An Excuse for War: Neocons & the Iranian Hostage Crisis
As Reaction co-blogger Libby mentioned yesterday, neocon leader Bill Kristol has argued that Iran should have been threatened with war over its capture of 15 British sailors and marines. Although he talks about avoiding war — the only way to avoid war is to be tough, he suggests — what he actually supports is a policy of threat-based engagement with Iran that could, and perhaps should, lead to war. Does Kristol think the U.S. should go to war with Iran? How could such reckless engagement not be taken to be a prelude to war? If he supports being tough, he must support following through on the threats and going to war.
Regardless, Kristol thinks that the hostage crisis, including apparently its diplomatic resolution, was “a real humiliation for the British” that also “strengthened the worst forces in Iran by making them think they can push the West around”. And he’s not alone. Others on the right, the neocon right, have made that very same point. One of them is noted Kristol cause célèbre John Bolton.
In a piece in the Financial Times, also published at the AEI website — I will mention a few points here, but do check it out for further insight into the neocon mind — Bolton argues that the release of the hostages, Iran’s “gift,” was “a political victory” for Iranian President Ahmadinejad and other Iranian hardliners: “Against all odds, Iran emerged with a win-win from the crisis: winning by its provocation in seizing the hostages in the first place and winning again by its unilateral decision to release them.” He claims that “the incident was deliberate and strategic,” “a low-cost way of testing British and allied resolve”.
In Bolton’s view, the British and the allies failed that test. Bolton blames the British for “surrender[ing] without a shot fired in self-defence”. He blames Prime Minister Blair for not being confrontational and for pursuing “discussions” with Tehran. He blames the United Nations and the European Union for doing nothing. And he blames the U.S. for remaining silent, though it did so, as he acknowledges, “at Britain’s behest”.
The result is an “emboldened” Iran — “it probed and found weakness.” And “[t]he world will be a more dangerous place as a result”. After all, “it is even less likely there will be a negotiated solution to the nuclear weapons issue,” and Iran now “has every incentive to ratchet up its nuclear weapons programme, increase its support to Hamas, Hizbollah and others and perpetrate even more serious terrorism in Iraq”.
Let me make two points in response:
1) Iran may or may not feel “emboldened,” but the fact remains that the 15 sailors and marines were returned safely to Britain. Either diplomacy (“discussions”) worked or Iran realized it couldn’t hold them indefinitely without suffering the consequences of what could be deemed an act of war. Either way, Britain achieved its desired outcome without resorting to the threat of war and consequentially to an escalation in its already tense relationship with Iran, or to another act, such as the threat of further sanctions, that could have contributed to escalation.
Kristol and Bolton, inter alia, may argue that Britain (and, with it, the U.S.) should have been tougher with Tehran, but what would this have meant? Aside from risking the lives of the 15 sailors and marines, a tougher response would have contributed to an escalation of the situation. Yes, Iran started it — the capture of the sailors and marines was a blatant act of escalation — but it hardly follows that a reckless act should be followed by a reckless response. If that’s the game, then war is inevitable. And, indeed, that seems to be precisely what Kristol, Bolton, et al. want. But, again, what should Blair have done? Should he have threatened a military strike on Iran? Should he have made the first move? It’s one thing to threaten — and it ought to be remembered that many of those pushing for war have never actually been to war, hence the term “chickenhawk” — it’s quite another to follow through on threats. What if Iran hadn’t blinked in response to a threat? Or what if Iran had responded to a threat with yet more escalation?
And yet I have no doubt that Britain considered all options, including the ones that would have appealed to Kristol, Bolton, and their ilk, before choosing to pursue “discussions” and asking the U.S. to back off. It presumably chose a course of action that it deemed to be most likely of success (the release of the hostages and the peaceful resolution to the crisis). It may be easy to second-guess world leaders like Blair from the cozy confines of the AEI or PNAC, but the real world, which neocons tend to see as some sort of lab experiment for the realization of their armchair ideology, is rather more complex than their worldview can handle.
2) Bolton argues that Iran will now be less likely to accept “a negotiated solution to the nuclear weapons issue”. He qualifies this, however: “not that there was ever much chance of one.” This is revealing.
