7 Reasons Why Iran in 2012 is Nothing at All Like Iraq in 2003

I’ve read a lot lately about the current situation in Iran being a lot like the situation in Iraq in 2003. Sure, America is once again threatening war against a middle eastern, Arab, Muslim, oil producing country, but you if you look deeper, you’ll find the real differences. To prove it, here are 7 reasons why Iran in 2012 is nothing at all like in Iraq in 2003:

1.   Terminology

In Iraq, America accused Iraq of attempting to create weapons of mass destruction. In Iran, they are accusing them of trying to producing nuclear weapons. Obviously, these are completely different things.

2.   Role of the UN

In 2003, the US declared that Iraq was developing weapons, and the UN sent an inspector – who reported that he couldn’t find any evidence. In 2011, the US got much smarter. Rather than making claims contradictory to a UN inspector, they just got someone sympathetic to their cause elected to the head of the IAEA (thank you Bradley Manning – allegedly - for producing the diplomatic cables showing this!), and had him write a report on old information that came to completely new conclusions.

3.   George W Bush vs Barrack Obama

One of them is a warmonger and corporate apologist who gave himself (and all future presidents) the right to imprison anyone, anywhere in the world without due process. The other probably can’t spell either Iraq or Iran.

4.   Supporters

In 2003, the US had the support of Britain. In 2011, Canada and Israel are their main wingmen. This time, they have two foolish ‘friends’ supporting them, not just one (although, one must wonder who is being friends to whom in the case of Israel). Again, they learned from their mistakes and realized that two is better than one.

5.   Iraqis vs Iranians

After the invasion of Iraq, it became clear that the Iraqi people were not happy with their American liberators. It isn’t clear why, but surely Iran would welcome democracy with open arms – after all there have been pro-democracy protesters in Iran over the past few years. Assumedly, this means Iranians would be thrilled when American come and brought Democracy with them.

6.   Link to Al-Qaeda

In 2003, America tried to draw a link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Probably because the link was shown to be unquestionably false, they didn’t bother trying to draw the same link between Iran and a terrorist group. (Hey, it still counts as a difference – it isn’t easy coming up with 7, you know).

7.   Oil

Wait, no they are both major oil producing nations, scratch that one.

7.   Iraq was on America’s list of ‘regime change’ targets

Nope, that one too – they were both on the list of countries that American neo-cons (Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz , among others) under George W. Bush wanted to invade and impose government changes.

7.   Culture

Hmmm, both Arabic countries, is the fact that they speak a different language enough?

7.   Religion

Never mind, further research shows them to be both predominately Muslim countries.

7.   They aren’t spelled the same

I-R-A-Q is not the same as I-R-A-N. Knew that I’d find one more.

It wasn’t easy, but I did manage to find 7 ways in which these two situations are completely different – just don’t ask me to come up with 8. Can we please now accept the fact that these are two completely different situations and just get on with the invasion, and subsequent destruction of Iran, along with the 7 years of civil war that will inevitably follow (and the hundreds of thousands of civilian lives that will be lost), so that a non-existent threat can be extinguished?

Interesting Related Articles:

• Canadian Progressive World has an interesting video on how corporate media manipulates support for international wars, going back as far as the Spanish-American war, and continuing through World War 1, Vietnam and Iraq and how this manipulation is supporting escalating the situation in Iran.

Barrack Obama: The Betrayer of Belief in Democracy

The Legacy of the Obama Administration is fast becoming one of Lies, Broken Campaign Promises and False Hope for Change

When Barrack Obama was declared President on November 4^th, 2008, there was an unparalleled sense of hope and of belief in democracy. Under Obama, everything would be different. He promised ‘Change that we can believe in’. He told us that ‘Yes, we can’. He promised to shut down Guantanamo Bay, end the war in Iraq within 16 months, make real progress in fighting climate change, end the culture of lobbying in Washington and extend health care to all. His fundraising campaign - targeting individuals, rather big business – told us that he would be a President for the people, not for corporations. Alas, we didn’t listen to our Mothers when they told us that anything that seems too good to be true probably is.

