« Actually Existing Conservatism | Main | Brooks on Huckabee »

Irony Watch

19 Oct 2007 04:22 pm

Via Brian Beutler, Michael Rubin extolls the benefits of political reform in Iran for American national security: "An Islamic Republic accountable to its own citizenry would invest in better schools, hospitals, wages and infrastructure, and it would not divert billions for uranium enrichment and ballistic missiles."

Of course one might think that a United States of America accountable to its citizenry would invest in better schools, hospitals, wagesm and infrastructure rather than diverting billions for defense but that's not actually the case. And of course the opposition political party isn't proposing to divert defense spending into domestic investments to any substantial degree either. The unified security budget project has toiled away for years arguing convincingly that if we refocused our security spending away from such a heavy reliance on the Pentagon we could both save money and enhance our national security, but it hasn't been something that politicians are interested in.

What's more, viewed realistically insofar as the Iranian nuclear program has a military rationale at all, the rationale is that a nuclear weapon is a good way of defending your country on the cheap. Pakistan couldn't possibly afford to keep up with India in a conventional arms race, but a smallish nuclear weapon gives you a ton of deterrent power. The Iranian regime sees itself as beseiged by threats -- located in a dangerous part of the world, subjected to unprovoked US-backed invasion by Iraq in the 1980s, and now with American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. They could try to build up a conventional military that could challenge the US, but it's probably cheaper and easier to try to build a nuclear weapon.

Similarly, whether or not Iran's interest in at least obtaining the capacity to build a nuclear weapon wanes is probably going to have less to do with the form of government in Iran than it will to do with perceptions of the security environment facing the country. Iran feels insecure, and also feels that the Pakistani and Israeli nuclear arsenals make the NPT regime a bit of a joke. To get the Iranians to verifiably disarm, something's going to need to be done about one or both of those factors. Different people will have different perceptions, so changes in personnel at the top of government in Teheran would make some difference but it's not automatic.

Photo by Flickr user Hamed Saber used under a Creative Commons license

Share This

Comments (44)

Of course one might think that a United States of America accountable to its citizenry would invest in better schools, hospitals, wagesm and infrastructure rather than diverting billions for defense but that's not actually the case.

We'd only know that that's not the case if we had a government that was accountable to its citizenry.

Unfortunately, you're suggesting that the United States walk a mile in some other country's shoes before attempting to discern their motivations. That dog don't hunt in this town. If you ever want to be a Very Serious Person, you need to memorize this credo:

1. All NPT signatories are equal, but the US is more equal.

2. The United States absolutely, positively needs a massive nuclear arsenal to be absolutely positively secure in the world, and we should also seriously consider using more clean, safe, efficient nuclear energy. But there is only one possible reason why Iran would want a nuclear program, and that's to give a bomb to terrorists who will use it to destroy Israel.

3. Blame France.

4. When in doubt, bomb the fuckers*.

(* - On network television, substitute "bastards" or "sonsofbitches")

"Of course one might think that a United States of America accountable to its citizenry would invest in better schools, hospitals, wagesm and infrastructure rather than diverting billions for defense but that's not actually the case. "

POW! But make that "billions for war".

Let's be open and honest, the sooner the Iranians get a nuclear weapon the safer we will all be.

No wonder the republican press wants to demonize you Matt, you're dangerously persuasive for a liberal.

that's a lot of peugeots !
(in the picture)

*blames the french*

"Iran feels insecure, and also feels that the Pakistani and Israeli nuclear arsenals make the NPT regime a bit of a joke."

That's a neat trick, channeling the feelings of a whole country. How'd you manage that, Spock?

If you ever want to be a Very Serious Person, you need to memorize this credo: ...

If you ever want to be a Very Serious Liberal Person, in the manner of LaFolette Progressive, you need to memorize this credo:

1. All countries that possess, or may acquire, nuclear weapons are equally democratic, peaceful, and supportive of human rights. Except the United States, which is uniquely aggressive and war-mongering.

