|
Holbrooke Says Bush Won't
Attack Iran
JEFF BERG
Counterpunch
Thursday November 29, 2007
Richard Holbrooke, former Ambassador to the U.N.,
and former Assistant Secretary of State to the U.S., spoke last
night, November 27, at the Toronto Design Exchange and outlined
the reasons he thinks an attack on Iran won't happen on Bush's
watch.
Holbrooke was in Toronto by invitation of the Donner Canadian
Foundation, which is connected in the U.S. to the Woodrow Wilson
Centre. He was introduced by Allan Gottleib, former Canadian Ambassador
to the U.S. Holbrooke's talk centered on the thesis that the Bush
administration has made many mistakes in its foreign policy over
the last seven years. On this point there was little disagreement
among the audience on this point.
When Mr. Holbrooke addressed the issue of whether or not the
U.S. will bomb Iran and its people he did not speak of this action
in terms of the U.S. nation bombing Iran. He spoke of it in terms
of the Bush Administration bombing Iran.
(Article continues below)
He then went on to list four reasons as to why he thought that
the Bush Administration would not bomb Iran.
1) The nuclear installations, the putative causa belli of such
an operation, are dispersed and built deep underground and so
could not be sufficiently damaged to be put out of commission
this way.
2) Much of the U.S. military is diametrically even vehemently
opposed to embarking on a third "adventure" (Ambassador
Holbrooke's word) when the first two are far from over.
3) Such an attack may well serve to unite the people of Iran
behind Ahmadinejad and thereby make the nation of Iran even more
of a "destabilizing force in the region". (Again Holbrooke's
choice of words)
4) The U.S. would further isolate itself from the international
community as Holbrooke
could not envision even a single one of America's allies joining
in such an action.
What he did not mention much less lead with was the following.
Absent a Security Council motion legitimizing an attack on Iran
such an attack would be a crime against peace. What this means
is that beyond the immorality of such an act such an attack would
be in violation of international laws to which the U.S. is signatory,
and make the U.S. guilty of the supreme crime in international
law: The crime of a war of aggression.
After this signal absence Holbrooke then went on to categorize
Iran as "the most pressing problem nation" for the U.S.
and the "most dangerous country in the region". He accused
the President of Iran of being "the world's most virulent
anti-Semite" and a "holocaust denier", and he cited
the Iranian Revolution as being a central cause for the rise of
fundamental Islam in the region. He further accused the Iranian
government of fomenting terror worldwide and of providing IED's
(improvised explosive devices) "that are killing Americans
in Iraq".
One must assume that when Holbrooke is speaking on the record
and for public attribution, as he was last night, he was choosing
his words not so much out of a deep sense of personal belief as
he is speaking so as to reflect the general/bipartisan consensus
that exists in the halls of U.S. power.
|
INFOWARS:
BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND
|
|