Kristol, Bolton, and their warmongering allies do not think that a diplomatic resolution to the Iranian nuclear crisis is possible. They may talk about peace, but they envision a future, a near-future, of war. The U.S. “came closer to war with Iran this week,” as Kristol put it, but they do not lament that fact — if indeed it is a fact. They see war with Iran as inevitable and they desire war sooner rather than later. Which is to say, they have every interest in promoting escalation. They wanted Britain and the U.S. to be tough on Iran in response to the hostage crisis not because such toughness would prevent war in the long-run but because it would accelerate the escalation to war in the short-run.
In short, they want an excuse for war. This is why they played up those unsubstantiated allegations that Iran was arming Iraqi insurgents and militias. This is why they play up the threat of Iran’s nuclear program. And this is why they find such fault with how the Iranian hostage crisis was handled and resolved. It was just the sort of excuse they were looking for.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
47 Responses to “An Excuse for War: Neocons & the Iranian Hostage Crisis”
I agree with almost everything you wrote in this post. Great article, it’s well argued.
I do think you need to question this statement though:
Are you sure that’s true? Hasn’t the United States been capturing Iranians for months now? Weren’t the British in disputed waters far from home?
I hate to burst your bubble but it is NOT just the Neocon right wanting to bash Iran.
The liberal left is lining up for a shot at them too.
Michael;
Let me see if I can piece together a call for the West to have taken – or, at the least, threatened, military action against Iran for its seizing the British sailors that isn’t an excuse to accelerate the war some think we’re going to have with Iran over other issues, in particular their pursuing of nuclear weapons…
A ‘fear’ in any confrontation is that Side A will underestimate the Side B’s determination to ‘win’ the confrontation. As such, where Side A might have backed down had they known Side B would respond in a certain way (let’s call this Response X) that would be a net negative to Side A, Side A holds firm thinking that Side B will limit its response (Response Y) to such that Side A considers a net positive.. at which point Side B responds with Response X and leaves Side A worse off than if Side A had backed off a bit.
Imagine though, if Side B is able, through a somewhat unrelated issue, to make Side A think that Side B will respond with Response X, then Side A may decide to not act in ways that Side B will respond with Response X.
Put another, with no Xs and As and Bs, if England and the US responded militarily to this hostage situation, Iran may very well have figured that, if England and the US were willing to use the military for such a relatively minor issue, then they would most certainly respond militarily to the bigger threat posed by Iran’s continuing to pursue nuclear weapons… and while Iran may decide to forge ahead even under that threat, it is possible that Iran might decide it had more to lose from being attacked militarily than it would gain by continuing to pursue nukes (and which, because of the military action, might not end up with in any event)… and if that were the outcome, then using military action now might have precluded the war that you think the neocons are so hot for.
steve,
So we go to war with Iran over the hostages so that we avoid going to war with them over the nukes?
Shouldn’t we be trying to avoid death and destruction?
Of course, what Bolton and co. neglect to mention is that thanks to their own idiotic war in Iraq, we cannot win any war with Iran. The Iranians know that, so they can push us around at will. Thanks Bush.
Chris -
Both you and Michael, in your desire to be pacifistic to any all threats short of direct attack upon us first, fail to understand what true failing for the West and win for Iran this was.
You cannot ignore the culture of the Middle East in these situations. To have shown the West to be weak and unwilling to stand up to Iran’s aggression is a HUGE victory for Iran and their standing.
What the UK did, and whatever help we gave them, is NOT perceived as restraint, but weakness and cowardice. And their culture absolutely believes the weak are to be abused and disrespected, and only those who are strong are worthy of respect and honor.
Ignoring these realities would be like trying to interact with China or Japan while giving no credence to the concept of ‘face’.
It doesn’t matter what Western viewpoints are on either of those issues, they define how both individuals and institutions will act.
Yes, threatening military action, and even pursuing it if necessary, over the hostages would decrease the likelihood of armed conflict over the nuclear issues.
At the least, Iran has now confirmed in their minds that the British will have no stomach for confrontation, and can be ignored.
