[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 42 (Wednesday, April 5, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H1555-H1559]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      IRAN: THE NEXT NEOCON TARGET

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Foxx). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is 
recognized for half the time remaining until midnight.
  Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, it has been 3 years since the U.S. launched 
its war against Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. Of 
course, now almost everybody knows there were no weapons of mass 
destruction and Saddam Hussein posed no threat to the United States. 
Though some of our soldiers serving in Iraq still believe they are 
there because Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, even the 
administration now acknowledges that there was no connection.
  Indeed, no one can be absolutely certain why we invaded Iraq. The 
current excuse, also given for staying in Iraq, is to make it a 
democratic state friendly to the United States. There are now fewer 
denials that securing oil supplies played a significant role in our 
decision to go into Iraq and stay there. That certainly would explain 
why the U.S. taxpayers are paying such a price to build and maintain 
numerous, huge, permanent military bases in Iraq. There are also 
funding a new $1 billion embassy, the largest in the world.
  The significant question we must ask ourselves is, what have we 
learned from these 3 years in Iraq? With plans now being laid for 
regime change in Iran, it appears we have learned absolutely nothing. 
There still are plenty of administration officials who daily paint a 
rosy picture of the Iraq we have created. But I wonder, if the past 3 
years were nothing more than a bad dream and our Nation suddenly 
awakened, how many would for national security reasons urge the same 
invasion? Or would we instead give a gigantic sigh of relief that it 
was only a bad dream, that we need not relive the 3-year nightmare of 
death, destruction, chaos and stupendous consumption of tax dollars? 
Conceivably, we would still see oil prices under $30 a barrel, and, 
most importantly, 20,000 severe U.S. casualties would not have 
occurred. My guess is 99 percent of all Americans would be thankful it 
was only a bad dream and would never support the invasion knowing what 
we know today.
  Even with the horrible results of the past 3 years, Congress is abuzz 
with plans to change the Iranian government. There is little resistance 
to the rise and clamor for democratization in Iran, even though their 
current President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is an elected leader.
  Though Iran is hardly a perfect democracy, its system is far superior 
to most of our Arab allies, about which we never complain. Already the 
coordinated propaganda has galvanized the American people against Iran 
for the supposed threat it poses to us with weapons of mass destruction 
that are no more present than those Saddam Hussein was alleged to have 
had.
  It is amazing how soon after being thoroughly discredited over the 
charges levied against Saddam Hussein the neoconservatives are willing 
to use the same arguments against Iran. It is frightening to see how 
easily Congress, the media and the people accept many of the same 
arguments against Iran that were used to justify an invasion of Iraq.
  Since 2001, we have spent over $300 billion and occupied two Muslim 
nations, Afghanistan and Iraq. We are poorer, but certainly not safer, 
for it. We invaded Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden, the ringleader 
behind 9/11. This effort has been virtually abandoned. Even though the 
Taliban was removed from power in Afghanistan, most of the country is 
now occupied and controlled by warlords who manage a drug trade bigger 
than ever before. Removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan 
actually served the interests of Iran, the Taliban's arch-enemy, more 
than our own.
  The long time neocon goal to remake Iraq prompted us to abandoned the 
search for Osama bin Laden. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was hyped as a 
noble mission, justified by misrepresentation of intelligence 
concerning Saddam Hussein and his ability to attack us and his 
neighbors. This failed policy has created the current chaos in Iraq, 
chaos that many describe as a civil war.
  Saddam Hussein is out of power, and most people are pleased. Yet some

[[Page H1556]]

Iraqis who dream of stability long for his authoritarian rule. But, 
once again, Saddam Hussein's removal benefited the Iranians, who 
considered Saddam Hussein an arch-enemy.
  Our obsession with democracy, which is clearly conditional when one 
looks at our response to the recent Pakistani elections, will allow the 
majority Shia to claim leadership title if Iraq's election actually 
leads to an organized government. This delights the Iranians, who are 
close allies of the Iraqi Shia.
  Talk about unintended consequences. This war has produced chaos, 
civil war, death and destruction and huge financial costs. It has 
eliminated two of Iran's worst enemies and placed power in Iran's best 
friends.
  Even this apparent failure of policy does nothing to restrain the 
current march towards a similar confrontation with Iran. What will it 
take for us to learn from our failures? Common sense tells us the war 
in Iraq soon will spread to Iran. Fear of imaginary nuclear weapons or 
an incident involving Iran, whether planned or accidental, will rally 
the support needed for us to move on Muslim country number three.

