Recently, one cannot help but hear or read about the growing concerns surrounding Iran's pursuit of nuclear energy and/or nuclear weapons. In order to better understand the current situation, I feel it's necessary to highlight significant events in Iran's modern history (1900-2006). Hopefully, the historical information will give you an idea of Iran's world view. Commentary follows the historical background. Please feel free to comment via the link provided at the end of the discussion. (And please see references for more detailed information).
I. Historical Background
1901 A wealthy Englishman, William K. D'Arcy, with the help of the British Empire, obtained a 60-year concession from the Shah (King) of Persia to explore for and exploit the oil resources of a large section of the country (Persia/Iran). Oil was discovered and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC), today's British Petroleum (BP) was founded.
1913 The British government became the major shareholder of APOC (BP) when it nationalized the company in order to secure British-controlled oil for its ships. Winston Churchill was a significant figure in the decision to nationalize the company.
1914-18 Despite claiming neutrality during World War I, Iran was the scene of numerous battles between British and Russian allies and Turkish troops.
Unfortunately, the Anglo-Persian oil venture turned out to be somewhat of a lopsided affair with Iran only receiving 16% of the profits. In reality the percentage was less since some of the total profits were excluded from the amount Iran could take from. Throughout the years to come, Iran negotiated for profits equal to what other countries were receiving as part of oil ventures with Britain and other countries. Two other issues also caused tension between the two sides: 1. The British government was earning more in taxes from APOC than Iran received from the exploitation of it's natural resources. 2. Oil in Iran cost more than it did in Britain.
1935 Iran was officially accepted as the new name for Persia. Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC) became Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC).
August 25, 1941 Despite Iran's neutrality, Britain and the Soviet Union invaded Iran in order to secure Iran's oil infrastructure and curtail German influence in the country. British troops invaded Iran from their bases in Iraq (a British colony at the time).
The Shah (King) of Iran (Reza Phavali) wrote the following to U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt "…on the basis of the declarations which Your Excellency has made several times regarding the necessity of defending principles of international justice and the right of peoples to liberty. I beg Your Excellency to take efficacious and urgent humanitarian steps to put an end to these acts of aggression. This incident brings into war a neutral and pacific country which has had no other care than the safeguarding of tranquility and the reform of the country."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran)
President Roosevelt reassured the Shah of Iran that the invasion was only a temporary strategic move to help thrawt Germany's aggression.
September 16, 1941 During the military occupation, the Shah (Reza Phavali) was pressured to abdicate the throne in favor of his son, Mohammad Reza Phavali (age 21).
May 1945 End of World War II: Britain and the Soviet Union continued to occupy Iran until March 1946. Soviet Union reluctantly withdrew from northern Iran but not before setting up two short-lived puppet states.
March 1951 Frustrated with negotiations that failed to meet Iran's demands, the Iranian Parliament unanimously voted to nationalize the oil industry.
April 1951 Mohammed Mossadegh is democratically elected by the Iranian Parliament as the country's new prime minister (vote 79-12). Mohammad Reza Phavali remained Shah of Iran.
Prime Minister Mossadegh enforced the Oil Nationalization Act after taking office, and Britain responded by issuing a blockade that prevented oil from leaving Iran.
Britain consulted the United States concerning the dispute, and reports soon started to appear in Britain and the U.S. that claimed Iran was vulnerable to the Communist influence.
1952-53 The British government, under Prime Minister Winston Churchill, conceived a plan to overthrow Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh. U.S. President Truman refused to participate. However, new U.S. President Eisenhower was interested.
The Shah of Iran attempted to replace Mossadegh as prime minister with Iranian general Zahedi (U.S.-British approved choice) , but the plan backfired, and the Shah is asked to leave Iran.
April1953 The British Intelligence Service (BIS) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of the United States begin a covert operation (Operation Ajax) to remove Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh from power.
"Agents were hired to facilitate violence; and, as a result, protests broke out across the nation. Anti- and pro-monarchy protesters violently clashed in the streets, leaving almost 300 dead. The operation was successful in triggering a coup, and within days, pro-Shah tanks stormed the capital and bombarded the Prime Minister's residence. Mossadegh surrendered, and was arrested on August 19, 1953. He was tried for treason, and sentenced to three years in prison."
"Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was then reinstated as Shah. His rule became increasingly autocratic in the following years and soon Iran became a model police state. With strong support from the U.S. and U.K., the Shah further modernized Iranian industry, but simultaneously crushed all forms of political opposition with his intelligence agency, SAVAK" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran).
1957 With assistance from the CIA, the Iranian Intelligence Agency, SAVAK, is formed. Physically torturing detainees was widely practiced.
Religious leader Ayatollah Khomeini became a outspoken critic of the Shah and the Iranian government. He later denounced the U.S. government for intervening in Iranian affairs .
1959 With U.S. assistance, Iran established the Tehran Nuclear Researh Center administered by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran. The nuclear research reactor and uranium were supplied by the U.S. The shah's reasons for pursuing nuclear energy were to conserve oil and meet Iran's growing energy demand.
1963 Ayatollah Khomeini is arrested and imprisoned in Iran for 8 months. He then spent the next 14 years in exile in Turkey, Iraq, and France. During his exile in France, the French government offered to "arrange for Khomeini to have a fatal accident," but the Shah declined.
1968 Iran signed Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty legally permitting them to pursue and use nuclear technology for peaceful means.
1975 U.S. Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, signed National Security Decision 292 ("U.S.-Iran Nuclear Cooperation) outlining the sale of nuclear energy equipment to Iran.
1976 U.S. President Ford signed a directive offering Iran the opportunity to buy a U.S. nuclear reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz (former members of the Ford administration) all supported Iran's pursuit of a nuclear energy program.
1978 The Shah of Iran implemented martial law in response to protests against him and the Iranian government.
January 16, 1979 The Shah and his family left Iran due to rising opposition and the threat of outright revolution.
