Not 'Wars' but Crimes Against Peace
Okay, let's stop talking about America 'going to war' with Iran. We are not referring here to two belligerents, but only one. We are not talking about America defending itself from an aggressor, but invading and occupying a foreign country while subjugating its people for the sake of material gain and strategic dominance over an entire region--an aggression that in the judgment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg would be considered a supreme international crime against peace.
If you consider the asymmetrical relationship between an American government that spends $700 billion on its military and an Iranian military budget of $18 billion, then you are left with the conclusion that when America says it will go to 'war' with Iran it really means that it will initiate an intentional campaign of indiscriminate violence as a means to create fear, shock and horror among the citizens and government of a sovereign state. There is another word for this kind of indiscriminate aggression: You'll find it here:
An American bombing campaign where American soldiers are at low or no risk, where no American civilians are at peril, where no American military bases, weapons manufacturers or installations in the US are exposed to destructive bombing campaigns, where no civilian infrastructure in America is at risk, where there will be no American prisoners of war, where there will be no famine, disease or American refugees--this is not a 'war'.
There will be no acts of self-sacrifice, bravery or heroism on the part of American soldiers. No one will be liberated; there will be no stable political environment in the aftermath of American violence; there will be no democratic restoration, peace terms or reconciliation--indeed, there will be no end to aggression because American dominance and hegemony around the world is based on perpetual aggression, threat and violence.
America has not experienced the ravages of a real war with a foreign combatant who had an equal or better military capability for almost 300 years--Japan's suicidal attack on one American naval base in Honolulu only marginally qualifies if you take into account the historical fact that the US forcibly annexed Hawaii in 1898. Aside from Pearl Harbour no American cities, states or infrastructure were at risk. And let's be clear it was not American soldiers but the Soviet army that defeated Nazi Germany: 27 million Soviets died doing it. That is the equivalent of one 9/11 a day every day for 27 years. It is the equivalent of one Pearl Harbor a day every day for 30 years.
Perhaps if America were to go to war with a country that had equal or better military capability and threatened to inflict 'shock and awe' on Washington, New York and Los Angeles the American appetite for unprovoked aggression would very quickly dissipate, and American people would finally say NO to the Bolton's and Pompeo's of the world.
In the meantime, when you hear American politicians worrying out loud that Trump may “bumble” America into a war with Iran, keep in mind that Iran has said repeatedly that it does not want war and that it was not Iranian but, typically, American aggression which initiated this entire fiasco--beginning with the unilateral US decision to walk away from the nuclear deal with Iran (that the latter abided by in good faith), followed by their imposition of brutal economic sanctions against the Iranian people.
So let us please stop talking about America 'going to war' with Iran, and instead see this for what it is: yet another shameful aggressive, imperialist military campaign against a weaker sovereign nation for the sake of material gain and strategic dominance in the Middle East.
If it happens this will not be a war against Iran, but a crime against a peaceful nation.
Democracy Now interviews Mohammad Marandi, professor at the University of Tehran who was part of the nuclear deal negotiations in 2015 and CUNY professor and historian Ervand Abrahamian about Iran.