Check this out if you want an insight into the mind of the Left.
href=”http://www.oboylephoto.com/state_hospital/index.htm”>
Reuters. Gunman takes several hostages after bungling a heist of the local 7-11. AFter a 15 day standoff In which the gunmen lined the hostages up one by one and threatened to shoot them if his demands were not met the Hostages were finally released and all is well with the world. The Gunman “Who said I offered you a gift because it was Sunday.” was offered brownies and escorted to jail where he was told to not do that again and after promising so was released on his own recognizance.
Cnn Reporting. Local Liberals exclaimed. “What a great day. The hostages were released unharmed and the perpetrator now understands the errors of his way.”
However the Republican owner of the 711 bemoaned the fact that the hostages and Gunman ate several thousand dollars worth of store merchandise and in the exultation of the moment forgot to take the bag of money the gunman was holding. “Im out 1000′s.”
“Typical Neocon.” Said a local Liberal Official. “All they care about is right and wrong. They could care less about this gunmans feelings.”
“I bet he didn’t know that the gunmen has a sore tooth and was just robbing the 711 to get money for his dentist bill.”
The local Republican sherrif was livid. When asked why he was so upset he responded. “Not only did they give him back his gun. They offered to give him a bigger gun if he promised not to rob any more 7-11′s. But thats not the worst of it. They offered him a new house, a Caddilac SUV and 1 million dollars if he promised to behave.”
“He refused until they threw in all the drugs he could handle.”
“Back to you mort. While this standoff was finally peacefully resolved some of the local Republicans are quite upset with how the situation was handled. But all in all its been a good day down here on the corner of 5th and Wall Street.”
I repeat: “So we go to war with Iran over the hostages so that we avoid going to war with them over the nukes?”
How does that make any sense? I still don’t even understand how Iran is a grave threat to the United States or Britain.
What the people advocating war seem to forget is that we could easily lose such a war. If we haven’t already lost the war in Iraq we are certainly on the cusp of doing so. Iran is 3 times the area and population with a MUCH more formidable military than Saddam had.
Yes, we could rain death and destruction in Iran with our air power but are the war mongers prepared for the possible outcomes. Starting a war with Iran could lead to a Shite uprising in Iraq with thousands of American deaths. Look at the havoc 20,000 to 30,000 insurgents are causing in Iraq today. What kind of havoc and death could 500,000 insurgents yield. The Straits of Hormuz will be closed with the cost of oil reaching $200/br or more. The economic repurcussions are enormous. Certainly, Hezbollah will rise up in support with Israel coming under devastating rocket fire. This could embolden the Palestinians to send a million people marching on Jerusalem and overwhelming the Israeli’s. Is Israel prepared to lose thousands of people to Iranian and Syrian rocket fire?
As everyone knows War brings unintended consequences. Losing is a distinct possibility with attendant losses in lives, treasury and International standing.
Chris comment 1: yes, we should be trying to avoid death and destruction, but sometimes the best one can hope for is to minimize the death and destruction that results from two sides pursuing objectives the other side deems harmful to its national interests.
Chris comment 2: do you disagree that having slapfight with a neighbor over a trivial issue, while deplorable on its own, is preferable if that allowed the two of you to avoid a shooting fight over some other issue? And what part of Iran being a threat to the United States do you not understand? The part where Iran is helping those killing Americans in Iraq and elsewhere around the world? The part where they are pursuing nuclear weapons?
Elrod: agreed in full. Had we gotten out three years ago, we would be in a much stronger position to influence Iran’s behavior as well as a stronger position to respond if they continue to purse policies harmful to the United States.
And to follow up on AustinRoth’s comment: Iran knows (or ought to know) there is a point at which we’ll use military force. The question is where on the scale of provocations does that line fall? Had Britain used military action in the hostage crisis, Iran would know that they were inviting military action for everything we deemed as serious as the hostage taking – and thus might have avoided provoking us to the point where we used the military. However, having not used the military here, Iran still doesn’t know where that line is and they may make the mistake of continuing their work on nukes thinking that wouldn’t result in military action.
jdledell: any and all that you describe, while bad, would be preferable to Iran getting and using a nuclear weapon against its enemies. So Hezbollah rains rockets down on Israel; I think Israel would prefer that over Hezbollah bringing one of Iran’s nukes into Israel. So the Shiites rise up in Iraq; bad, but still far less bad than Iran having nukes. Remember, losing a war is not defined as the absence of bad things, it is defined as not accomplishing your objectives, or accomplishing your objectives but a price steeper than the benefits of accomplishing your objectives.
