I'm very aware that my byline automatically makes my headline comical -- and if you're like me, your eyes head for the ceiling anytime you see an artist, actor, musician, etc. weighing in on one of the issues of the day. I'm just writing this because I haven't yet seen anyone else do it, and I'm starting to wonder a little if anyone will.
I'm writing because I'm feeling the prickling on the back of my neck that I've started to feel anytime we (meaning the American public) are being led down a road that ends in our approval of state-sanctioned violence on a large scale. It's happened a couple of times in my life now, and it's a hard feeling to ignore. Last time, I uneasily shrugged it off, not knowing what to do. I wasn't fond of Bush, but Saddam sure seemed like he had to be stopped; even Colin Powell said so, and I almost kind of liked him.
But right now, it seems we're being prepped for the possibility of military action against Iran. Maybe initiated by us, maybe by Israel, but the point is that we're being told that whatever happens, we'll play a part in it, and that it will be Inevitable. We'll likely be solemnly informed that all other options have been exhausted, that we have no choice but to act. And that the reason we have no choice is that Iran cannot be allowed to get the bomb. (This is, apparently, a reliable applause line at presidential debates). Whatever that means. Presumably war, of some kind. I'm sure someone is worrying over the details right now.
Here's the thing, though: if I were the government of Iran, running an unpopular, rigid, brutal, and hopefully brittle theocracy established in the wake of one of the 20th century's creepiest and canniest men, I would most definitely want a nuclear bomb. It seems like the best way to ensure that no one invades you. Since North Korea developed their reactor, we've been sending them food, oil, and money to keep them from using it very often, but never to the point where they actually dismantle the thing. Gaddafi bargained away his nuclear ambitions in exchange for the lifting of sanctions -- and look what happened to him. Nukes seem to be the perfect -- maybe the only -- failsafe insurance policy for regimes that no one really likes. So it seems pretty certain that Iran's going to keep trying to get one. I think everybody knows this.
So why, I keep wondering, are we being told again and again that this must not happen, if it's also an open secret that it is going to happen? What are we afraid the Iranian government might do with this bomb, once they build it? Use it? Use of a nuclear weapon is still the world's greatest taboo, sure to make you everyone's public enemy no.
1. It's hard to see how that would help them. And they do, if nothing else, seem very pragmatic.
Even the Soviets never used the bomb, and the KGB seemed at least as scary as the Revolutionary Guard. The bomb's main function seems to be as a deterrent, or as a bargaining chip. But "Iran must not be allowed to get a nuclear weapon" rhetoric's main function seems to be prepare us for a "conventional" war of some kind, in which, if experience is any guide, a lot of people would definitely be killed. Which is more dangerous?
Please don't misunderstand me -- I have no love at all for the Iranian mullahs, and I don't want them to get the bomb. I don't really want anyone to get the bomb. Too many of us have it already. But it seems like there might be worse things than Iran getting the bomb, and large-scale state-on-state violence seems like one of those worse things; it is, in fact, the one course of action that virtually guarantees the death of many innocent people. If it's too late to stop Iran from building a bomb, and it seems like it might be, then we're going to have to learn to adjust to a world where they've got it.
Maybe it wouldn't be so different from the one we're in now. North Korea is still apparently locked into its spooky psychodrama, but isn't really threatening anyone besides itself. China has nukes, but nobody seems to worry they would use them. We're tiptoeing uneasily around a fractious, but not expansionist, Pakistan. And if I remember right, the USSR ultimately crumbled under its own weight, and it was bristling with nukes it never used. It took a long time for that to happen, of course, but it did happen. Maybe we should just try to keep doggedly heading in that direction with Iran.
