Independent-minded Congressman, Dr. Ron Paul, is warning that America is following the same path to war with Iran as it did with Iraq.
In an official statement on the House floor, Paul iterated that war hawks are making the same arguments for war with Iran as they did leading up to the Iraq war, while more dovish members of Congress who view stringent sanctions as a less belligerent option are repeating the same mistakes as well.
Dr. Paul was one of the few Republican members of Congress to warn against war with Iraq, predicting the cost, in both blood and treasure, would far exceed Bush administration and Congressional estimates. Now, the renegade Congressman is warning against initiating a new war with Iran, citing eerie parallels in the rationale being offered. For example, he stated:
Listening to the debate on the Floor on this motion and the underlying bill it feels as if we are back in 2002 all over again: the same falsehoods and distortions used to push the United States into a disastrous and unnecessary one trillion dollar war on Iraq are being trotted out again to lead us to what will likely be an even more disastrous and costly war on Iran. The parallels are astonishing.
We hear war advocates today on the Floor scare-mongering about reports that in one year Iran will have missiles that can hit the United States. Where have we heard this bombast before? Anyone remember the claims that Iraqi drones were going to fly over the United States and attack us? These "drones" ended up being pure propaganda -- the UN chief weapons inspector concluded in 2004 that there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein had ever developed unpiloted drones for use on enemy targets....
We hear war advocates on the floor today arguing that we cannot afford to sit around and wait for Iran to detonate a nuclear weapon. Where have we heard this before? Anyone remember then-Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice's oft-repeated quip about Iraq: that we cannot wait for the smoking gun to appear as a mushroom cloud.
Dr. Paul then goes on to challenge those hopeful that sanctions could deter Iran and negate the necessity for a U.S. military strike. He said:
Some of my well-intentioned colleagues may be tempted to vote for sanctions on Iran because they view this as a way to avoid war on Iran. I will ask them whether the sanctions on Iraq satisfied those pushing for war at that time. Or whether the application of ever-stronger sanctions in fact helped war advocates make their case for war on Iraq: as each round of new sanctions failed to "work" -- to change the regime -- war became the only remaining regime-change option.
This legislation, whether the House or Senate version, will lead us to war on Iran. The sanctions in this bill, and the blockade of Iran necessary to fully enforce them, are in themselves acts of war according to international law. A vote for sanctions on Iran is a vote for war against Iran.
Paul argues that Iran has never been found in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, is not currently working on a nuclear program based on official reports out of the US intelligence community, and is currently incapable of enriching enough uranium to manufacture nuclear weapons.
While he states that he is no fan of the brutal Iranian regime, he predicts that war with Iran would produce a number of unintended consequences, much like the Iraq War.
It should also be noted that Dr. Paul is not alone in his warning regarding the increasing probability of war.
Two leading trends forecasters, Gerald Celente and Marc Faber, have warned that the U.S. may go to war in the near future in order to unite a deeply polarized and economically depressed nation. Iran could be one of the targets. While such a scenario evokes sinister, conspiratorial undertones, these gentlemen argue that history is replete with such stories.
So readers, what do you think? Are we headed toward war with Iran?
Would such a war be necessary? What would be the potential consequences, positive or negative?
Let's hear your thoughts.