2. The United States doesn't need nuclear weapons because all other nations that possess, or may acquire, them would never use them, or threaten to use them.

3. Blame the United States. If that doesn't work, blame the United States. Also, blame the United States.

4. When in doubt, put your fingers in your ears and go "La-la-la-la-la-la!"

Let's be open and honest, the sooner the Iranians get a nuclear weapon the safer we will all be.

Absolutely right. I am far, far more frightened of the aggressive actions of the US than of Iran. If there's one country that needs to be deterred, it's the one that regularly attacks & invades other nations, often in ways that aren't even its own self-interest, and demonstrably is not constrained by the UN or international law.

I'm with Matt. We should assume the best intentions of the Iranians. They just want peaceful nuclear power to feed their energy starved country. If they are building nuclear weapons, it's only because they fear Giuliani and his cabal of "ultra" neocons want to invade their country keep the price of a barrel of oil really cheap as Bush did in Iraq.

Except the United States, which is uniquely aggressive and war-mongering.

But the US is uniquely aggressive and war-mongering -- that's just a fact.

But the US is uniquely aggressive and war-mongering -- that's just a fact.

That's right. Also, the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

Yep, I'd be honestly surprised if lemuel was not in the right of it on this one. I reckon if you add up all the wars and 'interventions' launched by every country in the last 50 years, you'll have the USA at number 1, the French far behind at number 2 (only by virtue of a whole bunch of little colonial and post-colonial interventions) the Brits and the Russians somewhere close below them and the rest nowhere. Hell, even Saddam, who was something of a warmonger only managed 2 solid attacks on another country in a 30 year reign, and I'm pretty sure you'll have a hard time picking even a 10-year period where the US wasn't involved in at least that many wars/interventions.

Any International Relations students out there know of an official count?

Mixner's list isn't nearly as funny and original as mine. So there.

Also, my straw man is a parody of the entire Republican Party and significant portions of the Democratic Party, whereas Mixner's straw man is a parody of a few dozen people beating hand drums on the National Mall. Advantage: Me

My straw man could nuke your straw man's ass, fool.

Iran can't deliver a nuke unless they find ali babba's magic carpet. Then again, I don't think Ali was a Persian. I'm no expert on Pakistan's ability to deliver it's 24 to 48 nukes but the consensus is absolute they they can't deliver them on their pretty good mid range missiles. I assume they and the Indians think Pakistan can deliver them by plane.

Iran's dream of a deterrent nuke is very very dumb since they can't deliver the damn things, and I am talking in the region. The chances of an Iranian nuclear armed ICBM capable of targeting the US is zero for the next few generations if not longer. This is a country which has the GDP of Alabama for cripe sake. Shit.

Which of course is never mentioned by the alarmists who always infer we are at risk. If pressed on this I suppose they will fall back on the bomb they could sneak into the US on a ship which in itself is a very very stupid idea but at least it is plausible..

Deterrence works. You don't have to like the logic behind MAD (mutually assured destruction) but it works. Is Iran ultimately the money behind Hezbollah? Of course. Just as Iran is the money behind the Badr Brigades. These groups openly trained in Iran. Are elements of the Iranian leadership implacably opposed to Israel? Certainly.

Would Iran be a nuclear threat to Israel? No. Because no matter how bat-shit crazy you think these guys are nobody in Iran is crazy enough to invited the turning of their major cities into radioactive gas.

No one has successfully passed the MAD test. The world knows that a single nuclear explosion in the United States or Israel would result in massive retaliation and the destruction at best of your entire military and probably much of your economic infrastructure, and at worst substantial parts of your population. Your only hope would be for the US or Israel to be fooled into going for the wrong country.

All the people who go around saying 'Iran can't be allowed to get a weapon' are despite appearances not really serious thinkers at all. No dictator is so mad as to be able to ignore MAD. (Well Mugabe maybe, but he is closer to putting his country back in the Stone Age than the Nuclear Age.)

"Also, my straw man is a parody..."