One of my least favorite things about Osama bin Laden -- after the fact that he plainly relished causing the deaths of a lot of people who didn't deserve to die -- is that in doing so, he enabled a huge misadventure in Iraq that resulted in the deaths of even MORE people who didn't deserve to die. And whatever the Bush administration's motives, I really think that we approved that misadventure, as a country -- or at the very least failed to prevent it -- because we were blinded by our desire for revenge against a poorly-defined enemy, and by a strange insecurity that we still have, despite our superpower status, that makes us seethe with indignation and even bloodlust when the world's weirdest governments thumb their noses at us. Isn't that playground stuff? Shouldn't we have outgrown that by now? How else are we supposed to separate ourselves from the bin Ladens of the world, for whom personal vendettas and megalomania justify the killing of thousands?
I realize that it's one thing to say all this from where I'm sitting in middle America, and another to say it from within the range of Iranian missiles, where I'd at the very least feel much more uneasy. But I don't know if that unease would lead me toward intellectual clarity. I kind of doubt it.
All I mean to say is that before we, as Americans, start falling in step with the drums again, it seems worth taking a really hard look at what facts we can discern, to avoid the temptations of worst- and best-case scenarios, and to make up our own minds about what has to be Inevitable rather than having our opinions handed to us. And that's true whether whether we're merchants or foreign policy experts or teachers or servicemen or nurses or restaurant workers or musicians or whatever. As citizens, we have a stake in what our country does, and, in sufficient numbers, even some ability to affect it.
So: tell me I'm wrongheaded, tell me I'm naïve, tell me I'm thinking about this backwards, but let's at least agree to talk about this rationally, publicly, and exhaustively, as a country. We didn't really do it last time. As far as I can tell, we regret it.
Robert Naiman: Can Joe Lieberman Block Diplomacy With Iran That Would Prevent War?
I've sort of gotten the feeling that Iran is doing this just to piss off America. The idea that a radically different nation chooses to defy our sanctions almost seems blatant mockery, although it's truly a reasonable desire for a nation to want security, especially one that is so famously militarized. Of course, this is probably not the case, but it's funny to think of seeing how badly it's bunched our panties.
The sad part of this is that it is much more serious. NO ONE needs more bombs. But even if Iran is pursuing them with their nuclear prowess or not, I too feel that the US is leading our people into a self-fulfilling prophecy. The situation is so (purposely) cloudy that we will likely not know before we react. I can bet we will invade or attack "preemptively." And it's a no-brainer with how deeply we have our hands in the collective skivvies of Israel and Saudi Arabia. Not to mention the figurative gold-mine of both securing the oil fields and removing a troublesome regime simultaneously that seems irresistible to US/Israel.
Iran has power to deprive the West from Oil which is ten time more powerful than any atomic bomb.
If Iran is attacked she could target close-by Saudi Oil Fields with almost a million short range missile again and again for ever. The West will collapse soon or later under economical stress. Also Iran can use Iraq and send troops to take over Saudi fields. Also Iran can give Shia population in Saudi Arabia to control the oil fields, after all the Oil in Saudi Arabia is areas where shia population live.
Iran cannot nuke Israel even if Iran had a nuke. Israel is home to the second holy place for Muslims and Israel is so little that a nuke destroy all of it, including the holy site
Iran retaliate with conventional weapons against Israel. The attack will result in half of Israelis leave the country. So Israel better knows the consequences of attacking Iran.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvZJEBVit68&feature=player_embedded
If Iran is attacked it is not for nukes. It is either for Oil or it is for geopolitical power.
I agree that Iran will not dare strike at Israel with nuclear weapons. Israel has second-strike capability and far more nuclear weapons then Iran would have.
I don't see what you mean by Iran attacking Israel with conventional weapons. You mean rockets? Israel has experience with rocket attacks from Hezbollah and Hamas and the US had be targeting their launch sites. LOL at you for saying half of Israel's population would flee. Israel has withstood 13 wars of varying size since it came into being. The Israel people aren't going anywhere.
The one thing I agree with is Iran could cause great damage to the world's oil supply by shooting missiles at Saudi Arabia's oil infrastructure.
