Reason #2,432,129 Not To Bomb Iran


The Iranians are gearing up for a big Presidential election, too. In Summer of 2009, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will likely stand for re-election. The Iranian parliament, no friend to the bellicose President, has elected one of his most vocal opponents, Ali Larijani, to be their Speaker. In case you’re not aware, it’s not the President who holds the foreign policy reigns in Iran. That role goes to the Supreme Leader, held since 1989 by Ali Khamanei. However, the President is in charge of a lot, and Ahmadinejad is evidently taking the rap for a 25% rise in inflation.

Ali Larijani ran for President against Ahmadinejad in 2005. Ali’s no Boy Scout, being a well-connected censor and assassin among other things, but he appears to have a very different stance on nuclear development than does Mahmoud.

AFP: “[Larijani] typifies an increasingly prominent group in Iranian politics who remain rigidly loyal to the principles of the 1979 Islamic revolution but are distinctly lukewarm over the presidency of the ultra-conservative Ahmadinejad.

The divisions between the two were laid bare in October when Larijani resigned his post as top nuclear negotiator amid speculation that he was ready to take a slightly more pragmatic line in the standoff with the West.

Larijani also indicated his parliament would be closely supervising the work of Ahmadinejad’s government, which has been criticised by reformists and conservatives alike for controversial economic policies.”

Why does any of this matter to you? Well there are a lot of pants-wetters on the right who think that Iran is going to kill your mothers and rape your daughters. Rumors of an impending U.S. attack on Iran have been circling the internet since 2005, and those who rattle their sabers the loudest say that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon that they might use against Israel even though Israel could turn Iran into a sheet of glass in response. There’s no evidence that Iran has any nukes, mind you, nor any that they are working to build them. In fact, the world’s leading experts on the matter say there’s no evidence Iran pursued nukes after 2004:

LA Times, May 27, 2008: “A report released Monday by the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog organization presents the clearest indication yet that Iran was working on a nuclear weapon through 2003. But there is no evidence that the weapons program continued after 2004, it says, echoing a U.S. intelligence assessment in December.”

The U.S. Intelligence sector and the U.N. watchdog agree that the Iranians aren’t working on nuclear weapons, but that doesn’t stop warfans like Thunder Pig from saying that we must attack the Iranians to make some of them quit thinking about it.

Warmongers are warmongers. You can tell them that attacking a middle eastern nation on the basis of WMD that don’t exist is a really bad idea, but their sources at the counter-jihad message boards and the Free Republic will disagree.

Should Larijani succeed Ahmadinejad as Iranian President, it looks like Iranian citizens will have to endure quite a lot more of the 1979 Revolution. However, the old fogies are a waning minority in this demographically young nation:

Iranian Median age:
total: 25.8 years
male: 25.6 years
female: 26 years (2007 est.)

Compare that to ours:

American Median age:
total: 36.7 years
male: 35.4 years
female: 38.1 years (2008 est.)

Young people who don’t have nukes are in the crosshairs of Bush’s dead-enders who haven’t yet seen a bad idea they didn’t like, especially when it comes to needlessly bombing an Islamic nation. I can think of a lot of ways to encourage the young Iranians to continue pushing towards a reformation. Bombing them needlessly is not among those ways.


  1. Tim Peck says:

    I can think of a lot of ways to encourage the young Iranians to continue pushing towards a reformation. Bombing them needlessly is not among those ways.

    Yes. However, bombing them needlessly will go a long way toward electing President Bush’s favorite candidate for President: Senator John “100 Years” McCain.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  2. Gordon Smith says:


    How will it do that? I understand that what you’re saying is the conventional wisdom, but I see no reason to believe that McCain’s popularity will suddenly surge in the wake of another Bush mistake…

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  3. Tim Peck says:

    President Bush’s popularity soared after 9-11. And so, McCain’s can also in the event of a supposed nuclear threat from Iran against either the U.S., Israel, or any Western ally.

    Besides, McCain does not need very much of a surge in popularity to win. He needs to consolidate the support of his main constituency: Republicans. He need to avoid disturbing the religious right. He needs to appease moderates and hope that Obama is the other candidate. Then all he needs is a shiny new war; which the War Party can deliver. There you have it: President McCain.

    McCain’s biggest problem right now is the emergence of a viable third party.

    (In my amateur opinion.)

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  4. Anna Van Z says:

    Right, but this isn’t after 9/11, and I think a significant number of Americans are waking up to BushCo reality – which isn’t reality at all, but a scary, twisted Bizarro-world parallel universe that has the power to pull the rest of the world into it. Not only would an invasion of Iran not be popular here, it would make America a pariah to almost every country except Israel. We could expect major embargos, major fuel and food shortages, and the involvement of Russia and China. China is not only the major U.S. creditor, they also make most of what America buys these days. Thanks to “free trade”, almost nothing is made in America anymore. Only sociopathic lunatics would seriously contemplate an attack on Iran – which means BushCo is still likely to do it! I don’t put anything past the Bush Cabal, including the possibility of a false flag operation that’s blamed on Iran in order to justify an invasion. I just don’t think it would have the political “benefits” these neo-loons imagine it will.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  5. bobaloo says:

    There’s no evidence that Iran has any nukes, mind you, nor any that they are working to build them. In fact, the world’s leading experts on the matter say there’s no evidence Iran pursued nukes after 2004

    While I certainly agree that any attack on Iran would be an absolutely disastrous course, I don’t understand the stance many on the left take on their nuclear development.
    Even the article you linked states that Iran is withholding critical information in their nuclear program concerning high explosive tests and missile development, not to mention they’ve suspended short notice IAEA inspections. Neither of these developments inspire confidence.

    I agree that the youth in Iran is the best hope for reformation, but it’s not wise to dismiss concerns people have over their nuclear development program.

    I would, however, be very interested to know where TP got his information from.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0