Why should we be angry at Iran

I touched on this topic last night, but it deserves its own discussion.

Does it really matter if Iran is providing weapons to our enemies?

In this case, Iran's biggest crime, maybe, is that they might have done what the US has done for generations: armed their enemies. In 1914-1917, the US armed Britain/France/Russia against Germany. When Germany did what W says he will do to Iran for doing what we did to Germany and started sinking American ships supplying arms to Britain, we got really, really pissed.

In 1939-41, we again armed Britain/France/Russia, but the Germans did not take any action to stop us, and only took any action against the US when the US justifiably declared war on Germany's ally, Japan.

The closest example I can think of is the US armed Afghanis after the Soviet Invasion, just like Iran is accused--without any evidence, mind you--of doing in Iraq. Should the USSR have attacked the US for supplying stingers to the Afghani mujahadin?

If the US had followed the new Bush War Escalation Principle, in Korea the US would also have fought Russia; during Vietnam, we would have invaded Laos, Cambodia, China and Russia, and probably Czechosolvakia, Rumania and Bulgaria, among others. In the American Revolution, France and the US would have fought the first World War, against German and Britain. The Civil War would have seen the US fight Britain for supplying arms to the Confederacy.

What we are seeing here is a new, ultra-aggressive strategy being toyed with by W. If he, in fact, does use Iranian arms shipments to justify any war against Iran, then he will set a precedent: virtually every war will be a world war, with the arms suppliers being also drawn in as participants.

Of course, the biggest loser will be the USA. America is by far the world's largest arms exporter, providing more weapons around the world than the next 3 largest combined. Thus, in virtually every two-bit war in the world, the enemy would include all arms suppliers, including the US. This would justify terrorist attacks on the US, because most nations cannot afford a conventional war with the US, and do not have the logistical capability to actually attack us.

This is a dangerous precedent that W appears to be toying with, but so far, no one seems to be questining the underlying assumption that supplying arms is not an act of war, but is business as usual by many nations, most notably the USA.