Iran - US Rhetoric Versus Reality

In an NPR interview on January 29th, President Bush said that ""he does not intend to invade Iran, but he's willing to do "whatever it takes" to defend U.S. troops in Iraq whom he says have been attacked by Iranians."" He went on to say that "[i]f Iran escalates its military action in Iraq to the detriment of our troops and/or innocent Iraqi people, we will respond firmly."

In another interview with NPR, which aired on Morning Edition February 1st, undersecretary of state for political affairs (Nicholas Burns) said that "[w]e have picked up individuals who we believe are giving very sophisticated explosive technology to Shia insurgent groups, who then use that technology to target and kill American soldiers."

In the president's version it is the Iranians who are doing the killing while Burns' version puts the insurgents behind the wheel. Well, which is it? Likewise, if Mr. Burns & Co. "believe" that Iran is providing explosives to the insurgents, how about some evidence? Have we forgotten what happens when we act on "beliefs" instead of actual proof? There was no evidence of Iranian involvement in Iraq in March of 2006, still no evidence of arms traffic in October of 2006, and still no evidence as of January 17th of this year, yet Bush and Co. continue to claim otherwise. It's not a difficult concept! Prove your claims!

----------------------------------------------------

Undersecretary of state, Nicholas Burns, says that the administration thinks "it's absolutely within our rights" to detain Iranian officials, citing "Article 51 of the U.N. Charter," which is self-defense.

There has been no proof that Iran is harming US troops in Iraq, so how exactly is this action out of "self-defense?"

----------------------------------------------------

Nicholas Burns said that Iran "should try to become a force for unity in Iraq itself, but it's not choosing that path right now."

Perhaps this is because since 2002 Bush has deemed Iran a member of an "axis of evil" and continues to insinuate that they are supplying terrorists? How can this administration continuously claim that Iran is wrong in everything it does (nuclear energy program, involvement with Iraq) yet also expect them to play a unifying role? What unity is Bush & Co. promoting by slinging baseless accusations in every direction?

----------------------------------------------------

Nicholas Burns said that "Iran is seeking a position of dominance in the Middle East. It's very clear."

What aggression has Iran shown in comparison to the US? US forces in Afghanistan. US forces in Iraq. Two US carrier groups currently deployed to the Persian Gulf. But Iran is seeking a dominant position?

----------------------------------------------------

Mr. Burns said that "American military forces are in Iraq under a United Nations resolution" and "at the invitation of the Iraqi government," so "we have every right to be there." He went on to say that "[t]he Iranian paramilitary and intelligence forces who we believe are in Iraq are not there under U.N. authorization or at the invitation of the Iraqi government."

Mr. Burns left out the fact that the initial US invasion of Iraq is seen as illegal throughout most of the world. And there's that "we believe" line again; a belief is not evidence, is it? Sane governments do not go to war on "beliefs." Furthermore, the last bit of that statement is blatantly false. In September of 2006 Iraqi Leaders asked Iran for help with security. They were invited.

--------------------------------------------------

Mr. Burns said that "[w]e've been very clear we don't intend to cross the border into Iran, we don't intend to strike into Iran, in terms of what we are doing in Iraq."

This is a cleverly worded sentence, but unfortunately for Mr. Burns, I am pursuing a dual degree in English Literature and Creative Writing. So I know that non-intention does not matter if you simply argue that you were forced into action. Bush and Co. may not "intend" to strike Iran, but this does not negate the possibility. Furthermore, note the inclusion of "in terms of what we are doing in Iraq." A separate campaign against Iran would not necessarily relate to what we're doing in Iraq; again, very little can be ruled out.

-------------------------------------------------

Mr. Burns said that "it's not reasonable to suggest that because the United States has put carrier battle groups into the Gulf, we are being provocative," and that "it's not us who are being provocative or raising the stakes here."

Firstly, I cannot believe that a member of this administration has the audacity to speak publicly about what is "reasonable," but that opens a new can of worms entirely. Enough information has been provided here (or is available via 'the Google') for the reader to decide who is being provocative.

------------------------------------------------

"U.S. officials" have told CBS News "that serial numbers on parts used to make advanced explosive devices powerful enough to breach the armor on an American tank have been traced directly back to Iran. These officials also say rocket-propelled grenade launchers and assault rifles found in Iraq bear Iranian factory markings. Last May, a British helicopter was shot down by an anti-aircraft missile supplied by Iran."

Which US officials? Why have no other mainstream networks reported this? Probably because this isn't true. As I stated above, there was no evidence of Iranian involvement in Iraq in March of 2006, still no evidence of arms traffic in October of 2006, and still no evidence as of January 17th of this year. I find it just a little convenient that this should come out on the exact date of Bush's NPR interview in which he also alleges Iranian "military escalation" in Iraq. Furthermore, CBS states as fact what has never been proven with regard to the downed British helicopter. It was shot down by a Russian-made missile, many of which are known to have been sold to both Iran and Syria. It appears that CBS took the 50/50 chance and made one side of it a convenient "fact."

-----------------------------------------------------

CBS News national security correspondent, David Martin, reported that "[r]aids on Iranian offices in Iraq have turned up computer discs which contain inventories of small arms Iran has provided to Shiite militias and records of payments made to key militia members."

Again, why haven't other mainstream networks reported this? If this were true, it would be the holy grail of solid evidence that Bush and Co. so desperately need. If this were true, why are they still "we believe-ing" in every interview? Past reports are overwhelmingly against these sudden, source-less claims.

Click the "Iran" label below for previous articles.