Didn't the parody/satire defense start getting a little old about the time Dave Chappelle decamped for Africa?

"they can't deliver the damn things, and I am talking in the region."

Who needs a missle when you can just smuggle it through Syria to Hezbollah?

President Eisenhower viewed ICBMs as a cheap way to defend America and Western Europe without trying to match the Red Army tank for tank. Too much military spending, he feared, would put the military-industrial complex in control.

Iran is the head of the snake. They fund proxies around the world to wage war on their behalf. The world will be a safer place when the Iranians and Saudis run out of oil money.

Bruce Webb,

Deterrence works. You don't have to like the logic behind MAD (mutually assured destruction) but it works. Is Iran ultimately the money behind Hezbollah? Of course. Just as Iran is the money behind the Badr Brigades. These groups openly trained in Iran. Are elements of the Iranian leadership implacably opposed to Israel? Certainly. Would Iran be a nuclear threat to Israel? No. Because no matter how bat-shit crazy you think these guys are nobody in Iran is crazy enough to invited the turning of their major cities into radioactive gas.

Brilliant. So why stop at Iran? Nuclear weapons for all! Let's just give them away to every country that wants them, since you assure us that "the logic behind MAD" will ensure that no one ever actually uses them.

The only thing here that's "bat-shit crazy" is your foreign policy.

An Islamic Republic accountable to its own citizenry...

Gee, if only the Iranians had some way of electing a different president.

"Iran can't deliver a nuke unless they find ali babba's magic carpet."

There's also their long-range missiles

"Deterrence works. You don't have to like the logic behind MAD (mutually assured destruction) but it works. Is Iran ultimately the money behind Hezbollah?"

Bruce Webb,

Deterrence makes sense for most countries, but it hasn't seemed to work with Iran in the past, has it? Granted, they haven't nuked us yet, but they have committed acts of war against us either directly (invading our embassy) or through their Hezbollah proxies (blowing up the Marine barracks in Beirut, the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, etc.). Our response has been impotent.

A nuclear-armed Iran will dramatically increase the odds of nuclear terrorism in this country. As long as Iran can maintain a fig leaf of plausible deniability, as they did in the cases of the attacks in Beirut and Saudi Arabia, they know they stand a good chance of avoiding retaliation. Would we nuke Iran if they denied involvement and we couldn't prove it? An Iranian familiar with history would guess no, if he were a betting man. That's why we can't rely on deterrence against the Iranians.

An Iranian familiar with history would guess no, if he were a betting man.

Depends on which history are you talking about. The US did, of course, engineer a coup in the 1950s.

Yep, I'd be honestly surprised if lemuel was not in the right of it on this one. I reckon if you add up all the wars and 'interventions' launched by every country in the last 50 years, you'll have the USA at number 1

Present your evidence, then.

But simply showing that the U.S. "launched" or was "involved in" more military "interventions" than any other country would not demonstrate that the U.S. was more aggressive, anyway. You're confusing "aggression" with "use of force." Britain "launched" WWII when Germany invaded Poland. Do you really think that means Britain was as aggressive as Germany? It's absurd. The U.S. is involved in many military interventions because its overwhelmingly dominant economic, political and military power make it the world's policeman.

"Depends on which history are you talking about. The US did, of course, engineer a coup in the 1950s."

Considering that this alleged U.S. engineering of a coup (hard to believe the CIA was competent enough to have a central role in something successful) happened before the Iranians invaded our embassy, and attacked us via proxy in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, it seems pretty clear that the threat of a U.S.-engineered coup hasn't deterred them and wouldn't be likely to deter them in the future.

Considering that this alleged U.S. engineering of a coup (hard to believe the CIA was competent enough to have a central role in something successful) happened before the Iranians invaded our embassy

1. It's pretty well documented. Go here if you want to read about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mosaddeq:

"Eventually the CIA's role became well-known, and caused controversy within the organization itself, and within the CIA congressional hearings of the 1970's. CIA supporters maintain that the plot against Mossadegh was strategically necessary, and praise the efficiency of agents in carrying out the plan. Critics say the scheme was paranoid and colonial, as well as immoral.

