with Iraq [sic]. There's a variety of issues that we have with Iraq [sic]. One, of course, is influence inside of Iraq. Another is whether or not they end up with a nuclear weapon. And I believe an Iran with a nuclear weapon would be very dangerous for world peace…." When talking about Iran at the 2007 Democratic debates, Joe Biden said, "If he [Bush] takes the country to war in Iraq [sic] without a vote of Congress … then he should be impeached," and John Edwards proclaimed, "We need to make it absolutely clear that we have no intention of letting Bush, Cheney or this administration invade Iraq [sic] because they have been rattling the saber over and over and over." Former White House Press Secretary Tony Snow earned a triple score during a June 2006 press briefing: "[T]he position of this government is to look for a way … for the Iraqis [sic] to suspend the nuclear activities and make it possible for the rest of the world to begin working on reintegrating Iraq [sic] into the international community and dealing with other issues, such as human rights and terrorism with that government of Iraq [sic]." Though politicians, pundits, and the public hold converging concepts of Iraq and Iran, they constantly repeat the phrase "Iran is not Iraq." The fact that this phrase exists in the first place clearly shows that there is a widespread, preconceived notion of relative equivalence between the two. It points to a common perspective, particularly derivative of an antiquated colonial mindset, in which the outside world is viewed so broadly as to render similar cultures largely indistinguishable. While prejudice is a factor, the bigger culprit, however, may be ordinary indifference – not only to the history and geography of other cultures, but to one's own as well. At the 2007 Miss Teen USA pageant, Miss Teen South Carolina, Lauren Caitlin Upton, was asked, "Recent polls have shown 1/5 of Americans can't locate America on a world map. Why do you think this is?" Her awkward, rambling response, with its random mentions of South Africa and Iraq, became wildly popular in the media and Internet for its unintentional hilarity. But the ridicule directed at the teenager is unfair considering the astonishing gaps in knowledge exhibited by significant government officials, whose understanding of history and current events is critical to their decision-making, and consequently, to peace and stability in the world. Recently, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino confessed to not knowing what happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis (when the U.S. and USSR nearly waged nuclear war), saying, "It had to do with Cuba and missiles, I'm pretty sure." President Bush, who is well known for his verbal gaffes, historical ignorance, and self-admitted tendency to "mangle the English language," has such moments on a regular basis. Bush has referred to the continent of Africa as a "nation," announced that "Mandela's dead," asked the president of Brazil, "Do you have blacks, too?," and, while in Tokyo in 2002, proclaimed that America and Japan have been "great and enduring" allies for the past 150 years. During the 2000 election campaign, Bush was asked by a reporter to name the leaders of India, Pakistan, Chechnya, and Taiwan. He only managed to guess one, barely. In his 2006 interview with the Congressional Quarterly, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) was unable to say if al-Qaeda – America's #1 enemy – was Sunni or Shi'ite, and he also failed to describe Hezbollah. When Bush's gossipy, expletive-laden private conversation with British Prime Minister Tony Blair was picked up by an open mike at a G8 Summit luncheon in 2006, it was a raw glimpse into Bush's primitive thinking process. "Russia's a big country and you're a big country," he observed, chomping on his food with his mouth open. "Russia's big and so's China." As they chatted, innocent people, including children and babies, were being killed in the war between Israel and Lebanon, a war they fully aided and endorsed in the foolish belief that it would permanently destroy Hezbollah. As the allegations of Iraqi WMDs and Iran's active pursuit of nuclear weapons (now contradicted by the new NIE report) have shown, reliable intelligence is hard to come by. And in the contentious, reality-bending world of politics, it's often difficult to find common ground. It's time for the U.S. and Iran to commence a comprehensive, rational dialogue without preconditions. The diplomatic process has to start somewhere, so why not begin with something that all parties can agree on: the inane, yet valid, assertion that "Iran is not Iraq." "Q: You often say Iran is not Iraq. "President Bush: Yes, I do say that." "Iran is not Iraq. We have said that before." "But we know that Iraq is not – Iran is not Iraq. But this is
a different set of circumstances in that this is a case that has a diplomatic
course available." "To state the obvious, Mr. President, Iran is not Iraq. And
the president has no authority to begin unilateral military operations against
Iran. In this regard, I would strongly urge my colleagues to consider that the
issue before us is not the politics of Iran, but the proper procedures with
respect to how we, as a government, lead the United States." "Iran is not Iraq, Iran is not Afghanistan. They still cannot
leave [those two countries], it is impossible for them to invade Iran." "'Iran is not Iraq,' says Gary Sick, a specialist on Iran and
director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia University. 'It's not North
Korea, and it's not even Syria.'" "If we attack Iran, as I fear we are on a course to do, we will unleash
a hell unlike anything this region has seen. Iran is not Iraq. It has
not been under sanctions for 10 years. It has not been bombed flat by the Gulf
War. It is a strong nation with weapons. We will make ourselves once again less
safe if we attack them." "Iran is not Iraq, incidentally, it is a different situation…" "If they have a little bit of a brain, they would not commit such a
mistake. Iran is not Iraq. Iraq was a weak country, it did not have a
legitimate government. Iran is a powerful country." "Secretary Rice: Let me be very clear and go to the bottom line. Iran is not Iraq. I know that's what's on people's minds. Iran is not Iraq. The circumstances are different. We don't have 12 years of Security Council resolutions, a case in which a state attacked its neighbor or tried to annex its neighbor, as it did with Kuwait, where we were still in a state of war after the armistice in 1991. I just want to be very clear: Iran is not Iraq. … "Foreign Secretary Straw: Well, people have listened to this interview.
