War fever continues to grip the United States:
“The US government has been criticised for granting a visa to former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami. Some US politicians and a Jewish rights group have protested against the move, saying they consider Iran a threat to the country.”
This goes to show that there is a certain faction in this country which will have no less than war with Iran. Mr. Khatami is a moderate who, had he held real power in Iran, could have been a partner in normalizing relations between our two countries. If we cannot extend a hand of welcome to those in Iran who will talk with us, then there is no hope for resolving this conflict peacefully.
To his credit, Jimmy Carter, who it would seem would have a solid basis for holding a grudge against the nation that arguably cost him his second term, understands this:
“But the Washington Post reported that Mr Carter hadagreed in principle to meeting Mr Khatami, and that the possible timingof a meeting was being worked out.
Diplomatic relations with Iran were cut under Mr Carter’s presidency following the seizure of the US embassy in Tehran in 1979.”
Blessed are the peacemakers.
Via Kevin Drum, David Ignatius is in Iran and reports that though “you might expect that Tehran would feel like a garrison town” it’s actually surprisingly relaxed. But why might you expect that Teheran would feel like a garrison town? Well, you would if you’ve been following the media’s dubious, highly-spun coverage of the issue. But you wouldn’t if you asked yourself some basic question. For example, if Iran is preparing to mount a Hitler-style bid for world domination they must be engaged in a big military build-up, right? But there is no such build up. Maybe there’s no need for a build-up because the Iranian military is already so vast and mighty? Well, no. Iran has a defense budget of about $6 billion a year.The United States spends over 50 times more than that. But perhaps comparisons to the USA are misleading. Lets compare our would-be regional hegemon to its neighbors. Well, Israel spends $9.6 billion and Saudi Arabia spends $25.2 billion. Pakistan, immediately adjacent to Iran and nuclear armed, actually has engaged in a recent defense buildup. What kind of quest for hegemony is Iran supposed to be on? Ignorant American pundits and television personalities may be unaware of these facts, but surely Iranian military and intelligence officials have noticed that Iran has no capacity whatsoever to conquer the region.
So remember, when the administration later this year tells us of a “grave and gathering threat” in Iran, they’ve done this dance before. And we all know how that turned out.
In this corner, we have the neo-cons in charge of the Bush administration, who seem to believe that all of the world’s problems can be solved by simply killing more people:
““This is not an enemy that can be ignored, or negotiated with, or appeased,’’ [Vice President Dick Cheney] said. “And every retreat by civilized nations is an invitation to further violence against us. Men who despise freedom will attack freedom in any part of the world, and so responsible nations have a duty to stay on the offensive, together, to remove this threat.”"
In the other corner, we have Gandhi and Martin Luther King, as articulated by David Cortright:
“A nonviolent approach should not be confused with appeasement or a defeatist justification of terrorist crimes. The point is not to excuse criminal acts but to learn why they occur and use this knowledge to prevent future attacks. A nonviolent strategy seeks to reduce the appeal of militants’ extremist methods by addressing legitimate grievances and providing channels of political engagement for those who sympathize with the declared political aims. A two-step response is essential: determined law enforcement pressure against terrorist criminals, and active engagement with affected communities to resolve underlying injustices. Ethicist Michael Walzer wrote, counterterrorism “must be aimed systematically at the terrorists themselves, never at the people for whom the terrorists claim to be acting.” Military attacks against potential sympathizers are counterproductive and tend to drive third parties toward militancy. Lawful police action is by its nature more discriminating and is more effective politically because it minimizes predictable backlash effects.”
We’ve tried the Bush way for the past six years. And it’s only managed to make the world a far more dangerous place for all of us. Isn’t it time we discarded the failed militarism of the American Right to try a new approach? After all, it was Jesus who called us to love our enemies and lay down our swords - a message which seems a lot closer to that of Gandhi and King than to that of Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush.
Some senior Bush administration officials and top Republican lawmakers are voicing anger that American spy agencies have not issued more ominous warnings about the threats that they say Iran presents to the United States.
One last cliche sums it up: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I sincerely hope the American people aren’t fooled this time around.
MSNBC has a good Newsweek article on Billy Graham. His views on politics were striking to me, especially in light of Gregory Boyd’s teachings on the subject:
For Graham, politics is a secondary to the Gospel, which transcends party lines and, for believers, transcends earthly reality itself. When NEWSWEEK asked Graham whether ministers - whether they think of themselves as evangelists, pastors or a bit of both - should spend time engaged with politics, he replied: “You know, I think in a way that has to be up to the individual as he feels led of the Lord. A lot of things that I commented on years ago would not have been of the Lord, I’m sure, but I think you have some - like communism, or segregation, on which I think you have a responsibility to speak out.” Such proclamations, however, should not be “the main thing,” and he admits he has no perfect formula: “I don’t know the total answer to that.”
I can only pray that those of us who are younger than Rev. Graham (myself included) would take his words to heart. It is incredibly tempting to place victory for the cause above our call to love our neighbors and enemies alike. But in the end, if our cause wins and we have no love, then as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13:1, we are “only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.”
We have plenty of gongs and cymbals in the world. But we sure could use some more love.