February 1, 1979 Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Iran after being invited by the leaders of the anti-Shah revolution. Khomeini, rejecting the suggestion of free elections, set up his own provisional government replacing the monarchy with an Islamic republic.
During the Shah's visit (2 months) to the U.S. to address medical concerns, the new Iranian government requested that the U.S. government return the Shah to Iran to stand trial. The U.S. government did not honor the request.
November 4, 1979 Iranian students took over the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and subsequently held 66 American citizens (later reduced to 52) hostage for 444 days.
The Iranian students demanded the following:
1. Apologize for interfering in the internal affairs of Iran and the overthrowing of Prime Minister Mossadeghr
2. Release Iranian assets in U.S.
3. Return the Shah to Iran to stand trial
The U.S. government rejected the demands
During the takeover, Iranian students discovered documents detailing clandestine affairs of the CIA in Iran.
April 24, 1980 A secret rescue mission (Operation Eagle Claw) by the U.S. military was aborted. Eight U.S. servicemen died in an accident related to the mission.
1980 U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) reported that Iraq (not Iran) had been actively acquiring chemical weapons capacities since the mid-1970s.
September 1980 Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein invaded Iran over a border dispute.
1980-88 The Iran-Iraq War kills approximately 1 million people including 100,000 from chemical weapons.
Iran informed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of its plans to restart its nuclear energy program, but the program came to a standstill due in part to Iran-Iraq War and U.S. economic sanctions.
1980-81 Outgoing President Carter and his administration negotiated a deal with Iran (via Algeria) to release the U.S. hostages. As part of the agreement to release the hostages, the Carter administration reluctantly agreed to pledge non-intervention in Iranian affairs. The non-intervention provision of the Algiers Accords reads "The United States pledges that it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran's internal affairs."
January 20, 1981 The remaining 52 hostages are released from Iranian captivity. No hostages were killed during the 444 day ordeal. Ronald Reagan becomes President of the U.S.
1982 Reagan administration removes Iraq from State Department's terrorism sponsorship list. The removal made Iraq eligible for U.S. dual use items (civilian and/or military use) and military technology and intelligence.
1982-83 Reports began to appear in the U.S. and other countries indicating that Iraq was using chemical weapons against Iranian troops.
1982-88 Despite Iraq's known record of using chemical weapons, U.S. exported approximately $200 million worth of conventional arms to Iraq including helicopters and 70 shipments of chemical agents (including strains of anthrax and West Nile virus). British and other western companies also sold materials to Iraq that could be used to develop nuclear, chemical, biological, and conventional weapons.
December 1983 Donald Rumsfeld (special envoy for Reagan administration, current Secretary of Defense in Bush administration) met with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (currently on trial for war crimes) in Baghdad to discuss, among other things, the possible restoration of official diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Iraq. After returning to the U.S., Rumsfeld said, "It struck us as useful to have a relationship, given that we are interested in solving the Mideast problems."
1984-86 U.S.-Iraqi relations strengthened. U.S. CIA began supplying Iraq with intelligence (including satellite images) subsequently used to calibrate chemical attacks against Iranian troops. Iran is placed on the State Department's terrorism sponsorship list.
March 5, 1984 U.S. State Department issued public condemnation of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. However, notes from a meeting involving Secretary of State George Schulz mentioned that "the U.S. will continue its efforts to help prevent an Iranian victory, and earnestly wishes to continue the progress in its relations with Iraq."
March 24, 1984 Rumsfeld visited Baghdad for the second time in four months. He met with Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz (currently on trial for war crimes).
March 30, 1984 The United Nations Security Council made an official statement condemning the use of chemical weapons (did not mention Iraq specifically). Despite Iran's request, the U.N. did not create or pass a binding resolution against Iraq.
September 1984 U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency stated that Iraq will "probably continue to develop its formidable conventional and chemical capability, and probably pursue nuclear weapons."
November 26, 1984 U.S. and Iraq officially restored full diplomatic relationships.
1985-86 U.S.-Iraqi relations strengthened. U.S. CIA began supplying Iraq with satellite images for bombing raids.
1986 According to national security adviser Howard Teicher, President Reagan sent a message to Saddam Hussein (via Vice President Bush and Egyptian President Mubarak) recommending intensified military air attacks against Iran.
March 1986 U.N. Security Council stated it was "profoundly concerned" with Iraq's continued use of chemical weapons against Iran (non-binding statement). The. U.S. voted against the issuance of the statement.
November 1986 Iran-Contra Affair was revealed. The Reagan administration initiated a deal with Iran (Iraq's enemy) to sell U.S. weapons to Iran in exchange for hostages taken by militant groups (including Hezbollah). Proceeds from the sales funded an insurgency in Nicaragua. Specifically, the money went to the Contras, an anti-communist militant group. No hostages were released, but Iran agreed to purchase the weapons at an inflated price. President Reagan initially stated that the U.S. did not trade arms for hostages, but he later recanted. He also said Vice President Bush was aware of the deal. Reagan was strongly criticized but other government officials were indicted.
May 1987 United Nations Security Council said it is "deeply dismayed" by the Iraq's continued use of chemical weapons against Iran (non-binding statement).
July 3, 1988 U.S. Navy accidentally shot down an Iranian commercial airplane killing all 290 passengers and crew. A U.S. admiral admitted that the U.S. Navy was inside Iranian territorial waters when it launched the fatal missiles. The U.S. government eventually paid reparations but never apologized. George H. W. Bush said the following about the incident, "I will never apologize for the United States of America. I don't care what the facts are."
August 1988 The bloody war came to an end. Casualties were approximately 1 million (conservative) including 100,000 from chemical weapons (Iranians and Kurds).
June 1989 Ayatollah Khomeini passed away. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei succeeded him as Supreme Religious Leader of Iran.
