H 23°, L 4° | Tomorrow: 
H 21°, L 6°Much has been made lately of Iran's move to acquire nuclear weapons. The blogosphere has been ablaze with condemnation, as exemplified in this quote from Oregon blogger New Sisyphus: "It pains me to say this, but it can no longer be in doubt: we are going to war again, probably soon, and in the not-too-distant future, the weekend we're having right now will be looked back upon as the 'good old days.'" From Jonah Goldberg to the UW's Hillel chapter, the brewing fight with Iran seems to be "the good war" all over again.
This is insane. With just a little thought, it should be obvious to anyone that a nuclear Iran is no more or less a threat than a non-nuclear Iran.
The big threat Iran poses, according to the "Iran Must Go" camp, is its ability to fulfill its claims of wiping Israel off the map in a grand nuclear strike. Really, all it would take is one nuclear missile hitting Jerusalem to end the game — the resulting spread of radiation would finish off the rest of the country. And Iran has certainly been talking tough about the Zionist Entity lately.
But to anyone willing to go beyond simple rhetoric, it should be obvious that this is far from a worry. According to all reliable experts, Iran has vast quantities of chemical and biological weapons. And no one denies Iran's close ties with terrorist groups — especially Hizbollah, a group dedicated to wiping Israel off the map. So why haven't the Iranians armed their terrorist friends with chemical bombs? For that matter, why haven't the Iranians recruited some of the terrorists they've been sending across the Iraq border to carry out chem/bio attacks on American military bases?
The simple answer: Iran is a logical, sane country. The mullahs who are so dedicated to ending the existence of Israel are even more dedicated to the continued existence of Iran. A chemical attack on Israel or American outposts in Iraq would be pretty quickly pinned on Iran. A nuclear attack would be even more quickly traceable — every nuclear device leaves a distinctive "fingerprint" pointing to its country of origin. Iran knows that if it tried to carry out any kind of WMD attack on anyone, it would become a premier tourist attraction as the world's first and only glass parking lot. Iran knows this. And because the Iranian leadership — yes, even the current president — isn't blindingly stupid, they will act within these boundaries.
Indeed, we may see that Iran's possession of a nuke would bring about some very beneficial changes. Once armed with the ultimate weapon, Iran's xenophobia — and the oppressive internal police force that rests on a fear of insecurity — will be exposed. The mullahs would be forced to end their rhetoric of the threat of the Great Satan.
Once the illusory external threat is defended against, Iranians will have no reason to support the hardliners who ostensibly are protecting the country now. The regime will have to start actually providing for its people. This is, of course, the one thing it really isn't equipped to do. Reformist president Khatami came to power during the 1990s, when the threat of foreign attack was at a low ebb. Faced with military "parity" with the West and internal stagnation, Iran will look increasingly like the Soviet Union of the 1980s — and will meet the same end.
There is no good reason to attack Iran. Such an act would serve only to further distance the long-suffering Iranian people from the freedom they so deserve by driving them back into the arms of the mullahs. America must stand by the Iranian people — we must continue to call for their freedom. But like Reagan calling for the Berlin Wall to be torn down, military strikes are not the answer. Instead of a knee-jerk missile strike, real understanding and rational action must be our guide in dealing with Iran. An attack would serve only to ruin the hopes of both American policy and the Iranian people.
Steve Schwerbel ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in international studies, political science and history.
IP hash: 575b09e0
As in the 1930s, too, the West fell back on wishful thinking. Perhaps, some said, Ahmadinejad was only sabre-rattling because his domestic position was so weak. Perhaps his political rivals in the Iranian clergy were on the point of getting rid of him. In that case, the last thing the West should do was to take a tough line; that would only bolster Ahmadinejad by inflaming Iranian popular feeling. So in Washington and in London people crossed their fingers, hoping for the deus ex machina of a home-grown regime change in Teheran.
This gave the Iranians all the time they needed to produce weapons-grade enriched uranium at Natanz. The dream of nuclear non-proliferation, already interrupted by Israel, Pakistan and India, was definitively shattered. Now Teheran had a nuclear missile pointed at Tel-Aviv. And the new Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu had a missile pointed right back at Teheran.
The optimists argued that the Cuban Missile Crisis would replay itself in the Middle East. Both sides would threaten war - and then both sides would blink. That was Secretary Rice’s hope - indeed, her prayer - as she shuttled between the capitals. But it was not to be.
The devastating nuclear exchange of August 2007 represented not only the failure of diplomacy, it marked the end of the oil age. Some even said it marked the twilight of the West. Certainly, that was one way of interpreting the subsequent spread of the conflict as Iraq’s Shi’ite population overran the remaining American bases in their country and the Chinese threatened to intervene on the side of Teheran.