                              {time}  2215

  All the past failures and unintended consequences will be forgotten. 
Even with deteriorating support for the Iraq war, new information, 
well-planned propaganda, or a major incident will override the 
skepticism and heartache of our frustrating fight. Vocal opponents of 
an attack on Iran again will be labeled unpatriotic, unsupportive of 
the troops, and sympathetic to Iran's radicals.
  Instead of capitulating to these charges, we should point out that 
those who maneuver us into war do so with little concern for our young 
people serving in the military and theoretically think little of their 
own children if they have any. It is hard to conceive that political 
supporters of the war would consciously claim that a preemptive war for 
regime change where young people are sacrificed is only worth it if the 
deaths and the injuries are limited to other people's children. This I 
am sure would be denied, which means their own children are technically 
available for the sacrifice that is so often praised and glorified for 
the benefit of families who have lost so much. If so, they should think 
more of their own children. If this is not so and their children are 
not available for such sacrifice, the hypocrisy is apparent. Remember, 
most neocon planners fall into the category of chicken hawks.
  For the past 3 years, it has been inferred that, if one is not in 
support of the current policy, one is against the troops and supports 
the enemy. Lack of support for the war in Iraq was said to be 
supportive of Saddam Hussein and his evil policies. This is an 
insulting and preposterous argument. Those who argued for the 
containment of the Soviets were never deemed sympathetic to Stalin or 
Kruschev. Lack of support for the Iraq war should never be used as an 
argument that one was sympathetic to Saddam Hussein. Containment and 
diplomacy are far superior to confront an enemy, and are less costly 
and far less dangerous, especially when there is no evidence that our 
national security is being threatened.
  Although a large percentage of the public now rejects the various 
arguments for the Iraq war 3 years ago, they were easily persuaded by 
the politicians and media to fully support the invasion. Now, after 3 
years of terrible pain for so many, even the troops are awakening from 
their slumber and sensing the fruitlessness of our failing effort. 
Seventy-two percent of our troops now serving in Iraq say it is time to 
come home. Yet, the majority still cling to the propaganda that they 
are there because of the 9/11 attacks, something even the 
administration has ceased to claim. Propaganda is pushed on our troops 
to exploit their need to believe in a cause that is worth the risk to 
life and limb.
  I smell an expanded war in the Middle East and pray that I am wrong. 
I sense that circumstances will arise that demand support regardless of 
the danger and the cost. Any lack of support once again will be painted 
as being soft on terrorism and al Qaeda. We will be told we must 
support Israel, support patriotism, support the troops, defend freedom. 
The public too often only smells the stench of war after the killing 
starts. Public objection comes later on, but eventually it helps to 
stop the war.
  I worry that before we can finish the war we are in and extricate 
ourselves, the patriotic fervor for expanding into Iran will drown out 
the cries of, ``Enough already.'' The agitation and congressional 
resolutions painting Iran as an enemy about to attack us have already 
begun. It is too bad we cannot learn from our mistakes. This time, 
there will be a greater pretense of an international effort sanctioned 