Nationalism plays a big part in this inevitable involvement that we find ourselves in. When it comes down to these issues, we're not only trying to prevent countless innocent deaths but also trying to sustain some form of national pride.
I whole heartedly agree with this guy, I don't want them to have the bomb as much I don't want anyone of us to have a weapon of mass destruction but it does act as an insurance policy. It's like a sick version of a Mexican stand off but with much higher stakes.
I'm sure that if it came down to Iran acquiring such a device, we would see quite an incline in speculation and much more fearful citizens taking pre cautious steps when it comes to criticizing Iran.
You should know that detonating a nuke does not necessaril¬y require the whole nation's will. It can easily be done by the push of a bottom by somebody crazy feeling himself in that second world.
Have you heard Iranian leaders giving comments like "We should wipe out Israel..."¬. Have you ever thought about that statement?¬, how can a president say such a statement in a world like today's?? It's because the sometimes live in that second world.
Did soviets, or do communists in China and North Korea look to the world this same way? Don't know but I don't think so.
What happens if for example several nukes are detonated in big cities around the world and we find out that Iranian extremists were behind it. Shall we then say we maid a mistake. We should have though about it before? Today is that day before.
Actually soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, said they were going to bury the west, and unlike Iran they had nukes. So did the Chinese. North Koreans on a daily basis threaten destruction of US and South Korea. On the other hand Iran said something about the regime occupying Jerusalem, or Israeli regime, i.e. a regime change in Israel.
Are you sure you being an Israeli hasn't fogged you mind?
Thast pretty much it.
I suppose at that point Israel will publicy announch that it has nukes and maybe Suadia Arabia too. Then we're in a stand off like Pakistan and india or North and South Korea.
I mean, this is not exaclty a novel experiance here!
Nuclear weapons are troubling in the extreme, but are basically doomsday devices to deter attack. In an age of precision guided munitions, they are semi-obsolete. You don't need mega blast to destroy a target, you ram a fast moving chunk of concrete into something.
There was a time when planners talked about fighting nuclear campaigns, before risks of radiation and nuclear winter were fully appreciated. It doesn't take many bombs to devastate a region. The trick is knowing how many is too many, and nobody really knows.
If Iran got a few bombs, and used them on Israel, Iran would almost certainly devastate, if not obliterate, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Gaza and the occupied territories. Not to mention Iran, if the wind blows right. Iran wouldn't have to wait to see, because Israel, bomb club member, has credible second strike capability, and would use it.
Doomsday weapons are meant to deter, and they do. No nukes have been used in anger, excepting the first two. Israel and the West don't want to see Iran with the bomb and will do what they can to delay them. If Iran wants a bomb badly enough, it will get one. Israel will respond by beefing up its second strike capability; maybe try and build an ABM, although that is technically dubious. Nations learn to live with the bomb, but not to love it.
Also, since most of Iran's neighbors are ways off from producing electricity, Iran has an opportunity to become a corridor for electricity export.
Also, if you can take a look at the map of Iran, it is quite obvious that for a big country like that (about a third of mainland US), transferring oil from south to north or vice versa is not always cost productive, especially over mountainous train.
Iran can also export oil and fund development projects such as railways, airports, commercial airliners, housing projects, fresh water projects.
No rational, logical, and educated person can take a five minute look at Iran's resources, demographics, geopolitical situation, and industrial developments and not realize that it MUST - ABSOLUTELY MUST - develop nuclear energy for its national power grid - specially since it has already invested $3 billion for its civilian nuclear program.
Anyone who wishes to deny Iran's right for nuclear energy is a racist and believes in slavery and world domination. Justice and Equality is the right every person and every nation on earth, unless one believes in fascism ..
http://writersviews.com/article-demonization-prelude-to-war.php
Lesson of Chernobyl - dont build dual use RBMKs with positive void coefficients
Lesson of Fukushima - dont let antinukes make you think the world is coming to an end