Yet the historian is bound to ask whether or not the true significance of the 2007-2011 war was to vindicate the Bush administration’s original principle of pre-emption. For, if that principle had been adhered to in 2006, Iran’s nuclear bid might have been thwarted at minimal cost. And the Great Gulf War might never have happened.
http://opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/01/15/do1502.xml
IP hash: 575b09e0
We would have been on the Iran side of the Iran/Iraq War if Jimmy Carter hadn’t screwed up. There would never have been either a Gulf War I or II. No Gulf War I = No 9-11, because no US troops in Saudi to piss off OBL.
Carter was the worst President during my lifetime.
Too bad for the Shah of Iran that he was pro-American and, during Arab oil embargoes, the chief oil supplier to Israel. If the Shah had instead been a Marxist friend of the Soviet Union and renamed his nation the Peoples Socialist Republic of Iran, Jimmy Carter would instantly have ceased all criticism of the Shah's political prisoners and other human rights violations. Jimmy Carter has a very selective, pro-socialist definition of "human rights."
Let's be frank. If President Jimmy Carter had been a secret Soviet agent he could scarcely have done more to harm America than he did as a Leftist "idealist." His every effort since being thrown out by the American people has also been to harm our nation's friends and give aid and comfort to America's enemies.
During his first term Jimmy Carter destroyed half the life savings of every American in what should be remembered as the greatest act of theft in human history. When he took office every dollar in your life savings was worth one dollar. When Carter left office after helping cause the highest inflation since the Civil War, every dollar had lost more than half its value, its purchasing power.
http://frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3843
Carter Sold Out Iran 1977-1978 http://www.iranianvoice.org/article774.html
IP hash: 2935e42f
And after Iran gets nukes, how can we object to Syria and Libya and Afghanistan getting theirs? A country like Libya would never commit a terrorist act like blowing up an American airplan as it flew from from London to New York, flying only part way over Lockerbie, Scotland. Especially when that terrorist act could be easily traced back to high officials in the Libyan government. And Afghanistan will never be taken over by a group of radical Islamists called the Taliban who help an international terrorist group commit the mass murder of almost 3000 people in the American capitals of finance and government. Oh wait. That did happen. And the Iranian government will never be led by a radical Ayatollah who would capture hundreds of American diplomats and hold them hostage for 14 1/2 months.
If we only give them nuclear weapons, they will reform their government and feed their people. Dream on Mr. Schwerbel.
When the diplomacy fails, we won’t need to go to war with Iran. Targeted strikes with bunker busting bombs will do most of the work. If necessary, we can send in some special forces to take care of the rest. And satellite imagery can help target prophylactic bombing of any suspect construction projects to come. Until Iran rejoins the civilized world.
IP hash: 7ab1b693
I hope that we don’t need to go to war again, but I don’t really think that you made a good argument as to why we don’t. All you seem to be saying is “Sure Iran is dangerous and illogical, but they won’t hurt anyone because they are so logical.”
IP hash: 2b3a1531
A needed call for calm among the media sensationalism. Though you may be giving Ahmadinejad more rationality than he deserves.
IP hash: dbe64bd9
As an Iranian American who hates mullahs and why I live in the US, I couldn’t agree with you more. At this point in time I fear US government as a much bigger danger to the world than the Iranian government. Thank you for your thoughtful and educated opinion. Parviz
IP hash: c4dd6f9e
Bring the troops home! First from Germany, Japan and Korea. Then from everywhere else.
Put them on the borders. Enforce all immigration laws.
Build nuclear plants and run everything on electricity - we have enough oil to grease our wheels - import no oil.
Eliminate the income tax and run the government on import duties.
Let the world police itself for a few decades.
The USA can get along without the rest of the world much better than the world can get along without the USA.
IP hash: e4c43dc5
I have an idea: let’s have the CIA introduce happy-slapping in Iran. It’s been all the rage in the UK. They’ll be so caught up against themselves over it that a civil war will eventually break out. That should keep the blokes occupied for a time.
Ta-ta!
IP hash: 2acaba5a
You wrote:
“Indeed, we may see that Iran's possession of a nuke would bring about some very beneficial changes. Once armed with the ultimate weapon, Iran's xenophobia — and the oppressive internal police force that rests on a fear of insecurity — will be exposed. The mullahs would be forced to end their rhetoric of the threat of the Great Satan.”
We were the first ones with Nukes…now the masses are being swept into a neo-xenophobia and even though our “oppressive internal police force” (NSA authorized by Bush to spy on US citizens) has been exposed, we still listen to our “Dear Leader” and forgive his mistakes after the story has left the press for a couple of weeks. We have no reason to blame Iran for anything…we are acting the same way.
IP hash: a471a470
To the last poster: complaining about legal wiretaps is getting old. It’s even more funny Congress knew about it for a year and didn’t say anything until election year rolled around. Hmmm…who’s stirring up the pot and trying to cause trouble? Get a life.