In March 2000, then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stated her regret that Mossadegh was ousted: "The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America." In the same year, the New York Times published a detailed report about the coup based on alleged CIA documents."

2. The coup and subsequent US sponsored state repression over the next quarter century were large contributors to the hatred of the Shah which boiled over with the 1979 repression. Some of this anger was then put on display with the embassy takeover.

Whatever you happen to think about the Iranian regime, this stuff is part of the historical record and helps to explain the current animosity in Iran towards the US and our local proxy, Israel.

Mixner,

Brilliant. So why stop at Iran? Nuclear weapons for all!

Well, actually, this has been proposed (see the classical book "The Transformation of War"): it's a heretical but not stupid idea. So your sarcasm comes across a bit like "Brilliant, the next thing you'll suggest the earth goes round the sun!" Besides, the US has dealt a hell of a blow to NPT by encouraging India after it has become official nuclear state, so we are heading to the every-country-nuclear configuration quite rapidly.


Mixner

The U.S. is involved in many military interventions because its overwhelmingly dominant economic, political and military power make it the world's policeman.

Yes!! Isn't it amazing that the damn unwashed natives don't feel gratitude for all that American fightin' and policin'?

But seriously, what's truly amazing is the traditional disbelief by some (many) Americans that people in other countries see the US actions in less than perfectly flattering light (and many see it as a bully). It seems that every new generation of quiet Americans has to lose innocence all over again. We all judge others by their actions, and all of us want to be judged by our intentions -- but most of us grow up and out of it and learn to accept responsibility.

bubba,

it's a heretical but not stupid idea.

Well, don't keep us in suspense. Why do you think it's not a stupid idea? You really think nuclear weapons would be safe in the hands of, say, African Warlords, do you?

Iran's behavior towards us compares decently with the USSR during our containment period. There our proxies occassionally reached the level of war, although certainly not on the scale if we were to ever get to open warfare with the Russians.

It is funny the way that people in trying to limit the scope of containment seem to compare it with some imaginary vision of containment. Bush claimed (after it was perfectly clear that Hussein had been effectively contained) that it is impossible to contain a madman like Hussein. As if Hussein was mad in any way that Stalin was not.

And not there seems to be some suggestion that Iran, which despite its rhetoric of Islamic Revolution has been less involved in middle eastern countries than we have, isn't containable because they have funded proxies. Presumably this is meant to contrast with the way that the Russians never tried to harm us through proxies.

Part of the key to making deterrence work is recognizing that we can stop serious bad things against us, but that no country will be deterred into putting our interests above theirs. When you look to find excuses to attack countries as we did with Iraq, we undercut our ability to deter, since countries have no reason to think that acting against our interest actually increases their chance of being attacked. Iraq was completely contained, and they were attacked because it was easy.

Bush claimed (after it was perfectly clear that Hussein had been effectively contained) that it is impossible to contain a madman like Hussein. As if Hussein was mad in any way that Stalin was not.

Our "containment" of Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians through disease and malnutrition and was turning Iraq into a third-world country. It also didn't prevent Saddam from continuing to slaughter his own people, or deter him from aggressive acts towards his neighbors.

Sigh.

AGAIN Matt talks AROUND the issue.

Jesus, it's like he has a PHOBIA against saying ANYTHING definitely about Iran except this crap:

"Iran feels insecure, and also feels that the Pakistani and Israeli nuclear arsenals make the NPT regime a bit of a joke. To get the Iranians to verifiably disarm, something's going to need to be done about one or both of those factors."

Yes, that's true. Except for the utterly STUPID remark about "verifiably disarm" - since Iran HAS NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM TO DISARM!

The only states that can "verifiably disarm" are states that HAVE nukes.

Christ, where does he get this random shit?

STILL waiting for you to answer TWO SIMPLE QUESTIONS, Matt!

1) Do you think Iran has a nuclear weapons program?

