And Our Iran Strategy Is...?

To anyone who has been remotely in the loop, the continual struggle over Iran's nuclear weapons program is a constant feature of the nightly news. The Bush adminstration has been vamping up the negative rhetoric, putting us cynics on guard for "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has recently sought significant quantities of yellowcake from Niger...".

Fervently denying the déjà vu of the situation, the adminstration has presented Iran in the exact same light as it did Iraq before the invasion. After all, they said, Saddam Hussein was an extremist who oppressed his people, fought with neighboring countries over oil rights, and sought Weapons of Mass Destruction.

But of course, you say, the American people would not allow outright war on a country that had never attacked us. This is why it became necessary to associate al-Qaeda, the people who actually attacked us, with the leader of the particular country, Saddam Hussein. Having successfully pulled the wool over the public's eyes, we proceeded to ignore the advice of the international community and went in anyway.

Five years, 4000 troops, and hundreds of billions of dollars later, we are caught in the crossfire in a bloody civil war, our economy is in shambles, and our military is tied down.

Fuel prices are well over 4 dollars for a gallon of gasoline. Wait...if Americans are hemorrhaging money at the pump, why did ExxonMobil's profit climbed from $36 billion in 2002 to a scarcely believeable $86.2 billion in 2007?

I dare say that they've gotten their money back in campaign contributions.
-----
Bush and Cheney have had a good run, but now they're preparing to hand the torch to John McCain. This is the story of Iran, as presented by the adminstration:

"Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, is a bad, bad man. He oppresses his people and is seeking nuclear weapons. He's also in cahoots with al-Qaeda."

If this doesn't make you scratch your head to wonder if you've heard it before, then you probably aren't paying attention.
-----
Part of this argument is indeed valid. Ahmadinejad is undeniably seeking nuclear capability. What we don't mention, though, is that he is doing this precisely so he can avoid the same fate as Saddam Hussein.

Some might still argue, however, that there is no deciding factor. To you I ask why John McCain incorrectly associated Shiite Iran with Sunni al-Qaeda SIX SEPARATE TIMES over the course of the campaign. Six times he was corrected, but he kept making the same mistake. This disturbs me greatly.

Russia, which until now has been rather gung ho about Iran, finally suggested today that the US, Russia, China, Germany, France, and the UK join together to strike a deal with Iran. We protect the nation for a promise to cease the nuclear program. The US promptly abnegated the suggestion, saying "The one who needs to give security guarantees is Iran."

If this really is another run-up to war, then we have to question McCain's actions. Is he complacent in the preparation for another war, or is he truly losing his memory.

Let's pass the torch to the right generation of Americans.