August 1989 Akbar Rafsanjani was elected President of Iran. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei remained Supreme Religious Leader.
July 25, 1990 U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, met with Saddam Hussein and Tariq Aziz. President Bush instructed Ms. Glaspie to "broaden and deepen" relations with Iraq. She also said, "the President has very recently affirmed his desire for a better relationship and has proven that by, for example, opposing sanction bills." In response to Iraq's ongoing border dispute with Kuwait, Ms. Glaspie said the following according to National Security Council notes, "I served in Kuwait 20 years before, then, as now, we take no position on these Arab affairs."
August 2, 1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait. The cycle continues.
It is important to point out that Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party came to power in Iraq in the 1960's after a series of coups orchestrated by the U.S. CIA (and backed by Britain and Israel). Saddam was a member of the Baathist government until it was disbanded in 2003 by the same country that helped bring it to power. Robert Komer, a National Security Council aide told President Kennedy in 1963 that the Baath Party was "almost certainly a gain for our side."
1991 The United Nations had this to say about the Iran-Iraq War: "That
1995 Former Soviet Union signed contract with Iran to help complete nuclear reactor started in 1980s.
August 1996 U.S. President Clinton signed Iran-Libya Sanctions Act in response to the countries' continued support of militant groups.
August 1997 Mohammad Khatami is elected President of Iran. Ayatollah Khamenei is still Supreme Religious Leader. President Khatami, a reformist, often clashed with conservative Muslims in the Iranian government over the status of women and demands of the younger generation. President Khatami was re-elected in 2001.
August 2002 Iranian dissident group accused Iran of developing nuclear energy program.
February 2003 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors find traces of enriched uranium in Iran.
March 2003 U.S. invaded Iraq. From bases established in Iraq, the U.S. began using unmanned drones to spy on Iran.
June 2003 IAEA reported that Iran was not in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
September 2003 Despite the report, U.S. said Iran is in non-compliance with the NPT and called for a referral to the United Nations Security Council.
October 2003 Iran admitted to 18 years of covert atomic experiments. Iran agreed to sign Additional Protocol of the NPT allowing unannounced IAEA inspections. Iran declared that it is not pursuing nuclear weapons. Iran agreed to stop enriching uranium (despite its right to do so).
November 2003 IAEA reported that there is no conclusive proof that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. U.S. government dismissed the report.
February 2004 Abdul Khan, founder of Pakistan's nuclear program, admitted that he had provided nuclear secrets to Iran, North Korea, and Libya since the 1980s. Pakistan is a U.S. ally.
May 2004 Iran submitted 1,000 page report to IAEA concerning its nuclear activities.
June 2004 IAEA complained that Iran has not adequately cooperated. In retaliation, Iran resumed testing of centrifuges.
November 2004 Iran promised members of European Union (EU) that they will stop uranium conversion.
February 2005 U.S. President said, "this notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. (short pause) And having said that, all options are on the table."
August 2005 Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a controversial hardliner, is elected President of Iran. Iran resumed uranium conversion at Isfahan plant.
September 2005 IAEA confirmed resumption of uranium enrichment and called for Iran's full disclosure and cooperation.
Iran reiterates that its nuclear program will not be used to develop nuclear weapons.
December 2005 Iranian President Ahmadinejad said the Holocaust was a myth and Israel should be wiped off the map.
January 2006 Iran resumed nuclear research at Natanz plant.
February 2006 IAEA voted to send Iran to U.N. Security Council. Iran announced it would end voluntary cooperation with IAEA.
March 2006 U.N. Security Council issued statement calling for the suspension of Iran's nuclear program within 30 days.
April 2006 Iran announced that it has successfully enriched uranium. Threatened to cut ties with IAEA if U.N. sanctions are imposed.
IAEA sent report to U.N. Security Council confirming Iran's refusal to suspend nuclear program.
Possible sanctions are discussed.
Report alleges that U.S. government is considering the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iran and its nuclear program. President Bush dismissed the allegation as "wild speculation."
July 2006 U.N. Security Council approved a resolution demanding that Iran suspend its nuclear program by August 31 or face the possibility of economic sanctions.
September 2006 Deadline passed without Iran suspending its nuclear program. Negotiations and talk of economic sanctions continue.
II. Commentary
Iran and the IAEA
Beginning with the most recent events, let's address Iran's refusal to suspend its nuclear program. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and many members of the international community demand that Iran stop its program as a prerequisite for negotiations, but Iran adamantly refuses to stop on the grounds that it has the inalienable right to pursue the development of nuclear energy as a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Iran is correct about that, but what is the harm in suspending operations to appease the international community? It's understandable that some countries are skeptical of Iran's intentions considering past statements and current connections to militant groups (in particular Hezbollah). However, it's also easy to understand Iran's skepticism of the world considering the international community's failure to respond to Iraq's invasion of Iran and use of chemical weapons during the long Iran-Iraq War (1980-88). Western powers' long history of intervention in the affairs of Iran doesn't help either. For the record, Iran has, on occasion, temporarily stopped its nuclear energy program at the request of other countries.
(Please tell me if I'm wrong, but) I don't believe the IAEA or the United Nations (UN) has ever said that Iran was in direct violation of the NPT. Instead, IAEA's main complaints are that Iran has not been as forthcoming as they would like, and Iran refuses to give in to persistent political pressure to stop its nuclear program.
Though there has been a surfeit of motivated and ill-informed commentary about how Iran "concealed" its uranium enrichment programme from the IAEA "in violation of the NPT" until it was "caught cheating" in 2002, the fact is that Iran was not obliged to inform the Agency about those facilities at the time. David Albright and Corey Hinderstein — who first provided the international media with satellite imagery and analysis of the unfinished fuel fabrication facility at Natanz and heavy water research reactor at Arak on December 12, 2002 — themselves noted that under the safeguards agreement in force at the time, "Iran is not required to allow IAEA inspections of a new nuclear facility until six months before nuclear material is introduced into it." In fact, it was not even required to inform the IAEA of their existence until then, a point conceded by Britain at the March 2003 Board of Governors meeting. The Arak reactor is planned to go into operation in 2014. As for the pilot fuel enrichment plant (PFEP) at Natanz, it is still not operational today. (http://www.hindu.com/2005/09/21/stories/2005092105231000.htm)Iran's pursuit of alternative forms of energy is understandable considering the fact that economic sanctions restricting Iran's oil and gas sectors have been in effect since 1980 including additional sanctions in 1996 (Iran-Libya Sanctions Act). And before the Iranian revolution of 1979, we know that the U.S. government supported Iran's pursuit of nuclear energy.
So does Iran, despite its political system, have the right to pursue nuclear energy? Absolutely. Does the international community have the right to impose sanctions on Iran for pursuing nuclear energy? Only if Iran violates provisions of the NPT.
What if Iran decides to produce nuclear weapons?
Well, they won't be the first. Currently, there are eight declared countries possessing nuclear weapons. They are the United States, Russia, England, France, China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. One country, Israel, has never confirmed or denied possession of nuclear weapons, but it is widely accepted that Israel has a substantial arsenal.
With the exception of India, Pakistan, and Israel, all countries possessing nuclear weapons have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). North Korea withdrew from the NPT in 2003 over a dispute with the U.S.
So where is the persistent pressure from the U.S. and the international community with regards to India, Pakistan, and Israel? India and Pakistan have fought each other off and on for many years, and a nuclear attack is not out of the question considering past leaders from both countries have expressed the right to defend themselves by any means necessary. Pakistan said it would sign the NPT if India did, but nobody is dragging India or Pakistan before the UN Security Council for sanctions.
There are several militant groups in Pakistan and Osama bin Laden is allegedly along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, but we are not calling for Pakistan to dismantle its nuclear weapons program. Perhaps bin Laden is trying to acquire a nuclear weapon while we concentrate on Iraq and Iran. Apparently, militant groups have been offered a haven in Pakistan (click here for more details).
And where is the persistent pressure on Israel to be more forthcoming about its alleged nuclear weapons program? And what of North Korea? North Korea appears to be a more serious and immediate threat considering they have shot test missiles in the direction of Japan on more than one occasion.
Unfortunately, non-NPT members such as India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea are not bound by the provisions of the NPT. Perhaps Iran should save themselves and everyone else a lot of trouble and withdraw from the NPT. I hope they don't. But if they did, would the persistent pressure Iran is now experiencing dissipate?
So does Iran have the right to develop nuclear weapons? No, not as long as they are a member of the NPT. If they renounce their membership, they would no longer fall under the guidelines of the treaty but would run the risk of being an international outcast along the lines of North Korea. Does the U.S. have the right to sanction Iran concerning the development of nuclear energy or nuclear weapons? They already have been for more than 25 years.
Does it even matter if Iran develops a nuclear weapon?
The obvious answer seems to be "of course." But let's take a look at history before giving an answer. The U.S. was the first to successfully develop nuclear weapons, and is the only country to have used them in war. Since 1945, only eight other countries have successfully developed nuclear weapons and 188 countries have signed the NPT indicating their commitment to the disarmament and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Obviously, nuclear weapons are terrible threats to the environment and the existence of human beings. But so are conventional weapons. Throughout history, thousands of wars have been fought and millions of people have died by means of traditional weapons. So do I think we should just throw up our hands and give Iran nuclear weapons? No, but I just don't believe nuclear bombs are going to start dropping all over the place if Iran develops them. By the way, Iran has not said they are planning to develop nuclear weapons, but it's apparent that some nuclear countries don't trust them. Ideally, no country would feel the need to develop nuclear weapons, but if Iran does, it reveals a great deal about the world all of us have created. It doesn't have to be this way.
Look, I'll be the first to condemn Iran if evidence of nuclear weapons are discovered. I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons any more than I want the U.S., Russia, England, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, or Israel to have them. Combined, the nine nuclear countries have tested approximately 2100 nuclear bombs and dropped 2 on civilian areas during war. Clearly nuclear bombs are not good for humanity or the environment.
A better question would have been, "Should any country have nuclear weapons?".
The answer is NO.
Who Would Jesus Bomb?
Let me preface this discussion by pointing out that it is impossible for me to separate my spirituality from this commentary, and I think it's appropriate to address this question in light of President Bush's well-documented born-again Christian status.
What does the Bible have to say about war and peace? The Old Testament says that there is a time for war and peace, a time for love and hate, and a time to kill and heal. I totally agree, but this does not mean that war, hate, and killing are inevitable. It does not mean that eradicating or severely limiting war, hate, and killing is impossible. If we don't believe peace on earth is possible then we have already been defeated. In the Lord's Prayer, Jesus says, "[God's] kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." Jesus also says the kingdom of God is already within us (Luke 17:20-21). And none of the Ten Commandments say we should make war, hate, or kill. In fact, we all know the commandments say, "You shall not kill."
And what about the Golden Rule? "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Do we really want Iran to attack us? How about, "Love your neighbor as yourself"? There's also, "Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful." Don't forget, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God." And what did Jesus say when one of his followers pulled a sword? "Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword." And what did Jesus say while he was dying on the cross? "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." And how many times should we forgive our enemies? Indefinitely, according to Jesus (Matthew 18:21-22).
And didn't President Bush call Iraq, Iran, and North Korea the Axis of Evil? Here's what the Bible has to say about evil: "Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: 'It is mine to avenge, I will repay,' says the Lord. On the contrary: 'If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.' Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:19-21)
And what about the most profound statement ever, "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also"? "Turn the other cheek" is perhaps the most difficult for people to come to terms with. Personally, I don't think it means to let someone walk all over you. Instead, I think it means "we are not to have a retaliatory attitude." Sure, I would initially defend myself if someone attacked me, but I would not seek revenge at a later time. I would not hold a grudge or plot to destroy my enemy. I would forgive and love my enemy and allow justice to do its work.