by the U.N. before the bombs are dropped. But even without support from 
the international community, we should expect the plan for regime 
change to continue. We have been forewarned that all options remain on 
the table, and there is little reason to expect much resistance from 
Congress. So far there is little resistance expressed in Congress for 
taking on Iran than there was prior to going into Iraq.
  It is astonishing that after 3 years of bad results and tremendous 
expense there is little indication, we will reconsider our traditional 
non-interventionist foreign policy. Unfortunately, regime change, 
nation-building, policing the world, protecting our oil still 
constitutes an acceptable policy by the leaders of both major parties. 
It is already assumed by many in Washington I talk to that Iran is dead 
serious about obtaining a nuclear weapon and is a much more formidable 
opponent than Iraq. Besides, Mahmud Ahmadinejad threatened to destroy 
Israel, and that cannot stand. Washington sees Iran as a greater threat 
than Iraq ever was, a threat that cannot be ignored.
  Iran's history is being ignored just as we ignored Iraq's history. 
This ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of our recent 
relationship to Iraq and Iran is required to generate the fervor needed 
to attack once again a country that poses no threat to us. Our policies 
toward Iran have been more provocative than those toward Iraq. Yes, 
President Bush labeled Iran part of the axis of evil and unnecessarily 
provoked their anger at us. But our mistakes with Iran started a long 
time before this President took office. In 1953, our CIA, with the help 
of the British, participated in overthrowing the democratic-elected 
leader, Mohammed Mossadegh. We placed in power the Shah. He ruled 
ruthlessly but protected our oil interests, and for that, we protected 
him. That is, until 1979. We even provided him with Iran's first 
nuclear reactor.
  Evidently, we did not buy the argument that his oil supplies 
precluded a need for civilian nuclear energy. From 1953 to 1979, his 
authoritarian rule served to incite a radical opposition led by the 
Ayatollah Khomeini who overthrew the Shah and took our hostages in 
1979. This blow-back event was slow in coming, but Muslims have long 
memories. The hostage crisis and overthrow of the Shah by the Ayatollah 
was a major victory for the radical Islamists. Most Americans either 
never knew about or easily forgot about our unwise meddling in the 
internal affairs in Iran in 1953.
  During the 1980s, we further antagonized Iran by supporting the 
Iraqis in their invasion of Iran. This made our relationship with Iran 
worse, while sending a message to Saddam Hussein that invading a 
neighboring country is not all that bad. When Hussein got the message 
from our State Department that his plan to invade Kuwait was not of 
much concern to the United States, he immediately preceded to do so. 
We, in a way, encouraged him to do it almost like we encouraged him to 
go into Iran. Of course, this time our reaction was quite different, 
and all of a sudden, our friendly ally, Saddam Hussein, became our arch 
enemy.
  The American people may forget this flip-flop, but those who suffered 
from it never forgot. And the Iranians remember well our meddling in 
their affairs. Labeling the Iranians part of the axis of evil further 
alienated them and contributed to the animosity directed toward us.
  For whatever reasons the neoconservatives might give, they are bound 
and determined to confront the Iranian government and demand changes in 
its leadership. This policy will further spread our military presence 
and undermine our security. The sad truth is that the supposed dangers 
posed by Iran are no more real than