I would just add here that I am definitely not a pacifist. There are times and places for war. I would not argue, for example, that the U.S. should not have entered WWII. I would not even argue that the U.S. should not have gone to war in Afghanistan. I even supported the Iraq War (before I was against it once the truth came out). I just do not see how going to war with Iran at the present time would be a good idea. The U.S. is already bogged down in Iraq and I hardly think what the Middle East needs now is a regional war that includes a budding nuclear power bent on regional domination.
Michael: indulge me, if you may. If now is a bad time for war with Iran, when would be a good time? and if now is not a good time, then is it safe to presume you think the benefits of waiting to have this war outweigh the negatives of waiting?
The most important factor when considering a threat of force to coerce an adversary is to determine if that adversary will view such a threat as credible. In other words, threats of force do no coerce, credible threats of force do. Most of the Neocons seem to assume that all threats of force are credible threats – they are not.
Iran came to two conclusions prior to embarking on this blatantly aggressive action. First, they targeted the British because they knew the British by themselves could not respond with a credible threat of force. Secondly, they determined that the US would not attack Iran for the British. So, had we or the Brits threatened military action, it’s unlikely the Iranians would have been deterred because they viewed such threats as empty. Had we gone ahead and made the threat anyway, and the Iranians did not budge, then we’d find ourselves in a quandary – attack and become engaged in a third war in the region, or back down and materially damage the coercive power of any future threat of force.
AustinRoth said:
That is true in principle. Ronald Reagan used that to great effect. When Reagan threatened military action, his threats were credible threats. Shelling Lebanon, the attack on Libya, the sinking of 1/3 of the Iranian Navy.
The issue is, how do you demonstrate a credible threat of military action without it exploding into a wider war? That’s tough in the case with Iran. Were we not in Iraq, we would have much more freedom of action. The Iranians correctly calculated that we would not risk it, as our supply lines for our force in Iraq are relatively easy for Iran to interdict.
Austin is also correct that this incident probably will increase the chance for war with Iran. The chance for Iran to miscalculate and assume we won’t attack them over the nuclear program has gone up. Iran believes we can be deterred. Saddam made the same miscalculation.
And, Ironically, this is one reason we need to talk to Iran. Only in private one-on-one talks will we be able to convey to them where our red line is and demonstrate that if they cross it, we will attack them. The purpose of private talks is not always negotiation, but more often mutual understanding. Iran must be made to understand our determination that they not get a nuclear weapon. You can’t make them understand using public diplomacy.
BTW – I want to make it clear that I do not think war with Iran is a good or desirable thing. At most, I do support tactical air-strikes to prevent them from developing an atomic weapon, but that is as far as it goes.
I just don’t believe that appeasement and conciliatory gestures work in the Middle East. You can only successfully negotiate from a position of strength in that region.
Steve,
I guess I just don’t believe the worst case scenarios about the threat than Iran poses. Especially when the threat is being touted by the same boobs who brought us the Iraq War. Have these people been right about anything in the last 6 years?
I think the risks of war outweigh the risks of a nuclear armed Iran.
We have bigger fish to fry. Securing loose nukes in Russia, finding a good way to withdraw from Iran, stabilizing the situation in Pakistan and fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Mind-boggling.
Apologies, Michael, I share your sentiment, but it was a bit humorous to see this line reappear after all these years!
A leaders of a nuclear armed Iran would know that the day they launched a nuclear strike would likely be their last day on earth. I just don’t see it happening.
More to the point, I think it’s illogical for us to expect Iran NOT to try to get nuclear weapons. They’ve seen what happened to Iraq and Afghanistan, and what didn’t happen to India, Pakistan and North Korea.