Anyway, the Bible clearly comes down on the side of love and peace. There are 789 references to love and peace as compared with 209 references to hate and war, but what the Bible has to say about these concepts is even more significant. Ultimately, God is Love (not hate), and Jesus is the Prince of Peace (not war).
So, who would Jesus bomb? Nobody.
What makes some Muslims kill?
Despite commandments from the same God not to kill, some extremists in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism continue to kill in the name of their religions. To a great extent, fundamentalists have hijacked these religions as a means to an end (annihilation/oppression/perpetual war). It's safe to say that these extremists are in fact not Christians, Muslims, or Jews at all, but impostors.
All too often, extremists intentionally misinterpret scripture to suit their needs. For example, some Christian extremists have taken a passage from the Bible as an excuse to kill abortion doctors or blow up clinics. "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman...[and there] is serious injury, you are to take life for life..." (Exodus 21:22-25). The same thing happens in Islam.
The literal translation of jihad is 'effort' expressing struggle on behalf of God and Islam (much the way Jacob struggled with God in Genesis 32:28). However, the term has come to mean a holy war undertaken by Muslims against unbelievers. Muslim extremists have taken jihad as an excuse to wage unprovoked war against unbelievers.
The best way to understand the true meaning of jihad is to look at what the Quran has to say. "O Prophet, strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be firm against them. And their abode is hell, and evil is the destination" (9:73). According to Maulana Ali, a Quran scholar, "The correct rendering is that jihad signifies striving, or exerting oneself, and there is nothing in the word to indicate that this striving is to be effected by the sword or by the tongue or by any other method."
As for submitting to the sword, I didn't find any such passage during my research of the Quran. According to one Quran scholar, "The waging of war on unbelievers to compel them to accept Islam is a myth pure and simple, a thing unknown to the Holy Quran." In fact the following passages corroborate the scholars statement, "There is no compulsion in religion - the right way is indeed distinct from error" (2:256) and "The Truth is from the Lord; so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve" (18:29). One scholar states, "To all the nonsense which is being talked about the Prophet offering Islam or the sword as alternatives to the pagan Arabs, these verses are sufficient answers."
Muslims controlled most of Spain for over 600 years, and during this time Jews, Christians, and Muslims co-existed peacefully. The mere fact that they co-existed disproves the idea that non-Muslims had to convert to Islam or die by the sword. Following many peaceful years of Muslim rule, Christians were the ones who expelled Jews from Spain and started the Spanish Inquisition.
"And fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you but be not aggressive. Surely Allah loves not aggressors" (2:190). One Quran scholar writes, "It is remarkable that fighting in the way of Allah is here expressly limited to fighting in defence. Muslims were required to fight in the way of Allah, but they could fight only against those who waged war on them."
"Permission (to fight) is given to those on whom war is made, because they are oppressed. And surely Allah is able to assist them...And if Allah did not repel some people by others, cloisters, and churches, and synagogues, and mosques in which Allah's name is much remembered, would have been pulled down" (22:39-40). One scholar comments, "The religious freedom which was established by Islam thirteen hundred years ago has not yet been surpassed by the most civilized and tolerant of nations. It deserves to be noted that the lives of Muslims are to be sacrificed not only to stop their own persecution by their opponents and to save their own mosques, but to save churches, synagogues, and cloisters as well -- in fact, to establish perfect religious freedom."
Another passage also corroborates the idea mentioned above, "Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good, they have their reward with their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve" (2:62).
And what does the Quran say about killing? "Say: Come! I will recite what your Lord has forbidden to you...kill not the soul which Allah has made sacred except in the course of justice. This He enjoins upon you that you may understand" (6:151).
It's clear to me that people who kill in the name of the Bible or Quran are not true Christians or Muslims. They are, in fact, spiritually dead.
The argument that the Quran is a book of war and killing could also be made about the Bible. Here are just a few examples:
"This is what the Lord Almighty says: ...'Now go attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys'" (I Samuel 15:2-3).
"When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the desert where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those who were in it. Twelve thousand men fell that day -- all the people of Ai" (Joshua 8:24-25).
"They took the city and put it to the sword, together with its king, its villages and everyone in it. They left no survivors...He totally destroyed all who breathed, just as the Lord, the God of Israel, had commanded (Joshua 10:37, 40).
"The men of Judah attacked Jerusalem also and took it. They put the city to the sword and set it on fire" (Judges 1:8).
"Completely destroy them -- the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites -- as the Lord your God has commanded you" (Deuteronomy 20:17).
"When I sharpen my flashing sword and my hand grasps it in judgment, I will take vengence on my adversaries and repay those who hate me" (Deuteronomy 32:41).
What makes some Muslims kill? Ideology based on hate, not the Quran.
Are there different standards for Western powers and the rest of the world?
Imperialism is defined as "a policy extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force."
In the early 1900's the sun never set on the British Empire, the most extensive empire in world history. But Britain was not the only one; the Spanish, French, and Dutch also had large empires at the expense of others.
Why has history viewed communist and Japanese imperialism as aggression and Western imperialism as a service? Like Japan and communist countries, Western nations have killed thousands in the name of imperialism. In Tasmania, British settlers literally hunted the natives for sport, and the Dutch did the same to the Hottentots of Africa. Like Japan and communist countries, Western nations "civilized" their subjects and exploited resources. What makes Western imperialism acceptable and other imperialism unacceptable? All imperialism is unacceptable.
A quote by former British Prime Minister Churchill sums up the ideology of Western imperialism quite well, "I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.
Quotes about War
"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living."
Omar Bradley, former WWII general
"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity."
Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."
