The Situation With Iran

There is one fundamental question regarding Iran. Is Iran developing nuclear weapons? Clearly, they have developed non-military nuclear technology. But does Iran want an atomic weapon? The answer to that is an unqualified yes.

I am with the antiwar crowd in opposing a war with Iran. I think it would be foolish and hurt the USA over the long haul. I also think the US is lying us into a war with Iran and provoking the hostility. But make no mistake about it. Iran wants nukes. They may not have that capability right now, but they want it. I think it hurts the antiwar position to pretend otherwise.

Nuclear weapons are virtually useless to a country that would be annihilated if it ever opted to use them. But it does keep that country from being annihilated if it has them. If you doubt this, consider that Pakistan would have been overrun by India long ago if it weren't for nuclear weapons. Nukes are horrible offensive weapons, but they are superb defensive weapons. They are a deterrent to aggression from other countries. There isn't a regime on earth that doesn't want a nuke.

What would a nuclear Iran mean for the world? It means that Iran will never be invaded and destroyed. That's it. So, Israel and the US have decided that they need to invade Iran and destroy it to prevent them from getting to that point. This only strengthens the case for other regimes to pursue nuclear weapons. The choice is arm yourself or be eliminated.

Alongside all of this are non-state actors like al Qaeda that use asymmetric warfare. These groups are not working on behalf of countries or regimes but ideology. They are more akin to the Latin American communists like Che Guevara that transcend boundaries and borders. Since they are not working on behalf of states, the response to them is not like launching a war against another country. This begs another question. What would happen if a non-state group like al Qaeda was to receive a home base and aid from a state with nuclear weapons? You don't have to imagine it because this would be Iran as they are the prime benefactors of Hezbollah. They would not be so foolish as to turn over nukes to such an organization, but they can continue to fund and support terrorist activities with little to no worry about paying with an invasion like Afghanistan has when the Taliban gave haven to al Qaeda.

Iran is clearly an enemy of Israel, and Israel does have a national security interest at stake with a nuclear armed Iran. If Iran practices any restraint now with its activities, that restraint would cease with nuclear weapons. The USA should be neutral in this regard and practice non-intervention. With Israel, it is a different story. It is pretty clear that Hezbollah and Iran want Israel gone. Saudi Arabia being Sunni is also an enemy of Iran. This is why they are on the side of Israel in this regard. If all of this sounds complicated, it is.

I don't get into whether or not Israel has the right to exist as a country. Their claim to that land is about as legitimate as American claims to Indian land. What I do want to make is a distinction between pacifism and non-interventionism. They are not the same thing. Pacifism is not always non-interventionist, and non-interventionism is not always pacifist. US efforts to promote peace in the Middle East has been as problematic as its warmongering. In short, when you meddle, it produces unintended consequences that are almost always worse than if you had left things well enough alone. In many ways, US meddling has actually emboldened the enemies of Israel as the US often acts as a restraint on Israel in brokered deals with Israel's enemies. Then, when those deals fall to pieces, Israel feels totally screwed. This is why many in Israel would like it if the USA simply butted out.

Israel knows how to take care of itself. We should let them. If they see a threat, let them deal with it. Antiwar people should stop sounding naive when it comes to Iran. It hurts our case for non-intervention. Acknowledge that Iran probably has darker aims than merely peaceful nuclear power. It doesn't change what the policy should be. What it does is keep the USA out of a needless war. Israel did not hesitate to shut down Iraq's nuclear ambitions back in the 80's. We should let them do the same in the present. Swiss style neutrality is what the US needs not belligerent warmongering or naive pacifism.

Posted in: