In Defense of Iran

An 18 year-old essay on the issue that never goes away.

I wrote “In Defense of Iran” in July 2007 at the now-defunct Partial Observer. On June 21, 2025, President Trump started a war with Iran, which certain types of extremists, called neoconservatives, had demanded for decades.

A couple of things to keep in mind that were more pertinent in 2007 than today. Iran at that time had a President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whom the Western media tried to brand as a new Hitler. Additionally, the Iraq War remained the center of attention. What I thought I remembered mentioning, but apparently hadn’t because the report hadn’t yet come out yet, was that according to the “2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran[,] Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003.” (as summarized by Google Search Labs). This was echoed by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard as recently as this past March.

I also mentioned the 1979 hostage crisis. Even more so today, I believe that is still something that many Americans haven’t gotten over. I posted:

“There are a bunch of dudes in power who were young during the 1979-80 hostage crisis and never thought "we" got proper revenge. They've been wanting to bomb the snot out of Iran ever since. They never, not once, believed Iran was seeking nuclear weapons; they just wanted a pretext.”

Here is the piece:

In Defense of Iran

by James Leroy Wilson

July 7, 2007

A woman is investigated for the attempted murder of her wealthy former boyfriend, but the only "evidence" is that she had purchased some legal drugs that could be used to poison him. The police try to sway public opinion against her, claiming she's mentally imbalanced and has a rap sheet. But then they claim something rather odd, that the ex-boyfriend continually threatens her and therefore she has good reason to want to kill him. After portraying her as murderous and crazy, they then admit she'd be crazy if she didn't try to kill him just to protect herself. Oh, by the way, the ex-boyfriend also happens to be the Chief of Police, who had already killed one of his other ex-girlfriends. He got away with it because, well, he's the Chief of Police.

This is similar to the U.S.'s relationship to Iran, where the U.S. is the ex-boyfriend.

We know that Iran is developing a nuclear program, which its government says will be used for energy only. But as Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld wrote, "Obviously, we don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons and I don't know if they're developing them, but if they're not developing them, they're crazy."

In many ways, Creveld is correct. With nuclear powers not far to the east, north, and west - Russia, Pakistan, India, Israel - a nuclear deterrent would increase Iran's stature and self-determination. Also, the U.S. attacked Iraq for the mere suspicion of having WMD's, yet left North Korea alone even though it boasted of its program. It seems, then, to be in Iran's interest to develop nuclear weapons as quickly as possible to deter potential attacks from the U.S. Therefore, even without any evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, we must "logically" assume that they are.

Except for one thing. Is there a reason why the woman would not try to kill her ex-boyfriend? Obviously, yes: she's afraid she'll get arrested, especially considering everyone's suspicions about her. Isn't it also possible that Iran, while pursuing a nuclear energy program, has no plans to develop nuclear weapons precisely because it fears how other countries, particularly the U.S., would react?

After all, Iran is a signee of the Kyoto Protocol, and nuclear power is the most viable way for a country to cut down on carbon emissions. Further, Iran is a signer of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Under that treaty, Iran would face serious consequences if it got nukes, but the treaty also recognizes a country's right to develop nuclear power for peaceful uses. Because there is no evidence that Iran has violated the Treaty, international law is on Iran's side. Attacking Iran just because it is developing a nuclear program would be unprovoked aggression.

But even if Iran did get nuclear weapons, what's so scary about that? Well, the argument goes, the Iran's theocratic government is crazy and would probably start a nuclear war. What is behind this perception of Iran? Several answers come to mind.

They support terrorism. It is true that Iran has financed and trained anti-Israeli terrorists. That's Israel's problem; why should it be ours? Iran is a Shiite Muslim country; if Iran is working with Sunni extremists today, it is only to thwart their mutual enemy, the United States – and this only after the U.S. refused Iranian assistance against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. And the U.S. is an enemy primarily because it declared Iran a member of an "Axis of Evil," invaded neighboring Iraq, and refused Iranian attempts to reopen diplomatic relations.

The Ayatollah and the hostage crisis. The hostage crisis was 28 years ago, and was blowback for the CIA's 1953 coup that installed the Shah. The Ayatollah Khomeini has been dead for 19 years. While the Iranian government is theocratic, the Iranian people are probably the most pro-Western in the Middle East. The only reason they'd rally behind their government is if they were attacked.

Because President Ahmadinejad said Israel should be" wiped off the map." Except, he didn't say that. What he said is more accurately stated as, "This regime that is occupying Jerusalem must be eliminated from the pages of history." Not exactly a metaphor that translates well in English. But then again, I hope that the current neoconservative regime in Washington DC is tossed into the dustbin of history. That's not the same as saying that I want to see the United States wiped off the map.

Ahmadinejad's Holocaust Denial Conference. This was an instance of President Ahmadinejad playing to his fundamentalist base and building street cred in the Muslim world. But the Iranian people were not impressed, and a week after the conference his supporters suffered a humiliating defeat at the polls. President Ahmadinejad is not a dictator; he isn't even the most powerful person in Iran and can not start a war. Yes, a Holocaust Denial conference may offend the West, but offense is far from military aggression. And Iran hasn't been a military aggressor for several decades at least; compare that to the U.S. record.

Iran is aiding the Iraqi insurgency. Except, the Iraqi government and majority are, like Iran, Shiite Muslim, whereas Baathist insurgents and Al Qaeda terrorists are Sunni. The only evidence of Iran's involvement is the Bush-Cheney Administration, which has a disastrous record in getting the facts straight.

Nevertheless, it is true that Iran seems to have an interest in making trouble for the U.S. in Iraq. But who can blame them? Let's say China declares Norway and Sweden its enemies, and then invades and occupies Norway. Would anyone blame Sweden for aiding a Norwegian insurgency? Better for the Swedes to fight in their own defense in Norway rather than wait for the Chinese invasion of their own country.

Unless, of course, China has a powerful air force. If that is the case, and if China finds that Sweden has been aiding the insurgency, China could punish Sweden through aerial bombing. And so it is a dicier situation for the Swedes. Help the insurgents and get bombed. Or, strive for peace through diplomatic channels - but still get bombed anyway because that's what the Chinese government wanted all along.

And this is what Iran faces. It would make sense for Iran to keep the U.S. bogged down in Iraq by aiding the insurgency, just as it would make sense for Iran to develop nuclear weapons. But the Iranians are well aware that either course of action constitutes a ready excuse for the U.S. to bomb, even nuke, Iran. And Iran has no way of stopping such an attack.

The crazy, violent extremists we should worry about are not in Tehran, they're in the White House.