Friday, February 4, 2005

Iranians for Peace


/ iran / vox populi /
"This weblog is dedicated to the Iranian people who are against a military attack on Iran. We believe that no war can contribute to the establishment of liberty and democracy in our country. 'Iranians for Peace' welcomes the opinions of Iranian people around the globe who are in opposition to war."

Reasonable arguments against an attack on Iran, from Iranian citizens. They would be very effective if they were directed to rational humans. Unfortunately they mostly appeal to the "reality based community". As does another Iranian blog No War on Iran!.

Some interesting links from the two blogs:

Two petitions against US military interference in Iran (go, sign, its not much, but it provides a psychological argument against the invasion):

  • The first one, is directed to George Bush, and is titled "We are against military interference of USA in Iran".


  • The other one is directed to the UN General assembly, to pass a resolution to prevent an attack by the US in Iran, and is simply titled "No war in Iran".


  • Also read Ervand Abrahamian's Iran: the next target?; it is both interesting and scary, as it argues that an adventure in Iran is not at all inconceivable, and goes on to suggest a few steps towards defusing the situation, some of which are sensible and others unrealistic. However the analysis of the situation is spot on IMHO. Excerpt:

    The risk of a collision remains high, but the Iraqi quagmire has created a mood of complacency in the international community and among liberal and conservative “realists” in America about US capabilities. Conventional wisdom now argues that because the US military is overextended, its citizens are uneasy about the extent of international commitments, and its leaders have supposedly been “chastised” by Iraq, the country is unlikely to venture into new wars – especially into the vast inhospitable region of Iran.

    This overlooks several counter-arguments for the likelihood of an escalation of conflict – especially those that take into account the power of ideology. The neoconservatives who brought us the Iraq conflict are more entrenched in power now than they were in 2001-2003 when more conventional conservatives could still be found in the corridors of the CIA and the State Department.

    These neoconservatives do not consider the Iraq exercise to be a failure since they have achieved their avowed goal of overthrowing Saddam Hussein. They are still convinced that they have the power to change facts and create their own reality. They have been demanding the destruction of the Islamic Republic – much like the refrain “Carthage must be destroyed” – ever since Iran’s 1979 revolution. As Saddam Hussein fell, they proclaimed that everyone wants to go to Baghdad, but real men aim for Tehran.

    1 comment:

    Seesaw said...

    Thanks for these links. I do not know, I am afraid everything is possible, attack on Iran included!