[[Page H1557]]

those claimed about Iraq. The charges made against Iran are 
unsubstantiated and amazingly sound very similar to the false charges 
made against Iraq. One would think promoters of the war against Iraq 
would be a little bit more reluctant to use the same arguments to stir 
up hatred toward Iran. The American people and Congress should be more 
cautious in accepting these charges at face value, yet it seems the 
propaganda is working since few in Washington object as Congress passes 
resolutions condemning Iran and asking for U.N. sanctions against her.

  There is no evidence of a threat to us by Iran and no reason to plan 
and initiate a confrontation with her. There are many reasons not to do 
so: Iran does not have a nuclear weapon and there is no evidence that 
she is working on one, only conjecture. Even if Iran had a nuclear 
weapon, why would this be different from Pakistan, India, and North 
Korea having one? Why does Iran have less right to a defensive weapon 
than these other countries? If Iran had a nuclear weapon, the odds of 
her initiating an attack against anybody, which would guarantee her own 
annihilation are zero, and the same goes for the possibility she would 
place weapons in the hands of a nonstate terrorist group.
  Pakistan has spread nuclear technology throughout the world, and in 
particular, to the North Koreans. They flaunt international 
restrictions on nuclear weapons, but we reward them just as we reward 
India. We needlessly and foolishly threaten Iran, even though they have 
no nuclear weapons, but listen to what a leading Israeli historian, 
Martin van Creveld had to say about this: ``Obviously we do not want 
Iran to have a nuclear weapon, and I do not know if they are developing 
them. But if they are not developing them, they are crazy.''
  There has been a lot of misinformation regarding Iran's nuclear 
program. This distortion of the truth has been used to pump up emotions 
in Congress to pass resolutions condemning her and promoting U.N. 
sanctions. IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei has never reported 
any evidence of undeclared sources or special nuclear material in Iran 
or any diversion of nuclear material. We demand that Iran prove it is 
not in violation of nuclear agreements, which is asking them impossibly 
to prove a negative. ElBaradei states Iran is in compliance with the 
nuclear nonproliferation treaty required IAEA safeguards agreement.
  We forget that the weapons we feared Saddam Hussein had were supplied 
to him by the United States, and we refused to believe U.N. inspectors 
and the CIA that he no longer had them. Likewise, Iran received her 
first nuclear reactor from us; now we are hysterically wondering if 
some day she might decide to build a bomb in self-interest. Anti-Iran 
voices beating the drums of confrontation distort the agreement made in 
Paris and the desire of Iran to restart the enrichment process. Their 
suspension of the enrichment process was voluntary and not a legal 
obligation. Iran has an absolute right under the Nuclear Proliferation 
Treaty to develop and use nuclear power for peaceful purposes, and this 
is now said to be an egregious violation of the NPT. It is the U.S. and 
her allies that are distorting and violating the Nuclear Proliferation 
Treaty.
  Likewise, our proliferation of nuclear material to India is a clear 
violation of the nuclear proliferation treaty as well.
  The demand for U.N. sanctions is now being strongly encouraged by 
Congress. The Iran Freedom Support Act, H.R. 282 passed in the 
International Relations Committee and recently the House passed H. Con. 
Res. 341, which inaccurately condemned Iran for violating its 
international nuclear nonproliferation obligations. At present, the 
likelihood of reason prevailing in Congress is minimal. Let there be no 
doubt, the neoconservative warriors are still in charge and are 
conditioning Congress, the media, and the American people for a 
preemptive attack on Iran, never mind that Afghanistan has unraveled 
and Iraq is in a Civil War.
  Serious plans are being laid for the next distraction which will 
further spread this war in the Middle East. The unintended consequences 
of this effort surely will be worse than any of the complications 
experienced in the 3-year occupation of Iraq.
  Our offer of political and financial assistance to foreign and 
domestic individuals who support the overthrow of the current Iranian 
government is fraught with danger and saturated with arrogance. Imagine 
how Americans citizens would respond if China supported similar efforts 
here in the United States to bring about regime change. How many of us 
would remain complacent if someone like Timothy McVeigh had been 
financed by a foreign power? Is it any wonder the Iranian people resent 
us and the attitude of our leaders?
  Even though ElBaradei and his IAEA investigations have found no 
violations of the NPT required IAEA safeguard agreement, the Iran 
Freedom Support Act still demands that Iran prove they have no nuclear 
weapons, refusing to acknowledge that proving a negative is impossible. 
Let there be no doubt, though, the words ``regime change'' are not 
found in the bill. That is precisely what they are talking about. 
Neoconservative Michael Ladine, one of the architects of the Iraq 
fiasco, testifying before the International Relations Committee in 
favor of the Iraq Freedom Support Act stated it plainly. ``I know some 
members would prefer to dance around the explicit declaration of regime 
change as the policy of this country, but anyone looking closely at the 
language and the context of the Iraq Freedom Support Act and its close 
relative in the Senate can clearly see that this is, in fact, the 
essence of the matter.

