The Next War

Yesterday, I didn't feel engaged by the Sunday New York Times. This happens occasionally, due to a combination of a laziness and the fact that most stories in the Sunday paper are published a day or so early, making most of it not that timely.

So, after browsing through the New York Times headlines, I decided to move onto England's the Guardian Unlimited, the online version of the Guardian, which could be described as England's New York Times.

Anyways, I didn't expect to find anything there all that interesting. What I did fine, for lack of a better metaphor, sent shivers down my spine.

There was a boldfaced headline, complete with a color picture, reading: Cheney pushes Bush to Act on Iran.

I quickly read the story.

Then I quickly searched the New York Times for any verification of this story. Nothing. I waited a day, knowing England is about eight hours ahead of us, assuming the Guardian published this story before the US papers went to print.

Today, still nothing. The Guardian article had moved to the "More News" section, second from the top.

The story discussed how President Bush has been influenced by Vice President Cheney to resort to military action in Iran. At previous discussions on Iran, Bush has sided with Secretary Rice and Gates, both which discourage military intervention. Now, apparently, Bush is listening to Cheney's advice and looking for a military solution.

The Guardian's anonymous source said that "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo," and that "Mr Bush and Mr Cheney [do] not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively." The White house claims Iran is building a nuclear weapon and is supplying terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The claims of the White House may be true. Iran may be supplying terrorists, or developing a nuclear weapon. One of the most recent articles from the Associated Press on Iran, Iran Reversing Ban, Will Open Reactor to U.N. Inspectors , published on the 14th, is about how it will open their country up to UN nuclear inspectors. If Iran follows through, this will greatly weaken the White House's argument that it is building nuclear weapons.

Whatever the truth may be for the Iran situation, it is dangerous to think of it as an "Iran situation." This type of thinking got the US into Iraq. The President had an "Iraq situation" that he thought he needed to deal with. He saw military action as the most suitable solution, and evidence to justify this military action seemed to conveniently exist.

While reading this Guardian article, it seems the same thing is beginning to happen with Iran. Cheney is pressuring Bush into a military solution, regardless of Iran's practices. Military action might be the best solution for Iran, I don't know, I'm not an administrative official. But if a war is started because of an "Iran situation", instead of what Iran does, the Iran war will be as unfounded as the Iraq war.

What disturbed me the most about this Iran situation, is that people in England know more about it than people in the US. There is now evidence that the administration was pushing for a Iraq war long before the public knew about it, and it seems like the same thing might be happening again. I respect the New York Times as a publication, but I am disappointed that they did not cover this story, or even reprint the Guardian article. The American people need to know what their government is planning, and the press is the only thing that can provide them with this information.