Dwight D. Eisenhower
"The belief in the possibility of a short decisive war appears to be one of the most ancient and dangerous of human illusions."
Robert Lynd
"A nation that continues year and year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."
Martin Luther King, Jr.
"There are causes worth dying for, but none worth killing for."
Albert Camus
"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?"
Mahatma Gandhi
Are some wars justifiable?
Let me preface this by saying that I am not making a judgment about anyone who has served or is serving in the military.
Afghanistan War (2001-present): Yes, but I wish the U.S. would have devoted more time, energy, and money to this effort. The amount of money invested in the rebuilding of Afghanistan is minuscule compared to that of Iran. Unfortunately, the lack of attention is starting to show. The drug trade is growing, the Taliban are returning, and Osama bin Laden is still at large.
(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,211957,00.html) (http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_wires/2006Sep13/0,4675,Afghanistan,00.html)
Iraq War (2003-present): No. Report after report indicates there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda or 9-11. Even President Bush admits there was no link between Iraq and 9-11. As for weapons of mass destruction, the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency claimed Iraq didn't possess them. It turns out they were correct. Even an investigation organized by the Pentagon and CIA (Iraq Survey Group) after the invasion concluded that Iraq had no deployable WMD as of March 2003 and had no production since 1991. Despite the UN's request for more time, the U.S. invaded Iraq without the approval of the UN Security Council. UN Security General Kofi Annan regards the invasion of Iraq as illegal, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, [the invasion] was illegal."
As for Saddam being an evil dictator, of course he was. No one denies that. But there are several evil dictators in the world. What about Fidel Castro? We've been able to live with him for nearly 50 years, and his evil empire is just 100 miles off the Florida coast. The evil dictators of the Soviet Union came to an end without a single nuclear bomb being dropped (excluding tests). Muammar al Gaddafi is still defacto dictator of Libya, and he recently gave up a weapons program as a result of diplomacy. And there are several evil dictators in Africa. And what about North Korea?
What makes Saddam different? Was he really a threat to the United States? Approximately two-thirds of Iraq's airspace prior to the war was controlled by the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. And Iraq was under heavy sanctions for over 10 years. The U.S. supported Saddam and the Baath Party's rise to power in the 1960's by means of a series of violent takeovers (not democracy). The U.S. then supplied Saddam with weapons and intelligence during Iraq's long war with Iran. The U.S. removed Iraq from the terrorist list despite its invasion of Iran and use of chemical weapons. We then go behind Iraq's back to sell arms to Iran in exchange for the release of hostages taken by militant groups. Perhaps the U.S. should be more careful about who it associates with.
Gulf War (1990-91): Yes. Actually, this war might have been avoided all together if Western powers had not spent so much time, energy, and money on building up and appeasing the Hussein regime. Nonetheless, the international community including the U.S. was smart to stop short of removing Hussein and occupying Iraq.
Former President George H. W. Bush said the following about the idea of occupying Iraq: "Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome."
Iran-Iraq War (1980-88): Yes and No. No, because Iraq was clearly at fault for invading Iran and using chemical weapons. Yes, because the international community should have stepped in immediately to stop the conflict. Even after the use of chemical weapons, the international community did very little to stop this bloody war. The U.S. government was wrong to support Saddam Hussein on the one hand and sell arms to Iran on the other.
Vietnam War (unofficially 1945-75, officially 1964-75): No. If anything, France was at fault for trying to preserve the status quo of Western imperialism. The U.S. supported the cause of Ho Chi Minh when he helped us fight the Japanese in World War II, but requested the services of former Japanese soldiers, among others, to fight the communist cause and Ho Chi Minh after the war. The U.S. worked behind the scenes to replace South Vietnamese leaders by means of revolution, and the U.S. government did not know enough about the region or its history to effectively fight a war or negotiate peace.
Robert McNamara, former Secretary of Defense, said the following about Vietnam: "We of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations who participated in the decisions on Vietnam acted according to what we thought were the principles and traditions of this nation. We made our decisions in light of those values. Yet we were wrong, terribly wrong."
In 1956, the South Vietnamese, with the backing of the U.S. government, refused to hold unification elections for fear the Communist party would win. In 1961, the U.S. military began using Agent Orange to defoliate the countryside of Vietnam. In 1963, with American approval, the South Vietnamese government stages a coup, murdering President Diem and his brother (former pawns of the U.S. government). In 1964, during covert operations in North Vietnamese waters, a U.S. ship is allegedly attacked. The U.S. government passed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution giving President Johnson the authority to increase military operations in Vietnam. From 1965-67, the U.S. military dropped more tonnage of bombs than it did in all of World War II. In 1968, American troops killed several hundred innocent civilians at My Lai. In 1969, President Nixon began secret bombing raids in Cambodia. In 1971, 71% of the U.S. population believes the war was a mistake. In 1975, U.S. leaves Vietnam. 58,015 U.S. soldiers are dead and 153,303 are wounded.
"The military don't start wars. Politicians start wars." William Westmoreland, former U.S. general and commander of American military operations during the Vietnam War
Korean War: Don't know enough to comment.
World War II: Yes. The unprovoked invasions of France and Poland and the bombing of Britain justified the removal of Hitler and the Nazi Party. The U.S. was smart to preserve the Japanese emperor as a symbolic figure, but I totally disagree with the decision to drop two atomic bombs.
Many prominent people in the military also opposed the dropping of the nuclear bombs. Dwight D. Eisenhower, former commander of allied forces in Europe and President of the United States, wrote "In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."
Other military personnel who disagreed with the necessity of the bombs included General Douglas McArthur, Fleet Admiral William Leahy, General Carl Spaatz, Brigadier General Carter Clarke, Major General Curtis LeMay, Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations Ralph Bard, Fleet Admiral Charles Nimitz, Commander of Pacific Fleet.