                              {time}  2230

  You can't have freedom in Iran without bringing down the mulahs.''
  Sanctions, along with financial and political support to persons and 
groups dedicated to the overthrow of the Iranian government, are acts 
of war. Once again, we are unilaterally declaring a preemptive war 
against a country and a people that have not harmed us and do not have 
the capacity to do so. And do not expect Congress to seriously debate a 
declaration of war. For the past 56 years, Congress has transferred to 
the executive branch the power to go to war as it pleases, regardless 
of the tragic results and costs.
  Secretary of State Rice recently signaled a sharp shift toward 
confrontation in Iran's policy as she insisted on $75 million to 
finance propaganda, through TV and radio broadcasts into Iran. She 
expressed this need because of the so-called ``aggressive'' policies of 
the Iranian government. We are 7,000 miles from home, telling the 
Iraqis and the Iranians what kind of government they will have, backed 
up by the use of our military force, and we call them the aggressors? 
We fail to realize the Iranian people, for whatever faults they may 
have, have not in modern times invaded any neighboring country. This 
provocation is so unnecessary, costly and dangerous.
  Just as the invasion of Iraq inadvertently served the interests of 
the Iranians, military confrontation with Iran will have unintended 
consequences. The successful alliance engendered between the Iranians 
and the Iraqi majority Shiia will prove a formidable opponent for us in 
Iraq as that civil war spreads. Shipping in the Persian Gulf through 
the Straits of Hormuz may well be disrupted by the Iranians in 
retaliation for any military confrontation. Since Iran would be 
incapable of defending herself by conventional means, it seems logical 
that they might well resort to terrorist attacks on us here at home. 
They will not passively lie down, nor can they be easily destroyed.
  One of the reasons given for going into Iraq was to secure our oil 
supplies. This backfired badly. Production in Iraq is down 50 percent, 
and world oil prices have more than doubled to $60 per barrel. Meddling 
with Iran could easily have a similar result. We could see oil at $120 
a barrel and gasoline at $6 a gallon. The obsession the neo-cons have 
with remaking the Middle East is hard to understand. One thing that is 
easy to understand is none of those who plan these wars expect to fight 
in them, nor do they expect their children to die in some IED 
explosion.
  Exactly when an attack will occur is not known, but we have been 
forewarned more than once that all options are on the table. The 
sequence of events now occurring with regards to Iran are eerily 
reminiscent of the hype to our preemptive strike against Iraq. We 
should remember the saying: ``Fool me once, shame on you; fool me 
twice,

[[Page H1558]]