There was no change. Guantanamo Bay is still open, still holding foreign citizens without charges or any illusion of due process, still trying individuals in military tribunals with no judicial oversight. The war in Iraq is officially over, but only because Iraq refused to give American soldiers criminal immunity (thanks to Bradley Manning, now in a military jail awaiting trial for ‘adding the enemy’). Also, there are still 16,000 individuals employed by the American government being left in Iraq, half of whom are military contractors – doesn’t sound like the end of a war to me. Fighting climate change? As the recent conference in Durban shows, nothing is being done. Under Obama, the White House is still in the hands of large corporations – a recent report shows that lobbying is just as effective under Obama, as it was under George W. Bush. Finally, his fundraising campaign is no longer about the individual who believes in him (hmmm, I wonder why). Obama is getting a massive amount of money from Wall St, and is expected to raise $1 billion for the campaign – that kind of money buys a lot of favours.

Democracy falters when there is no trust left. We become disenfranchised, we lose the will to vote, we feel powerless. We opt out of the democratic system, and when that happens, all we get is what we’ve got – a system that doesn’t listen to us or care about us. Barrack Obama isn’t the worse President the US has ever had, not by a long shot. He is a definite improvement over George W. Bush, both internationally and for the US. His real crime is the betrayal of trust among those of us who dare to believe in something better. Obama was that something better – and he turned out to be no different than the rest of them.

As a Canadian, I don’t have a huge vested interest in Obama, but I still feel betrayed by his promises that he would bring change. I can’t imagine how someone who voted for him must feel.

What Kind of Friends Does Israel Need?

At the Republican candidates’ debate in South Carolina on November 12, Michele Bachmann declared that Israel doesn’t see Barrack Obama as a friend. And isn’t it true that Israel needs friends, right now?

They need friends to prevent Palestine from joining UN agencies, such as UNESCO. They certainly don’t want Palestine to start making friends at the UN - after all, some of Israel’s friends might like Palestine better than Israel themselves, if they got to know them. The US has been a great friend in this matter, having withdrawn funding from UNESCO for making Palestine a member. As an aside, Obama has also promised to veto a Palestinian application to join the UN as a full member.

They need friends to help safeguard their boarders from activists bringing food and medical supplies to Gaza. If they are going to keep boarding ships in international waters, and detaining the passengers, then they will need their friends to continue to look the other way. America and other countries, like Canada, have been great friends by discouraging their citizens from being part of these international activist missions and suggesting Israel has every right to detain those taken in international waters.

They need their friends to support their continued expansion of settlements on Palestinian land. According to the BBC, half a million Israelis live in more than 100 settlements that are considered illegal under international law. Last February, the US vetoed a UN Security Council resolution to condemn Israel for these illegal settlements, even though all 14 other members of the Security Council voted in favour and over 130 counties supported the resolution. America, under Obama, is certainly a friend of Israel when it comes to the illegal settlements in occupied Palestinian land.

I believe that there are two types of friends. There is the type of friend who will stand behind you no matter what, back you up no matter what and fight beside you for anything. The US, and Barack Obama, are friends like this for Israel. However, an even more important friend is the one that stands with you when you are being reasonable, but stands up to you when you aren’t. This is the type of friend that tells you when you are being unreasonable, and makes you face it and change. This is the type of friend that stages an intervention when it is clear that you have a problem. This is the truest friend and this is the kind of friend that Israel needs right now.

Maybe, just maybe, when Michele Bachmann implied that Israel needed a better friend than Barrack Obama, she meant that they needed this second kind of friend. One that will stand with Israel against the very real threats it faces, but at the same time, remind Israel that it has a responsibility to peace. One that will support and uphold Israel’s right to defend itself, but remind Israel that its rights don’t  trump others’ right to freedom. One that will celebrate Israel’s place in the world, while insisting that it recognize Palestine’s place as well. I hope very much that this is the friend that Michele Bachman wants to be for Israel - but I doubt very much that it is true.