"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Admiral Charles Nimitz
"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Admiral William Leahy
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey
Ironically, it appears as though the decision to drop the bombs was political, not military. Was the United States concerned about the Soviet Union's decision to join the war effort in the Pacific? Regardless, the decision to drop the bombs was unethical if not illegal.
In the documentary The Fog of War, Robert McNamara, former WWII military analyst and former Secretary of Defense, surmised that the U.S. and its allies would have been accused and tried as war criminals if the Allies had lost World War II. Even Major General Curtis LeMay admitted as much, "I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal." In addition to the two atomic bombs, the U.S. leveled several German and Japanese cities by means of firebombing, "a bombing technique designed to damage a target, generally an urban area through the use of fire from an incendiary device, rather than from the blast effect of large bombs." Firebombing exposed large areas of a city to fire that otherwise would have been unaffected by a high explosive bomb.
The following two quotes are excerpts from the documentary The Fog of War:
"Why was it necessary to drop the nuclear bomb if LeMay was burning up Japan? And he went on from Tokyo to firebomb other cities. 58% of Yokohama. Yokohama is roughly the size of Cleveland. 58% of Cleveland destroyed. Tokyo is roughly the size of New York. 51% percent of New York destroyed. 99% of the equivalent of Chattanooga, which was Toyama. 40% of the equivalent of Los Angeles, which was Nagoya. This was all done before the dropping of the nuclear bomb, which by the way was dropped by LeMay's command. Proportionality should be a guideline in war. Killing 50% to 90% of the people of 67 Japanese cities and then bombing them with two nuclear bombs is not proportional, in the minds of some people, to the objectives we were trying to achieve."
"LeMay said, 'If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals.' And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?"
In relative secrecy, the U.S. developed and used the most deadly weapon on earth. We still possess thousands of nuclear weapons and have tested more than any other nation. To say the dropping of the atomic bomb was a difficult decision is not correct. Dropping a bomb or pushing a button is terribly easy. We knew the consequences and the impact this bomb would have. Taking the high road is always more difficult, and to say that we were justified because our enemies might have used it only serves to lower us to their level. I'm sure everyone wanted the war to end including the Japanese, but I believe President Truman made a hasty decision. Were the Japanese wrong to attack the U.S. military base at Pearl Harbor? Of course, but this does not justify the use of nuclear weapons. Japanese imperialism was wrong but no worse than the long history of imperialism by Western powers.
I'm not justifying what Germany or Japan did. They committed horrible war crimes, but we are naive to think that the dropping of the atomic bomb was inevitable. Humans have an enormous capacity to be sensible and responsible. Despite the dropping of two nuclear bombs in World War II and despite all the rhetoric of the Cold War, humans showed enough restraint to keep the world intact. Even the "evil" communists in China and the former Soviet Union didn't drop an atomic bomb on innocent civilians.
I am against all killing whether it's war, capital punishment, abortion, Christian extremists killing abortion doctors, or Muslim extremists flying planes into buildings. Ideally, no killing would take place, but I realize that sometimes taking life is necessary and even lawful. Nonetheless, we should constantly strive for the greater of two extremes: peace instead of war, healing instead of killing, and love instead of hate.
What does the U.S. government value?
The United States is #1 in the world when it comes to military spending, and our military budget is almost more than the rest of the world combined. The U.S. spends approximately $466 billion each year compared to $500 billion BY THE REST OF THE WORLD (China is a distant second at $65 billion). Eight nations in the Top 10 are U.S. allies. What's wrong with this picture? It's no wonder some of the world view us as a threat. And who do you think sometimes ends up supplying other countries with weapons? Either the U.S. or one of our allies. Sometimes we even give weapons to our enemies. What does all of this reveal about our values as a nation? I certainly don't value this, and I want my tax money to be spent differently.
The current financial cost of the Iraq War is nearly $6,000,000,000 PER MONTH with total congressional appropriations at over $315,000,000,000. The current human costs (as of 9-20-06) are 2,691 U.S. deaths (2.1 per day) and 19,910 U.S. wounded (15.6 per day). Iraqi civilian deaths are estimated at 43,000, and Iraqi security forces have experienced 5,385 deaths. All of this despite statements from Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice prior to 9-11 that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction (video, transcript). All of this despite President Bush's policy against nation building (article). All of this despite the fact that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction. All of this to remove Hussein (a former ally) who had nothing to do with 9-11 or Al-Qaeda. And if anyone says that 2,700 U.S. lives lost and 19,900 wounded is an acceptable amount compared to previous wars, he or she should sign up immediately and serve the cause in Iraq.
Currently, the U.S. possesses approximately 10,000 nuclear weapons, and we continue to use depleted uranium weapons despite a United Nations resolution classifying these munitions as illegal weapons of mass destruction (United Nations resolution). You can imagine the effects depleted uranium might have on the enemy, but reports indicate that U.S. soldiers have also been exposed. In fact, some soldiers have been reported as having unusually high levels of uranium in their urine (http://currents.ucsc.edu/03-04/01-19/uranium.html).
In the past, the U.S. government has worked to promote freedom and democracy on one hand while secretly trying to circumvent it on the other (see historical background). What would happen if another country tried to intervene in our affairs? Just the thought of another country telling the U.S. what to do would infuriate many Americans (remember changing French Fries to Freedom Fries?), yet our government repeatedly intervenes in the affairs of foreign countries. Are we to believe that the U.S. government is always doing what is in the best interest of indigenous people when it politically intervenes in their affairs? Are we to believe that all wars fought in the name of freedom and democracy are justifiable? Are we to believe that the U.S. is beyond reproach?
History indicates that political engineering only serves to replace one oppressor with another. What good is that? Let the indigenous people of a country vote or revolt according to their own free will. We should not impose our will on countries just because we have the power to do so.
So, what does the U.S. government value? I'm not sure.
