Is Iran the Next Iraq?

At a recent anti-war rally in Washington protestors carried signs reading "End Iraq War. No Iran War. Impeach, Impeach, Impeach!" Many critics of the Bush administration have stated that the administration's current policy on Iran mirrors its policy on Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion of that country in 2003. They believe that the White House is planning on a war to remove the Iranian government from power. These critics point to the rhetoric coming out of the White House as proof. Just as the administration painted a picture of an Iraq devoted to the development and use of weapons of mass destructions, they now portray Iran as a state seeking nuclear weapons - and planning to use them. 

The Democratic leadership in Congress recently tabled a plan to require Congressional authorization of any military action against Iran.  Critics say that this decision provides the president the opportunity to invade Iran at will. The Bush administration has accused elements of the Iranian military of actively supporting insurgent groups in Iraq. Some have said that these accusations are meant to grant legitimacy to the president's claim that the the authorization to use force against Iraq has not expired, and that he has the right to use force as he sees fit. By tying Iran to the Iraq war effort the president can make the case for invasion more legitimate.

Members of Congress who gave President Bush the authority to invade Iraq have often claimed that simple ignorance led to vote "yes". The administration had made a compelling case against Iraq, convincing many in Congress that Saddam Hussien's regimes posed a clear and immediate threat to American security. The images of terrorists armed with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons drove them to vote for war, these lawmakers say. Of course, these lawmakers have conveniently forgotten that a multitude of critics had stepped up to debunk the evidence against Iraq provided by the administration. History has shown that these critics were correct. No weapons of mass destruction were found, and many suspect the case for war was simply an exercise in baseless propoganda. Or lies if you will. 

Still, this time around many politicians are buying into the case being made against Iran. Barack Obama recently told New Hampshire voters that he never believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but that he was gravely concerned  about Iran. The evidence the young senator has seen indicated that Iran was indeed planning on joining the nuclear party.

The idea is certainly not implausible. Iran's decades long role as Washington's nemesis has left Tehran feeling vulnerable. Nuclear weapons in the game of global power politics provide a state with a degree of immunity from attack. They also provide enormous leverage in international negotiations, as has been the case for North Korea. The United States has a history of political intervention in Iran, a history which was only brought to an end by the country's revolution in the 1970's. Tehran's leaders have undoubtably been listening to the White House talk about a "democratic revolution" in Iran and are eager to solidify their political future. 

A few things to think about when weighing the administration's claims about Iran: 

1. According a Washington Post article, "Iran says it will never give up its right under the treaty to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel. But it has offered to provide guarantees that its nuclear program won't be diverted toward weapons as the U.S. and some of its allies fear." The treaty refered to here in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which allows for the development of peaceful nuclear technologies such as power plants but seeks to halt the spread of nuclear weapons. Iran has repeatedly insisted that its nuclear program is meant to produce energy, not bombs.

2. Scott Ridder, a former marine and one time chief weapons inspector at the United Nations, recently spoke at the University of New Hampshire in Durham. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, Ritter had called for patience and for a committment to the weapons inspection process. He claimed that there was no proof that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Today, Ritter believes President Bush lied about Iraq's weapons capabilities to win public support for the war.

According to a local news story on the event Ritter had this to say about the administration's case against Iran:

"Ritter pointed out inaccuracies in statements released by the CIA and President Bush. According to Ritter, the CIA recently said Iran is seven to 10 years from possessing a nuclear weapon. 'That means nothing,' he said, adding 'starting from scratch today, in Durham you are seven to 10 years away,' drawing laughs from the crowd."

What do you think? Is the Bush administration planning a new war? Is the administration's case against Iran simply empty propoganda or even blatant lies? Is the administration suffering from a boy who calls wolf complex, so that even when it tells the truth its critics hear only lies?