The Question of Iran

There's been a recent surge (no pun intended) of chatter in the mainstream media concerning a possible invasion/air-strike/surgical bombing of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The thought has been buzzing around in the background of policy circles in Washington (and Tel Aviv for that matter) for a while, certainly at least since W's State of the Union address on January 29, 2002 where he made his infamous "axis-of-evil" remark.

Of course, nowadays we can joke about that strange, aberrant era, the time of W and neo-cons, of the "war against terror," "orange alerts" and "dirty bombs." And though we still have with us some of the proponents of pre-emptive strikes and jingoism like Coulter, Rush and Mike Evans, other more temperate voices like Gore, Olbermann and Carter have risen to reclaim territory in the public sphere. The far-right is on the retreat.

Need more proof? Go and take a look at the candidates for the 2008 Presidential race. Not one of the at least 5 supposed frontrunners on the GOP side has broken through as a clear winner yet. All bets are off. Average Republicans are splintered in their choice to back a candidate and a considerable percentage have yet to declare their allegiance to anyone.

Left-wing or right, looking at the GOP and Democratic debates, it's two totally different worldviews. One side seems stuck on the September 12, 2001 mentality of "gotta find those terrrorists, smoke 'em out, get those varmints on the run, gotta defend America." The other is making once-taboo topics like universal health care, diplomacy and multilateralism, ending the occupation of Iraq and seriously fighting global warming the centre of political discussion. On the ground, in the small towns, in the living rooms of America, the people are not worrying about an invisible invasion of bearded Muslamo-Nazi goons. They care about their kids going to a good school, about being paid fairly for their hard work and about building a decent savings for retirement. Come to think of it, that doesn't sound too different from what most Iranians, Iraqis or anyone else wants.

So why so much Iran-this, Iran-that talk? Honestly, it's pretty simple. War talk hijacks the debate. It is a red herring, as they say in fiction. A random, false lead that interrupts the story and sends the pursuer of truth down the wrong path. It halts the relentless tide of progress and all of a sudden, we find ourselves back in 2002 talking about WMDs and the imminent threat of Iraq and Saddam.

It irks me greatly that so many of America's supposedly finest journalists and politicians continue to confuse the two distinct nations of Iraq and Iran. I shudder to think if we start mixing up the two Koreas, or Australia and Austria, or Israel and Palestine.

The W age is fast coming to a close. Some lefties say it's already done, that anything W says is irrelevant and a joke and that no-one trusts him anymore anyway. His approval ratings have been slumming around in the record-lows for more than a year. A popularly-supported military offensive by the U.S. or its surrogate instrument Israel is unthinkable now. The move has no support amongst regular people, moderate politicians nor, most importantly, with rank-and-file military commanders.

The worst part about this whole sideshow is that while we waste newspaper and website space on empty Iran talk, the blood of the children of Iraq still spills every day.

Iraq (with a *q*) is the real issue, and has been, for four, going on five, long years. May God have mercy on those suffering people.

=//Turnquest

Happy B-Day, Mr. Bin Laden

Last Saturday, March 10, the world’s most famous fugitive and face of international terrorism, Osama Bin Muhammed bin Awad bin Laden, celebrated his 50th birthday. Assuming of course, he is still alive.

For the purposes of this column, we shall assume he is. The logic behind this presumption is that until the “breaking news” photos of his corpse are splashed across television screens and newspapers as proof of his ultimate demise, he is as good as alive, and able to elicit the same amount of fear regardless. The United States military, in order mostly to pre-empt conspiracy theorists, made no effort to hide the grisly pictures of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi or Uday and Qusay Hussein, sons of the late Saddam Hussein who himself received a televised video death.

But I digress. Bin Laden remains the symbolic figurehead for the shadowy Al-Qaeda group, even though those in the know will tell you that he has almost no authority anymore, considering his unknown location. It has been more than five years since he’s gone on the run, most likely changing hiding spots in the mountainous border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. It was one of these hiding spots, the infamous Tora Bora mountains, where U.S. troops came closest to capturing him back in 2001. Alas, he escaped and the rest of the story has been left to hazy speculation on the part of bored political junkies.

As many have pointed out, he has also been unusually quiet recently. There haven’t been any of the once-frequent audiotapes since early last year. The last known video was even farther back, in October of 2004. One of the last times he spoke though, he offered an uncharacteristic truce to the Americans, which of course was swiftly refused. Yet his silence hasn’t kept some in the Bush administration from relentlessly reminding people that he is still out there, maybe just around the street corner, lurking in a dark place, ready to pounce out like a masked 90s horror villain. Other more cynical attitudes say he’s just being kept in a box in the President’s closet, ready to be brought out to invigorate a failing legacy.

This columnist would go as far as to state the number one driving political force in all of American politics for the last few years has been the fear of Bin Laden. More so than right-left friction, more than the Iraq War fallout, more than even the general dislike for President Bush. It is that chronic fear of another attack, another day waking up to breaking news on CNN and panicked phone calls from relatives that has shaped the voting patterns of the electorate and politicians alike. Bush may have his finger on the nuclear button, but Bin Laden has his on the nerves of every American old enough to watch the news.

There is, one would imagine, a different kind of fear on the part of U.S. military forces. What if Bin Laden has already died of natural causes? Certainly that would be anti-climactic, denying them the glory of a final gunbattle with him and his bodyguards and the satisfaction of finally catching their man. As well, it would once and for all end this fear of the ever-potent bogeyman in the public. Such a consequence would only make way for politicians to declare the War on Terror at an end and dilute any arguments for further military action in Middle East countries. Sure, they could dig up some other creepy bearded man and say that he’s the real bad guy (and they will), but it would still mark the end of an era.

What kind of man could elude the pursuit of the most powerful nation on Earth for five years with a $25 million bounty on his head, “dead or alive”? A man who competes only with the President of the United States for being the most famous living human being? He’s described as soft-spoken and even charming in person. A multi-millionaire through inheritance and the 17th of maybe as many as 55 children, few could have imagined this soccer-playing Saudi could have gained the notoriety that he did. Regardless of how the rest of his life plays out, Bin Laden has scorched a place in the history books if for no other reason than being the first Emmanuel Goldstein of the 21st century.


=//Turnquest