Put yourself in their shoes for a few minutes.
yeah, but that’s the mindset we have to deal with. me, I can’t think of too much worse than Iran with nuclear weapons.
And, Chris, the threat is not just coming from the same boobs, it is coming from Iran itself. Maybe, like Hussein, they’re engaged in some chest-chumping and don’t have what they claim to have, nor will they use it as they threaten to. But in this day and age, I, unlike many at this ‘moderate’ blog, think it is far better to attack 10 by mistake than to not attack the 1 who really needs to be attacked. If Iran wants to talk like they’re a threat and they want to act like they’re a threat, then I’m going to treat them like they’re a threat. And if we treat them as a threat and it turns out that they’re in fact not a threat, then the misery we inflict on them is their own darn fault.
So, Chris, I assume you support, at at least have no problem, with ANY other county getting nuclear weapons. In fact, according to your logic, the more the merrier, and ALL countries should strive to have nuclear weapons, to make the world a safer place.
Because we can be sure that fanatics will NEVER get control of a nuclear capable government, nor think their cause so righteous, so glorious, so Divine, that nuclear holocaust is the correct solution.
Madness.
Now is a bad time for war with Iran because –
1). we don’t have the ground forces available to handle the regional repercussions – and there will be significant repercussions.
2). Even the troops in harm’s way now are not properly equipped.
3). We have no political capital right now to gain support from our “allies” in the region. Our “friends” will abandon us when the first bomb is dropped.
4). Anger and mistrust of the U.S. is at an all-time high, everywhere. An attack on an Islamic country will throw gasoline on that fire. Islamic uprising fueled by this hatred is not out of the question in important places like Pakistan.
5). And, the #1 answer – why should we (Americans) entrust such a momentous undertaking to the current administration? I’ll say flat out – they can’t handle it. They have proved this again and again. TRhey will fail. If Bush, Cheney and their desperate Neo-Con cronies walk away and agree to put grown-ups in charge, I would support a careful escalation of pressure on Iran. Experience, however, has taught me that Bush is not to be trusted with anything this important.
Chris (again): why should iran’s leaders think that? What have we done to ever make them think we would respond militarily to anything they did? Why do you presume that we’d be able to tell that it Iran was responsible, rather than some nut with a rogue Russian nuke? And you seem to discount the inevitable screaming from your side that would follow a nuclear attack on us that it was our own fault, violence never solved anything, Bush and Rove were behind it, we can’t respond unless the UN gives its blessing, etc., etc. And even if we were to respond, why do you think the religious nuts over there wouldn’t somehow think that a worthy tradeoff?
And if I was a crazy Iranian, I would try to get nukes. but that is irrelevant, we take action based not on what we would do if we were in their shoes, but on what is good for us. Yes, we’re hypocritical. But so what?
Chris,
I think the right-wings dire prediction of Iranian nukes being detonated in American cities are completely overblown. However, a nuclear capability means that Iran can operate with almost a completely free hand. It means that if we have to confront them, the confrontation could escalate to nuclear war. It makes deterring Iran just about impossible. Nuclear weapons will allow Iranian foreign policy and particularly their support for terrorism to be much more aggressive with little fear of reprisal. Not only that, the Arab nations in the region, notably Saudi Arabia and Egypt, would be compelled to develop their own nuclear weapons in response. In fact, both those countries in the last year have publicly announced that they desire an advanced “civilian” nuclear technology program.
A nuclear armed Iran will have severe, long-standing consequences, none of which are in American, European or even regional interests.
Limited airstrikes will not destroy Iran’s nuclear program, only delay it. They would likely cement in the minds of the Iranian leadership the idea that nuclear weapons are necessary for Iran’s defense. It is certainly a difficult position we’re in.
JimFM: In no particular order,
while it would be nice to have ‘international support” , that isn’t – and shouldn’t be – a prerequisite for taking action that protects America from threats. Countries support us only when they think they benefit from doing so… but we wouldn’t be acting because it was France’s interest for us to attack, we’d be doing so because it was in our interest to do so. And I would rather have France hate us than Iran have nukes.
stipulating that #1 and #2 are true, I still think the dangers of a nuclear Iran outweigh any regional repercussions or increased threat to US troops in the Middle East (heck, a win-win: we stop Iran’s nukes and we yank our troops out of Iraq!)