shame on me.'' It looks to me like the Congress and the country is open 
to being fooled once again.
  Interestingly, many early supporters of the Iraq War are now highly 
critical of the President, having been misled as to reasons for the 
invasion and occupation. But these same people are only too eager to 
accept the same flawed arguments for our need to undermine the Iranian 
government.
  The President's 2006 National Security Strategy, just released, is 
every bit as frightening as the one released in 2002 endorsing 
preemptive war. In it he claims, ``We face no greater challenge from a 
single country than from Iran.'' He claims the Iranians have for 20 
years hidden key nuclear activities, though the IAEA makes no such 
assumption, nor has the Security Council in at least 20 years ever 
sanctioned Iran. The clincher in the National Security Strategy 
document is if diplomatic efforts fail, confrontation will follow. The 
problem is the diplomatic effort, if one wants to use that term, is 
designed to fail by demanding the Iranians prove an unprovable 
negative. The West, led by the U.S., is in greater violation by 
demanding Iran not pursue any nuclear technology, even peaceful, that 
the NPT guarantees is their right.
  The President states: Iran's ``desire to have a nuclear weapon is 
unacceptable.'' A desire is purely subjective and cannot be 
substantiated nor disproved. Therefore, all that is necessary to 
justify an attack is if Iran fails to prove it does not have a desire 
to be like the United States, China, Russia, Britain, France, Pakistan, 
North Korea, India and Israel whose nuclear missiles surround Iran. 
Logic like this to justify a new war, without the least consideration 
for a congressional declaration of war, is indeed frightening.
  Commonsense telling us Congress, especially given the civil war in 
Iraq and the mess in Afghanistan, should move with great caution in 
condoning a military confrontation with Iran.
  Madam Speaker, there are reasons for my concern and let me list 
those. Most Americans are uninterested in foreign affairs until we get 
mired down in a war that costs too much, lasts too long, and kills too 
many U.S. troops. Getting out of a lengthy war is difficult, as I 
remember all too well with Vietnam while serving in the U.S. Air Force 
in 1963 to 1968. Getting into war is much easier.
  Unfortunately, the legislative branch of our government too often 
defers to the executive branch and offers little resistance to war 
plans, even with no significant threat to our security. The need to go 
to war is always couched in patriotic terms and falsehoods regarding an 
imaginary, imminent danger. Not supporting the effort is painted as 
unpatriotic and wimpish against some evil that is about to engulf us. 
The real reason for our militarism is rarely revealed and hidden from 
the public. Even Congress is deceived into supporting adventurism they 
would not accept if fully informed.
  If we accepted the traditional American and constitutional foreign 
policy of nonintervention across the board, there would be no 
temptation to go along with these unnecessary military operations. A 
foreign policy of intervention invites all kinds of excuses for 
spreading ourselves around the world. The debate shifts from 
nonintervention versus intervention, to where and for what particular 
reason should we involve ourselves. Most of the time, it is for less 
than honorable reasons. Even when cloaked in honorable slogans, like 
making the world safe for democracy, the unintended consequences and 
the ultimate costs cancel out the good intentions.
  One of the greatest losses suffered these past 60 years from 
interventionism becoming an acceptable policy of both major parties is 
respect for the Constitution. Congress flatly has reneged on its huge 
responsibility to declare war. Going to war was never meant to be an 
executive decision, used indiscriminately with no resistance from 
Congress. The strongest attempt by Congress in the past 60 years to 
properly exert itself over foreign policy was the passage of the Foley 
amendment, demanding no assistance be given to the Nicaraguan contras. 
Even this explicit prohibition was flaunted by an earlier 
administration.
  Arguing over the relative merits of each intervention is not a true 
debate, because it assumes that intervention per se is both moral and 
constitutional. Arguing for a Granada-type intervention because of its 
success and against the Iraq War because of its failure and cost is not 
enough. We must once again, understand the wisdom of rejecting 
entangling alliances and rejecting Nation building. We must stop trying 
to police the world and, instead, embrace noninterventionism as the 
proper moral and constitutional foreign policy of our country.