I've said what I've said and secondly the president of the United States saying
he doesn't take the option off the table. But in practice, you've just heard
the secretary of state say very eloquently that Iran is not Iraq. Of
course we understand. We both understand. The two governments understand why
people are so worried about the prospect of military action against Iran being
imminent. Because of what they thought happened in Iraq. But as the secretary
said, there is a huge difference. I mean, 12 years of Security Council resolutions.
Iraq invaded two of its neighbors…" "Iran is not Iraq. Iran is not a threat to the United States,
and if anybody tells you that, they don't know anything about the history
of Iran. Nothing." "Iraq and Iran are not the same situations, and I think the president
previously has talked about that. When he was in Europe he said Iran is not
Iraq." "[L]et me say regardless of, of what had or hadn't been found in Iraq
I do not happen to think that military action in this situation would be appropriate.
I mean, as President Bush's spokesman has said, Iran is not Iraq…" "Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran's IAEA ambassador: Iran is looking for
peaceful settlement. Iran is looking for cooperation with Europe and Russia
and other countries. And we want peace in this region. "Question: Is the U.S. taking military action off the table? Is the U.S. taking unilateral military action against – "Mr. McClellan: Well, I think the president has made it pretty clear,
he said previously Iran is not Iraq. We are working with the international
community to resolve this in a peaceful and diplomatic manner. That's what we've
been doing and that's what we continue to do. In terms of options, you know
the president has already addressed that. The president has made it clear we
never take options off the table." "Again, I think we all – and let me just go to the bottom line. Iran
is not Iraq. This is a very different set of circumstances. We were in a
state of hostilities with Iraq for 12 years after the end of the Gulf War. The
Iraqis were practically every day shooting at American and British planes as
they tried to patrol the no-fly zone. This was a different situation. But in
Iraq, we did not over that 12 years maintain international unity. That's what
we have to strive to do in Iran." "Well I think the current circumstances it [attacking Iran] would not
be conceivable. It would not be appropriate. And what's more Jim, because I
know that and I understand why, what you're seeking to do is to suggest there
is some kind of difference of opinion between the United Kingdom government
and the United States. There isn't. Allow me to quote this: Iran is not Iraq.
We're working with the international community to resolve this in a peaceful
and diplomatic manner. That's what we continue to do. That's my opinion. It
also happens to be the opinion of the White House. It is literally not on the
agenda. … "First of all, let me go right to the crux of the question: The United
States of America understands and believes that Iran is not Iraq. The
Iraq circumstances had a special character going back for 12 years of suspended
hostilities after a war of aggression which Saddam Hussein himself launched
and in which those hostilities continued for that period of 12 years." "Now we are nudging up against a real tough problem because Iran
is not Iraq and it's not North Korea." "We believe there are many differences between Iran and Iraq, or Afghanistan.
