Much Ado Over Nothing?

A peculiar thing has been happening, both on the comment sections of this blog and other sites where Iranians have been speaking out against an attack on Iran: we have been chided for it, and not just for the predictable reason that anyone against a war on Iran is labeled as pro-Islamic Republic or Pro-terrorism. In keeping colonial tradition of condescending paternalism, we are also told that we are "paranoid" and "crazy", that no such war is in the making, and that our time is better spent elsewhere.

Never mind the spy drones flying over Iran , the updating of war plans, and the parallels between the U.S. pronouncements on Iran and what happened in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan. We are to listen to Bush when he says that the notion of "attacking Iran is simply ridiculous", and forget that he announced in the same breath: " Having said that, all options are on the table".

Indeed they are, and several recent developments give us more reason to fear that a confrontation with Iran is in fact on the agenda. Let me turn to these events now, and iterate once again why we must keep speaking up against war on Iran.

Yesterday's delay of the Russia-Iran Nuclear Deal , announced after the apparently cordial contact between Putin and Bush may have led some to wonder about a causal connection between the two. Perhaps, but the nuclear deal between Iran and Russia was sealed anyway .

Despite the signing of an additional protocol between the two states requiring that Iran return spent fuel that could be used for weaponry, the deal is sure to keep the U.S. on the offensive and Iran defensive on the issue of WMD. But just as the WMD claims were not enough in making the case for an attack on Iraq, they wont do for the Iranians either. For one, the U.S. needs to articulate its wars so that they can be justified under the umbrella of the "War on Terrorism". Additionally, ever the champion of humanity and human rights, the U.S. administration must put a compassionate face on the entire endeavor.

In order to achieve the latter, Bush periodically asserts solidarity with the Iranian people, and I've talked about the duplicity and dangers behind such claims in my first post on this blog . Just the other day, the State Department made a humanitarian gesture of offering aid after the recent earthquake in Kerman, but the Iranians are said to have (I think wisely) refused it.

The issue of linking Iran to terrorism is a bit trickier, this despite numerous unfounded assertions that Iran is linked with Al-Qae'da (the sworn enemy of the IRI) and by extension to the resistance in Iraq. The assassination of Rafiq Harriri and Friday night's bombing in Tel Aviv are being deployed to fill in the gap. Although Hizbollah has denied responsibility for the bombings, the U.S. press has repeatedly implied, if not explicitly claimed, that the group was behind both acts. Bringing Hizbollah in to the picture, however, allows for implicating both Syria and Iran , two birds with one stone.

As long as this triad?accusations about the acquisition of WMD, the sponsorship of terrorism, and the crocodile tears for Iranian human rights?appear in the press and on the lips of various U.S. officials, then anti-war Iranians must remain alert and active. Those who will continue to reproach us for doing so can always rely on Orientalist tropes about "Easterners' penchant for conspiracy theories" to dismiss away our concerns.

*Niki Akhavan