And yes, Bush has shown he’s a pretty incompetent idiot. but I would rather him start now than defer until someone more competent is in the White House… especially, since the Democrats are likely to win in 2008, it we’d have to wait until at least 2012 until someone competent came along.
The Iranians are not crazy. This “Krazy mullah” talk is not only false, but keeps us from understanding Iranian motives, which are completely rational. They don’t want nukes to attack the west or the US. They want nukes so they can become the regional power; to provide them protection from attack through deterrence; to ensure the survival of the revolution; and to enable them to engage in a much more aggressive and confrontational foreign policy.
Bush has shown he’s a pretty incompetent idiot. but I would rather him start now than defer until someone more competent is in the White House… especially, since the Democrats are likely to win in 2008, it we’d have to wait until at least 2012 until someone competent came along.
Stevesturm, you reassure. It’s like finding out the sun does, indeed, revolve around the Earth to know there are indefatiguable conservative Republicans out there who can look upon the smoking ruin that is the Bush Administration’s foreign policy -
- a smoking ruin totally and completely enabled by the Republican Party as a whole
- a smoking ruin that has been defended as an ‘improvement’ by such straight talkers as Lindsey Graham and John McCain during their guffaw-inducing 100-soldiers-and-two-helicopter escort through the markets of Baghdag
- you can look upon all of that and still say, “The Democrats would be even worse!!”
My hat’s off to you, sir.
Entropy: they feel they need nukes in order for them to do what they want because they sense we otherwise would stand in their way. And having nukes doesn’t do them any good unless they make us think they will use them if we get in their way.
thus, if they have nukes, our two choices are to let them have what they want or be prepared for them to use their nukes on us. So if we don’t want them to do what they want to do, aren’t we better off confronting them before they have nukes than afterwards?
For all those so enamored with a war with Iran, I suggest you run over to your local recruiting station and sign up. The age for the Guard is now 42, even convicted felons are now allowed in the Armed Forces to fight the GWOT. Show your patriotism and fight against the “evil axis, Pat Tilman sacrificed…
hey, only 29 comments for someone to trot out the chickenhawk line…. what took you so long, were you napping?
And now, with Rudi having so effectively shamed me and put me into my place as someone not worthy of having an opinion, I must refrain from offering up any more comments. oh well, tis for the good, my fingers were getting tired.
just as soon as I point out to Rudi that we already have enough soldiers to do what is needed to Iran, that our failure to take action against Iran is not because we don’t have enough volunteers, but because those commanding those volunteers don’t have the spine to do what is necessary.
CaseyL Says:
April 10th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
to know there are indefatiguable conservative Republicans out there who can look upon the smoking ruin that is the Bush Administration’s foreign policy – ………and still say, “The Democrats would be even worse!!â€?
point of note–every poll at RealClearPolitics suggest he is hardly alone.
To AR:
I don’t think any country should have nuclear weapons, including our own. The world would be a much safer place without it. But as long as we continue to make develop new nuclear weapons, I don’t see how we can argue that Iran can’t have them from a legal or moral perspective.
To Steve:
We installed a brutal dictator in Iran and then helped equip the Iraqis to fight a war with Iran that killed 1 million of their people. And more recently Bush labelled them part of the “Axis of Evil” and talks about how a nuclear Iran is “unacceptable.”
To Entropy:
I agree, and that’s why the invasion of Iraq was such a bad idea. It set off a chain reaction that has pretty much forced the hands of those in power in the Middle East. They got to see during the Saddam execution video what happens when America decides you’re no longer useful. Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt want nukes because it would be a deterrent.
stevesturm, I don’t stipulate that international support is generally neccesary – but considering that the Iraq war has so drained our reserves, I’m not sure we are in a position at this time to go it alone.
I am as anxious as anyone to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear capability. I just don’t believe that this administration will accomplish that objective – indeed, I believe that experience tells us that the Bushies will find novel ways to make the situation worse.