As strange as it may seem, I wish the U.S. had a three-year mandatory military service for all people between the ages of 18-21. I would only support this if there was absolutely no way for the wealthy and influential to avoid serving. Most 18-year olds don't know what they want to do after high school anyway (I didn't). Plus, it would probably instill discipline, reduce crime, lower insurance rates, and hopefully reduce our willingness to go to war so easily. At any given point in time, many members of the U.S. government would have someone they loved serving in the military. We would certainly think twice about going to war.
Final Comments
Look, there are plenty of wonderful things about America, and I still believe it is the best country in the world. However, I'm not here to discuss what's right about America. Ideally, citizens wouldn't feel compelled to speak out against their country, but it's our right and duty. Thomas Jefferson once said, "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." And Theodore Roosevelt stated, "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, were horrible acts of hate. I pray for those who died (including the terrorists), our troops, and the innocent civilians of the world. And I pray this never happens again. I've experienced a range of emotions since 9-11, but not once have I felt hate or the need to exact revenge. If we allow hate to take hold of our emotions, we slowly but surely become the people who attacked us out of hate. But what did Iraq or Iran have to do with 9-11 anyway?
Many believe the "war on terror" is more effectively contained and dismantled by means of intelligence, not brute military force. George Will, a conservative columnist, wrote, "Cooperation between Pakistani and British law enforcement (the British draw upon useful experience combating IRA terrorism) has validated John Kerry's belief (as paraphrased by the New York Times Magazine of Oct. 10, 2004) that 'many of the interdiction tactics that cripple drug lords, including governments working jointly to share intelligence, patrol borders and force banks to identify suspicious customers, can also be some of the most useful tools in the war on terror.' In a candidates' debate in South Carolina (Jan. 29, 2004), Kerry said that although the war on terror will be 'occasionally military,' it is 'primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world.'"
I don't believe the U.S. government is silly enough to invade Iran any time soon, but I do believe they've considered aerial bombing. I'm opposed to both because I sincerely believe diplomacy works. According to most reports, Iran is years away from the capacity to develop nuclear weapons. That gives plenty of time for diplomacy to take place. However, diplomacy with Iran will be difficult considering the past. Unfortunately, inconsistencies in the past have complicated the process and created a sense of mistrust. One glaring problem is that all five permanent members of United Nations Security Council possess nuclear weapons. This is the same security council that looked the other way when Iraq was developing Weapons of Mass Destruction in the 1980s. Weapons that were eventually used on Iran. And if we do start a war with Iran, I wonder how many of our own weapons will be used against us.
Was Iranian President Ahmadinejad wrong for saying that the Holocaust was a myth and Israel should be wiped off the map? Absolutely. Is Iran wrong to be intervening in the current affairs of Iraq? Absolutely, but can we raise a stone to condemn them considering our past intervention in the affairs of numerous countries? Iran's rhetoric does not give us an excuse to attack Iran. Neither does Iran's nuclear energy program. Not even Iran's alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons. If we do attack Iran on these grounds, then we should have bombed North Korea and Pakistan a long time ago.
I cannot conclude this commentary without asking "What Would Jesus Do?". Well, Jesus hung out with sinners, so I don't think it would be beneath him to talk directly to Iran about his concerns. As emulators of Christ, can't we do the same? I think it would really shock Iran if we changed our approach. It would be like "heaping burning coals on their heads" (Romans 12:19-21).
So, back to the original question that started this discussion: Should the U.S. attack Iran? No, stop the cycle of war and violence. "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."
References
http://www.parstimes.com/history/us_iran.html
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/8/19C76894-2A3A-49D7-96A5-02039F66FD20.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=us_iraq_80s
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3983-2005Mar26.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran's_nuclear_program
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_iraq_war
http://www.hinduonnet.com/2005/09/21/stories/2005092105231000.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,211877,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,211862,00.html
http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/29/news/iran_sanctions/index.htm
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/iran/nuclearprogram.html
http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=mj03albright
http://www.presidentreagan.info/speeches/iran_contra.cfm
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pentagon2/pent11.htm
http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Vietnam-prelude.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/14/AR2006081401163.html
UN Speech: President of Iran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/15474492.htm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060908/pl_nm/iraq_usa_intelligence_dc_3
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/custom/2006/01/17/CU2006011701017.html
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/iran_timeline.shtml
http://www.un.org/News/dh/iraq/elbaradei27jan03.htm
http://www.un.org/News/dh/iraq/elbaradei-7mar03.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#_note-9
http://members.aol.com/silence004/koran.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Contra_Scandal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapons#Chemical_warfare_in_the_Iran-Iraq_War
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=7624
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030519-450997,00.html
http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/ot_grp6/ot_oil_agreements_20040818.html
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html
http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2010123&contentId=2000904
http://www.worldalmanacforkids.com/explore/nations/iran.html#fw..ir038100.a60
http://www.iraqwatch.org/suppliers/whoarmediraq.pdf
http://www.iraqwatch.org/suppliers/LicenseMD.html
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Saddam_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/USmadeIraq.html
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=us_iraq_80s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq_1973-1990
http://www.photius.com/rogue_nations/rumsfeld_saddam_nyt_031223.html
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq61.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Gulf_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=us_plans_to_use_military_force_against_iran&key_events=keyEvents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/12/b2a9c22c-6f37-422d-9fd2-40e8fde27f49.html?napage=2
http://www.cnn.com/US/9608/05/clinton/
http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=mj03albright
http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/thebulletin?q=iran&sa10.x=0&sa10.y=0&sa10=Google+Search
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/051006/w100670.html
http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/pdf/iranpolicy.pdf
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+ir0187)
http://www.nnsa.doe.gov/na-20/frrsnf.shtml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19820-2005Feb12.html
http://currents.ucsc.edu/03-04/01-19/uranium.html
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/archive/displaydocument.asp?docid=110705
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3983-2005Mar26.html
http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/failedtransition/index.htm
