It’s been a long time since I wrote about something I saw on the news, but this one hit a nerve. This guy really pisses me off, and even years after 9/11 it’s still a sensitive subject for me, so hearing that Iran’s nutcase president (who has implied that the Holocaust doesn’t exist, says Israel should be wiped off the map, and generally calls my country nasty names), was denied access to Ground Zero by New York City officials made my heart warm.

No country that sponsors terrorism (and there is no doubt in my mind that Iran does), or who glorifies suicide attacks (as Iran does), should be allowed to taint the memory of victims of terrorist attacks.

There is legitimate debate that could be had about many issues dealing with Iran. For example, the fact that they are a religous theocracy, while abhorrent to me, does not necessarily mean that Iran is illegitimate. And then there is the nuclear issue.

On the one hand, it’s the height of hypocrisy to assert that other countries shouldn’t develop nuclear weapons while owning the world’s largest stockpile. Non-proliferation is certainly a worthy and lofty goal, but there is no legitimate reason that soverign nations should not be able to develop the same military capabilities that industrialized countries have had for over fifty years. Sure it’s bad in general. Nuclear proliferation increases the chances of the actual use of a nuclear weapon, but it is not for any one country to say that any other country can or cannot do.

If anything, America has proven to non-democratic regimes the strategic need to develop these weapons as soon as possible. The lesson of the Iraq war that any government can draw is that if you DON’T have a strategic deterrent, then you’re vulnerable to targeting by the bullies of the world (be they American, European, or Asian). Our own actions have only served to increase the determination and speed by which countries who feel threatened are now trying to arm themselves.

Pick a fight against a bunch of guys with knives while carrying an M-16 and all you do is convince them to get a Kalashnikov ASAP.

If Iran gets the bomb some worry that it will spark an arms race. Syria and Saudi Arabia will then feel obligated to match capabilities or risk being called little girls (and worse, depending on American or European partnerships to safeguard their own strategic security). This is a legitimate scenario, and widens the realm of possibilities for a nuclear exchange.

Is it defensible to say then, “In the interest of the greater good of the world, to reduce the chance that nuclear weapons may at some point be used, we are going to pre-emptively strike to destroy anyone who we think is working to develop these capabilities”?

But will it really work? The concern with Iran is that they had the foresight to make many of their nuclear facilities hardened against conventional attack, plus, we don’t even know that the sites we are aware of are the only (or even the main) ones. Does anyone truly believe in our intelligence capabilities any more? So factor that into your cost/benefit analysis and the return starts to look pretty poor compared to the risk.

So what is to be the response?

Against a determined proliferator the Europeans favor economic sanctions. This seems unlikely to succeed in my opinion. The resulting rise in oil prices would punish the West as much or more than they would punish Iran. I just don’t see it working: Iran could weather a protracted sanctions period much longer than the West could sustain a 15%-25% increase in the cost of doing business and heating homes.

Force? Again, has only a limited chance of working with just airstrikes and then you go to war with a zealot nation. Not to mention the further PR damage and the widening of the pool of suicide bomber recruits. It may be possible to ban all Iranians from getting to America (unlikely), but are we going to ban all Syrians, Indonesians, North Africans, Iraqis, and all those former Soviet states as well?

My conclusion is that the whole thing is a mess and that trying to stop Iran from making a nuclear arsenal, although we should try to do it diplomatically, is futile. So the strategies should focus on dealing with hostile nations who have nuclear technology. How to keep them in check the way the Soviets were kept in check with mutual assured destruction.

And then we come to the real conundrum: how do you keep a country who is motivated by non-rational politics in check with a straightjacket made of rational arguments?

Too late at night to even begin.

Categories: Ramblings


Jim · September 28, 2007 at 9:31 pm

Hey Brian. I haven’t posted in a while and I agree with most of your assertions here.

As you indicated, some would have you believe that the solution is economic sanctions and continuous diplomatic conversation. I think we as Americans can sometimes get misled into believing if we just try hard enough, we can be friendly and cordial with any other nation or faction.

From first hand experience, I can tell you that some of these countries/factions we are at war with have some truly evil people. They are NOT interested in the simple withdrawal of US or coalition forces. They ARE interested in the total subjugation/elimination of the western infidels. Osama speaks of the return of the caliphate – One Nation Under Allah. If Americans in general knew what this meant, they’d have a far sharper reaction the extremist muslims. One Nation Under Allah is exactly what it means and it doesn’t have any room for Jesus, Buddah, Joseph Smith, or anyone else that makes you feel like life (or the afterlife) is cool and groovy.

However, I will not say war and fighting is always the answer. But fighting is part of human nature, as unfortunate as it may be to say. Some fairly smart people have known this throughout the history of this country. “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Thomas Jefferson

And now that we are at war, the objective should be swift and thunderous annihilation of the enemies of the United States. “Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and defeat.” General William T. Sherman War is brutal. If we are to engage in it, we should show that we’re damn good at it. We should be fiercely relentless at waging war to the extent that we convince others to be more reasonable and avoid war with us – not antagonize us into it.

And what do we do in reaction to Iran? I think we are already doing it. Understand that they are reliant upon US allies for the parts required to support the aging refinery machines in their country. Also, it should be clear that Ahmadinejad is viewed as an extremist in his own country and is on the brink of being ousted on a regular basis. We are slowly breaking their back with their inability to maintain the refineries. Iran imports more refined petroleum than it creates itself – even though it sits on top of the one of the largest reserves in the world. The people of Iran will grow restless and Ahmadinejad’s time will end sooner or later.

That’s just my $0.02.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts


Thoughtful Gifts

So I’ve seen two great examples of extremely thoughtful gifts in the past month, and thought that now would be a good time to give some credit to these extremely generous and caring people: Pamela Read more…


Living in London… Again

It’s strange, going back to a place you’ve been before, but years later. The most extreme example I have of this is going back to Hong Kong after seventeen years. Coming back to live in Read more…


An Historic Election

Politics is interesting to talk about, but usually not very inspiring. Or, more accurately, looking back at some of my earlier political posts, it looks like politics inspires cynicism, incredulity, anger, and pit-of-your-stomach, world-is-going-to-hell depression. Read more…