We are in a pickle and no doubt about it. However, you don’t give a child an Uzi and ask him to patrol the neighborhood – just as you don’t give this administration any bombs and ask them to patrol the world.
There will be no war with Iran. Europe will not fight and the U.S. simply does not have to forces available. Briton, our largest military supporter in terms of troops, has fielded a pitiful 7000 troops.
Ain’t gonna happen folks.
Another example of how the U.S. and Britain ceded the moral highground and now operate on equal terms with Iran:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/abc_news_exclus.html
Chris, you seem to suffer from the delusion that at some point in time America, or some other unnamed country, acted with only the highest of moral values, sacrificed national interests in the name of ‘playing fair’ when required, and earned the respect of the League of Nations and became the Moral Beacon to the World, all while protecting their people and the rest of the world from aggression.
They oppressed no one, had no bigotry, racism or sexism, only went to war for the noblest of causes, committed no atrocities in peace or war, their legal system was just and fair to all citizens, and prosperity reigned.
You also seem to believe that only those who are perfect have any moral superiority, and that any bad acts both negate all positives, and forgive any bad acts by ones opponents.
Here is a real reality for you – the winners write history, and get to say what was or wasn’t moral and just. It may not be fair, but it is the truth.
“History is written by the victors”, Winston Churchill
> But as long as we continue to make
> develop new nuclear weapons, I
> don’t see how we can argue that
> Iran can’t have them from a legal
> or moral perspective.
Are you really that blind, or consumed by anti-US pathology (disease)?
You’re sure fond of the “anti-US” meme. Glad to note that dissent is the better part of treason.
> Glad to note that dissent is the better part of treason.
There’s a big difference between intelligent criticism and dissent and what we see too often on the Left (moral equivalance and relativism, actually claiming the USA and its records are worse than its enemies and adversaries throughout the years). If you cannot fail to make the easy distinction, that’s not something I or others should be ashamed of…
Chris:
We can argue on legal grounds because both the US and Iran are signatories to the NPT. The NPT allows the US to have nuclear weapons – it does not allow Iran to have them.
Rudi said:
blockquote>
For all those so enamored with a war with Iran, I suggest you run over to your local recruiting station and sign up.
To late for that. I’ve served for sixteen years and spent a good part of the 1990′s a few miles of the Iranian coast. But that doesn’t matter. People don’t serve in the US Armed Forces because they want to go to war in Iran or any other country.
egrubs –
Where was the word treason used, except by you? Accusing someone of having an anti-US pathology is a far cry from accusing them of treason.
Why does the left equate a dislike of anti-US bias with accusations of treason? IMHO, likely because of their tendency to assume bad intent on anyone who doesn’t share their viewpoints, and their accusations of evil intent on those who do.
And Iran does not have them. They are enriching uranium, which is allowed under the NPT.
In response to this remark made by Chris:
DLS wrote:
DLS,
More than four years later and the most vocal defenders of Bush’s foreign policy continue to accuse those whom they disagree with of being “anti-US.”
If it’s not accusations of having an “anti-US” pathology, its accusations of being a part of the “Blame America crowd.”
If it’s not accusations of being a part of the “Blame America crowd”, it’s accusations of “hating Bush.”
If it’s not accusations of “hating Bush”, it’s accusations of having “Bush Derangement Syndrome.”
If it’s not accusations of having “Bush Derangement Syndrome”, it’s accusations of “not supporting the troops.”
If it’s not accusations of “not supporting the troops”, it’s accusations of “helping the terrorists.”
If it’s not accusations of “helping the terrorists”, it’s accusations of wanting to “cut and run.”
If it’s not accusations of wanting to “cut and run”, it’s accusations of being a “Saddam Hussein apologist.”
If it’s not accusations of being a “Saddam Hussein apologist”, it’s accusations of being “leftists” or “socialists.”
This is the kind of garbage that some of the most outspoken supporters of the war have been leveling at the rest of us. There’s nothing unpatriotic or un-American or “anti-US” about speaking out against a government or a foreign policy or a war that is perceived as being unjust.
This specific brand of ad hominem rhetoric has been going on now for more than four years. This is what many vocal members of the Right/Republican Party did during the run up to the war. Instead of engaging in rational debate, some chose then to level ad hominem attacks and essentially question the patriotism of those they didn’t agree with.
And they continue to do so today.
Many who supported the Iraq War–in the administration, in congress, in newspapers, in the news networks, in talk radio, and in the blogosphere were wrong about some of their pre-war assertions. Wrong as in “we’ll be granted as liberators” wrong. Wrong as in “yellowcake from Niger” wrong. Wrong as in “mobile bioweapons labs” wrong. Wrong as in “there can be no doubt that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction” wrong. Wrong as in denouncing anyone who even suggested that Saddam Hussein might no longer have weapons of mass destruction.
I haven’t heard many apologies from those who excoriated the anti-war side, many of whom turned out to somewhat more accurate in their predictions than those made by the Bush Administration and their defenders.
No, instead, the “anti-US”, “Blame America crowd”, “not supporting the troops” memes continue.
There’s no question that I have been very outspoken in my opposition to the war. I readily concede that I have been quite critical of both the Bush Administration and its staunchest defenders.
But I have never questioned the patriotism or the love for their country of anyone who has supported Bush, our foreign policy, or the Iraq War. Not once have I done so, even when my own patriotism or love for my country has been questioned.
And while I certainly cannot speak for every far-left liberal or partisan Democrat or government-hating libertarian, I don’t believe that anyone here at TMV has ever criticized the patriotism or love for their country of anyone here who supports Bush or our foreign policy or the Iraq War.
And if I’m wrong and any of the anti-war members of TMV has in fact questioned the patriotism or love for their country of those who do support Bush or the war, then let me be candid and criticize both pro-war and anti-war TMV members who have sunken to such disgusting rhetoric.
Frankly, if those of you who support Bush and his foreign policy truly disagree with my views or perhaps my failure to perceive the situation accurately, then frankly, I’d rather you call me or naive or irrational or stupid than to pretend that you know what’s in my heart.
Harry Browne, who ran for president in 1996 and 2000, had a saying (he had many sayings actually):
“I love my country. But I do not love my government.”
That’s kind of how I feel. America is more–MUCH MORE–than the politicians who govern it. It is the people, the culture, and the many places that America what it is.
So please, if I or anyone else here at TMV criticizes the government or its policies, please don’t call me or them “anti-US” or question our patriotism or love for our country. Perhaps it’s our biases that keep us from fully seeing your side of the argument, but at the same time, perhaps you should question your own biases before questioning what’s in our hearts.
Thank you Nic
Bravo nicrivera, Bravo.
Now onward.
I just don’t see war with Iran now as a viable option. They are 5 years at best from a nuke, and frankly given their failure to keep the cascades running for any length of time, probably 10. Plenty of time for diplomacy or sanctions to work their magic and surely plenty for time for war later if called for.
Acutally, war later is probalby far less costly as Chimpy won’t be in charge to mess it up. Given a 6 year history of not only making wrong choices regularly on the ME, but of also pathologically lying about it. And of refusing to change course unless thunked on the head repeatedly with a large clue-by-fours… Well, frankly the risks are just to high for failure now to escalate this much more now.
Has anyone stopped to think what our good friends the Iraqis would think about the US going to war with Iran?
Even just tactical air strikes? (Which is all we could do thanks to the mess these folks have already managed to get us into).
Chris, you said:
Then after I pointed out building nukes under the NPT is illegal, you changed to:
The NPT does not grant a prima facia right to enrichment, but to “peaceful nuclear technology.” The IAEA does not deny Iran’s right to enrichment for peaceful purposes, but it has every right to ensure that the enrichment is, in fact, peaceful. As a result, the IAEA and the international community have demanded a greater amount of transparency and accountability than is typically required, because Iran lied for over 20 years about it’s nuclear activities. As a result of Iranian deception, the IAEA cannot ensure that Iran has fully complied with its NPT obligations and Iran is unwilling to take the transparency and other other steps necessary to ensure it does not have undiscovered clandestine activities including a hidden military program. That is the crux of the issue and the core of the debate.