Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

Deja Vu - Reason to invade Iran morphs from WMDs to regime change

Reported by Chrish - March 28, 2007 -

A recent poll cited by Bill O'Reilly said that 43% of persons polled said the US should use military force to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, while 47% said the US should not use military force in that case. The "shoulds" are down a full 5% since the last poll 8 months ago. Accordingly, John Gibson and Judge Andrew Napolitano began floating the idea of using military force to affect "regime change" in Iran, on The Big Story today 3/28/07.

The initial segment with guests Simon Marks (FOX News Contributor) and Walid Phares (FOX News Terror Analyst) where impartial journalist Gibson said the sailors are "being held hostage in an international game of blackmail", served to inform viewers that Brits are increasingly "enraged" at the video released today ( we saw the sailors eating a meal and the female sailor, who was wearing a headscarf, smoked a cigarette). Phares said this appears to have been authored by Tehran and intended to show the people of Iran their power. Marks, much more excitedly, said that if Iran doesn't release the sailors quickly Britain will have to consider a military action (which of course drags the US in.) Britain needs to understand if this was orchestrated from Tehran, or if it was a "rogue" operator, and now Tehran has to clean up after it.

At this point Gibson brought in Judge Andrew Napolitano (JAN). Gibson and the judge discussed the legality of what the Iranians are doing, and possible recourse. Gibson asked if it's a violation of international law to "grab hostages" in the first place, and to "parade them around on international television" (as FOX repeatedly looped the video - sailors in boat, eating a meal, smoking). The banner read "Hostages on parade: is Iran violating international law?"

JAN said that IF the sailors were in Iranian waters, it was lawful to seize them; if they were in Iraqi waters, which a GPS reading from the British indicates, it was unlawful. Parading them before a camera, he said, is indisputably unlawful; there's a chapter in one of the Geneva Conventions that expressly prohibits that. But "where do the Brits go for redress, other than out of the mouth of a gun?"

Gibson put up one of his trademark lame graphics and fumbled reading it. JAN got the point, which was that nothing is ever done about iran, who keeps doing this. They cited the hostage crisis of 1979 (they're already doing a "Day 6" count, a not-so-subtle reminder) and concluded "they do this at will" and they never get punished, they never have to pay a serious enough price. There is no court of law to handle it, there's just the court of public opinion and military action.

Gibson asked, if there's no way to make them pay for it, doesn't that leave the rest of the world in the position that the only thing they can do is make war on them? JAN answered "Is to make regime change, to bring about regime change. There's some thought that it might come about by domestic insurrection, but you're right (huh?), regime change is the only thing that can stop this from happeneing. (Regime change may have been Gibson's line but apparently he flubbed it.) This is their way; they got away with it in 1979/80, and if these people are released unharmed, they'll probably get away with it again.

So, people are not buying the nuclear scare this time around - maybe they'll fall for "regime change" - or maybe not. Ironically, it appears maybe people will tolerate even worse behavior than they would have before the Iraq mess because they don't want a repeat disaster in another country.