  The best reason to oppose interventionism is that people die, 
needlessly, on both sides. We have suffered over 20,000 American 
casualties in Iraq already, and Iraqi civilian deaths probably number 
over 100,000 by all reasonable counts.
  The next best reason is that the rule of law is undermined, 
especially when military interventions are carried out without a 
declaration of war. Whenever a war is ongoing, civil liberties are 
under attack at home. The current war in Iraq and the misnamed war on 
terror have created an environment here at home that affords little 
constitutional protection of our citizens' rights. Extreme nationalism 
is common during war. Signs of this are now apparent.
  Prolonged wars, as this one has become, have profound consequences. 
No matter how much positive spin is put on it, war never makes a 
society wealthier. World War II was not a solution to the Depression, 
as many claim. If $1 billion is spent on weapons of war, the GDP 
records positive growth in that amount, but the expenditure is consumed 
by destruction of the weapons or bombs it bought, and the real economy 
is denied $1 billion to produce products that would have raised 
someone's standard of living.
  Excessive spending to finance the war causes deficits to explode. 
There are never enough tax dollars available to pay the bills, and 
since there are not enough willing lenders and dollars available, the 
Federal Reserve must create new money out of thin air and new credit 
for buying Treasury bills to prevent interest rates from rising too 
rapidly. Rising rates would tip off everyone that there are not enough 
savings or taxes to finance the war.
  This willingness to print whatever amount of money the government 
needs to pursue the war is literally inflation. Without a fiat monetary 
system, wars would be very difficult to finance since the people would 
never tolerate the taxes required to pay for it. Inflation of the money 
supply delays and hides the real cost of war. The result of the 
excessive creation of new money leads to the higher cost of living 
everyone decries and the Fed denies. Since taxes are not levied, the 
increase in prices that results from printing too much money is 
technically the tax required to pay for the war.
  The tragedy is that the inflation tax is borne more by the poor and 
the middle class than the rich. Meanwhile, the well-connected rich, the 
politicians, the bureaucrats, the bankers, the military industrialists 
and the international corporations reap the benefits of war profits.
  A sound economic process is disrupted with a war economy and monetary 
inflation. Strong voices emerge blaming the wrong policies for our 
problems, prompting an outcry for protectionist legislation. It is 
always easier to blame foreign producers and savers for our inflation, 
our lack of savings, excessive debt and loss of industrial jobs. 
Protectionist measures only make economic conditions worse. Inevitably 
these conditions, if not corrected, lead to a lower standard of living 
for most of our citizens.
  Careless military intervention is also bad for the civil disturbance 
that results. The chaos in the streets of America in the 1960s while 
the Vietnam War raged, aggravated by the draft, was an example of 
domestic strife caused by an ill-advised unconstitutional war that 
could not be won. The early signs of civil discord are now present. 
Hopefully, we can extricate ourselves from Iraq and avoid a conflict in 
Iran before our streets explode, as they did in the 1960s.
  In a way, it is amazing there is not a lot more outrage expressed by 
the American people. There is plenty of complaining but no outrage over 
policies that are not part of our American tradition. War based on 
false pretenses, 20,000 American casualties, torture policies, 
thousands jailed without due

[[Page H1559]]

process, illegal surveillance of citizens, warrantless searches, and 
yet no outrage. When the issues come before Congress, executive 
authority is maintained or even strengthened while real oversight is 
ignored.
  Though many Americans are starting to feel the economic pain of 
paying for this war through inflation, the real pain has not yet 
arrived. We generally remain fat and happy with a system of money and 
borrowing that postpones the day of reckoning. Foreigners, in 
particular the Chinese and Japanese, gladly participate in the charade. 
We print the money and they take it, as do the OPEC Nations, and 
provide us with consumer goods and oil. Then they loan the money back 
to us at low interest rates, which we use to finance the war and our 
housing bubble and excessive consumption. This recycling and perpetual 
borrowing of inflated dollars allow us to avoid the pain of high taxes 
to pay for our war and welfare spending. It is fine until the music 
stops and the real costs are realized, with much higher interest rates 
and significant price inflation. That is when outrage will be heard and 
the people will realize we cannot afford the humanitarianism of the 
neo-conservatives.
  The notion that our economic problems are principally due to the 
Chinese is nonsense. If the protectionists were to have it their way, 
the problem of financing the war would become readily apparent and have 
immediate ramifications, none good.