In the political system of Iran, there are a lot of differences with the system
that used to be in Iraq or Afghanistan. The situation of the people and how
they look at our government in Iran is very different from the situation of
the Iraqi people under Saddam's regime. Iran's geographical composition is very
different to that of Iraq. I previously referred to the resolve of the Iranian
people. In their beliefs, the Iraqi people are very similar to us, but there
are some differences. "No, there is just a very, very obvious thing, which is Iran is
not Iraq. Nobody is talking about military invasion; people do, however,
want to send a very strong signal to Iran because some of the comments made
by the president of Iran are totally unjustifiable, Iran is supporting terrorism
in the region to the detriment of democratic governments, it is in breach of
its nuclear obligations and people want it to comply. And so the real issue
for me in respect of Iran is well what are you going to do about it? And all
I am saying, as I said at Prime Minister's Questions last week, is that it is
not very sensible at this moment in time to send a signal of weakness, we want
to send a signal of strength. But I repeat, Iran is not Iraq, and people
are very, very well aware of that here and over the water." "I want to be very clear: the president of the United States doesn't
take any of his options off the table. But we understand that Iran is not
Iraq. This is a very different situation, and we believe that the diplomatic
course and the many, many tools that we have on the diplomatic side will ultimately
succeed." "Iran is not Iraq, and its condition is not comparable
to that of Iraq before the American invasion." "Iran is not Iraq. There is no Saddam Hussein
who determines everything." "We are working with our European friends, we are working with Turkey;
we want to work with Russia and China and develop a united front to demonstrate
to Iran that it needs to forgo its nuclear weapons ambitions and work with the
international community. So I want to make clear Iran is not Iraq and
it is our hope that a diplomatic solution can be found and we welcome Turkey's
help in this regard." "When Mr. Bush became president, Mr. Fidel Castro was asked his opinion
about Bush. Mr. Castro answered by saying, 'I hope he's not as stupid as he
looks.' Regarding whether Mr. Bush would do such a thing, I should say that
the Americans cannot attack us, either in the form of surgical strikes … or
by deploying their forces. Iraq is a clear and outstanding example. Iran
is not Iraq; Americans know that Iran is not a place that would let them
in. I'm not saying that we would not get hurt by such an attack, but at the
same time, we would not let Americans escape unhurt…" "I was asked about it on the television last night and I said it was
absurd to think that we are going to go invade Iran. Iran is not Iraq…" "Miles O'Brien: All that talk of military action and even a nuclear
option may be nothing more than saber-rattling. The truth is, the administration
does not have as many options in how to deal with Iran than it did with Iraq.
[Begin videotape.] "Gen. Anthony Zinni, (ret.), former Centcom commander: We should not
fool ourselves to think it will just be a strike and then it would be over.
The Iranians will retaliate and they have many possibilities in an area where
there are many vulnerabilities from our troop positions, to the oil and gas
in the region that can be interrupted, to attacks on Israel, to the conduct
of terrorism." "The Americans have for long maintained, demonstrated, and acted upon
the conviction that assurances of non-diversion of the [International Atomic
Energy] Agency are not credible. The same conviction lead that country to ignite
a war in no less than two years ago. But is this déjà vu again?
I am sorry, not this time – Iran is not Iraq, and the United States is
not that self-appointed policeman of the world anymore." "[P]eople are worried that Iran is going to turn into another Iraq
and that's in people's minds, so we might as well open up and discuss that.
Although as Condoleezza Rice was saying last week and President Bush I've also
heard him say, Iran is not Iraq." "We do know that Europeans too are against Americans' attempt to drag
the region into another war. We hope that the U.S. President George W. Bush
will learn from his mistakes in Iraq, because if we move into that direction
and if any war breaks out, it will entail bitter consequences. Iran is not
Iraq, and its conditions are fully different from hers. In case of any war,
Bush should be held accountable." "But Iran is not Iraq, these are two very different circumstances
and we believe that the remedies before us are quite robust." "You know, yesterday I was asked about the U.S. position, and I said
all options are on the table. That's part of our position. But I also reminded
people that diplomacy is just beginning. Iran is not Iraq." "The U.S. officials should comprehend certain issues. Iran is not
Iraq. The IAEA inspectors found no document proving Iran uses nuclear technology
for military purposes." "You can't absolutely predict every set of circumstances that comes
about, but sitting here now and talking to you I can tell you that Iran is
not Iraq." "The elimination of Saddam Hussein from Iraq was more than anything to Iran's benefit. But even then we were of the belief that the solution is not a military occupation of Iraq. Even then my proposal was that the U.S. and the other permanent members of the Security Council meet with Iraq's neighbors to come up with a solution for the country – the same as with Afghanistan. But during that time America was arrogant and did not accept this proposal. Today the center of terrorism is located in Iraq … and America is facing problems in Iraq. "In this situation, because of the experience that the Americans have
had with Iraq and because of American public opinion, I don't believe that the
Americans will make the big mistake of attacking Iran. Iran is not Iraq." "Tim Russert: And we're back with the vice president of the United States, Dick Cheney. Let me show you what Mr. Khatami from Iran visiting the United States had to say and read it for you and our viewers: 'Former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami warned that the U.S. military action in the Middle East has backfired, producing greater terrorism, imperiling the future of Iraq, and damaging America's long-term interest. But the danger of even great instability in the region will ultimately prevent the U.S. from launching military strikes against Iran over disputes about its nuclear intentions. He predicted: "America will not make the same mistake of attacking Iran; Iran is not Iraq."' "Is he right? "Cheney: Well, we certainly understand Iran is not Iraq." |
||||
|
||||
| Archives |
|
Arash Norouzi is an artist and co-founder of The Mossadegh Project. |
Reproduction of material from any original Antiwar.com pages
without written permission is strictly prohibited.
Copyright 2013 Antiwar.com