                              {time}  2245

  Today's economic problems, caused largely by our funny money system, 
won't be solved by altering exchange rates to favor us in the short run 
or by imposing high tariffs. Only sound money with real value will 
solve the problems of competing currency devaluations and protectionist 
measures.
  Economic interests almost always are major reasons for wars being 
fought. Noble and patriotic causes are easier to sell to a public who 
must pay and provide cannon fodder to defend the financial interests of 
a privileged class. The fact that Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for oil 
in an attempt to undermine the U.S. dollar is believed by many to be 
one of the ulterior motives for our invasion and occupation of Iraq. 
Similarly, the Iranian oil burse now about to open may be seen as a 
threat to those who depend on maintaining the current monetary system 
with the dollar as the world's reserve currency.
  The theory and significance of ``peak oil'' is believed to be an 
additional motivating factor for the United States and Great Britain 
wanting to maintain firm control over the oil supplies in the Middle 
East. The two nations have been protecting our oil interests in the 
Middle East for nearly 100 years. With diminishing supplies and 
expanding demands, the incentive to maintain a military presence in the 
Middle East is quite strong. Fear of China and Russia moving in to this 
region to consume more control alarms those who don't understand how a 
free market can develop substitutes to replace diminishing resources. 
Supporters of the military efforts to maintain control over large 
regions of the world to protect oil fail to count the real cost of 
energy once the DOD budget is factored in. Remember, invading Iraq was 
costly and oil prices doubled. Confrontation in Iran may evolve 
differently, but we can be sure it will be costly and oil prices will 
rise significantly.
  There are long-term consequences or blowback from our militant 
policies of intervention around the world. They are unpredictable as to 
time and place. 9/11 was a consequence of our military presence on 
Muslim holy lands; the Ayatollah Khomeini's success in taking over the 
Iranian government in 1979 was a consequence of our CIA overthrowing 
Mossadech in 1953. These connections are rarely recognized by the 
American people and never acknowledged by our government. We never seem 
to learn how dangerous interventionism is to us and to our security.
  There are some who may not agree strongly with any of my arguments, 
and instead believe the propaganda Iran and her President, Mahmoud 
Almadinejad, are thoroughly irresponsible and have threatened to 
destroy Israel. So all measures must be taken to prevent Iran from 
getting nukes, thus the campaign to intimidate and confront Iran.
  First, Iran doesn't have a nuke and it is nowhere close to getting 
one, according to the CIA. If they did have one, using it would 
guarantee almost instantaneous annihilation by Israel and the United 
States. Hysterical fear of Iran is way out of proportion to reality. 
With a policy of containment, we stood down and won the Cold War 
against the Soviets and their 30,000 nuclear weapons and missiles. If 
you are looking for a real kook with a bomb to worry about, North Korea 
would be high on the list. Yet we negotiate with Kim Jong Il. Pakistan 
has nukes and was a close ally of the Taliban up until 9/11. Pakistan 
was never inspected by the IAEA as to their military capability. Yet we 
not only talk to her, we provide economic assistance, though someday 
Musharraf may well be overthrown and a pro-al Qaeda government put in 
place. We have been nearly obsessed with talking about regime change in 
Iran, while ignoring Pakistan and North Korea. It makes no sense and it 
is a very costly and dangerous policy.
  The conclusion we should derive from this is simple. It is in our 
best interest to pursue a foreign policy of nonintervention. A strict 
interpretation of the Constitution mandates it. The moral imperative of 
not imposing our will on others, no matter how well intentioned, is a 
powerful argument for minding our own business. The principle of self-
determination should be respected. Strict nonintervention removes the 
incentives for foreign powers and corporate interests to influence and 
control our policies overseas. We can't afford the cost that 
intervention requires, whether through higher taxes or inflation. If 
the moral arguments against intervention don't suffice for some, the 
practical arguments should.
  Intervention just doesn't work. It backfires and ultimately hurts the 
American citizens both at home and abroad. Spreading ourselves too thin 
around the world actually diminishes our national security through a 
weakened military. As the only superpower of the world, a constant 
interventionist policy is perceived as arrogant, and greatly undermines 
our ability to use diplomacy in a positive manner.
  Conservatives, libertarians, constitutionalists, and many of today's 
liberals have all at one time or another endorsed a less 
interventionist foreign policy. There is no reason a coalition of these 
groups might not once again present the case for a pro-American 
nonmilitant noninterventionist foreign policy dealing with all nations. 
A policy of trade and peace, and a willingness to use diplomacy is far 
superior to the foreign policy that has evolved over the past 60 years. 
It is time for a change.

                          ____________________