2) Do you think military action against Iran is justified IF Iran actually HAS a nuclear weapons program?

ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTIONS, MATT!

He absolutely refuses to do so, but doesn't have the balls to admit it...

It's amazing.

Juan the ignorant slut burbles thusly:

"A nuclear-armed Iran will dramatically increase the odds of nuclear terrorism in this country."

Bullshit.

"As long as Iran can maintain a fig leaf of plausible deniability, as they did in the cases of the attacks in Beirut and Saudi Arabia, they know they stand a good chance of avoiding retaliation."

Ever heard of nuclear forensics? Guess not...

If Iran allowed anybody other than themselves to possess one of their nuclear weapons - which is FUCKING STUPID TO BELIEVE TO BEGIN WITH, nitwit - and it detonated outside their territory, it would not take long for the US - and Russia and others - to identify the source from the blast signature.

Not to mention the fact that it would be fairly obvious WHO was behind it simply by counting on fingers the number of states with nuclear weapons who MIGHT want to nuke the US. Once you eliminate Russia and China - who aren't that stupid - or Israel, who might actually want to fake a Muslim attack on the US with one of their nukes or who might actually lose one of their nukes to the numerous terrorist groups that surround their territory - which is one mighty reason to disarm those morons - that pretty much leaves Pakistan and Iran. Or a homemade device, which is even less likely.

Clown.

And people need to stop babbling about Iran's "proxies".

Iran has no "proxies" - unless you count the SIIC which is currently heavily involved in Iraq's government, and which primarily is still an Iraqi nationalist group.

Hizballah is not an Iranian "proxy". Neither is Hamas.

Iran may be supplying weapons, money and technical and intelligence support to various ME groups, but that does not make them "proxies" whose primary mission is to attack the US.

These groups have a primary mission to oppose Israel. They oppose the US only when the US supports Israel or gets in the way of their conflict with Israel.

There is also zero evidence for the involvement in Iran in the Khobar Towers incident, despite US spin and the alleged source of the explosives being Lebanon. Some people believe bin laden and Al Qaeda were behind it - for which there is also limited evidence.

It is also unclear whether Iran was directly involved in the Marine barracks explosion in lebanon. There is even speculation that the Mossad was behind it in an attempt to get the US out of Lebanon so it could have free hand. I find that theory doubtful due to the participants in the actual attack. But it is also unclear to what degree the participants were directly connected to Hizballah, which was in a nascent state at the time.

Check the Wikipedia articles on these events. It's never that simple in intelligence operations to determine who is behind what and for what reason.

I do LOVE the POSTS of Richard STEVEN Hack.

With THEIR bizarre CAPITalizaTION.

AND their PSYCHOTIC ranTINGS.

And THEIR complete absence OF anything remotely RESEMBLING a coherent ARGument.

And their STRANGE use OF paragraphs.

ONE can almost SEE the uncontrollable RAGE that seems to motivate THeir author.

And THE bulging blood vesSELS in HIS head that threaten to GIVE him a stroke.

There is no evidence that Iran is making long range missiles or, at the moment, doing anything but working on nuclear power. Myself, I think nuclear power is a bad deal for environmental reasons, but the Iranians have a perfect right to do so, and back when the Shah was in power, the Americans were encouraging the Iranians to go for nuclear power.

On the other hand, I'd have to say that I think those hawks who rail about Iran gaining nuclear weapons do have one faint good point. Nuclear proliferation isn't a good idea.

If we rule out attacking Iran, then - a major war crime, which would be implemented by a white house already overextending (unto extreme unconstitutionality) its executive privilege - and we know, as we do, that there is a window of time over the next four years, the one realistic solution is: make peace with Iran. Making peace with Iran has two advantages - one, it opens up the country and makes it more transparent, so that sneaky nuclear weapons building programs would be harder to manage, and two, it gives Iran a footing in the middle east that would soften even the bad impact of Iran getting nuclear weapons. This is so obvious that, in fact, America has pursued exactly that policy with Pakistan, the country that helped Al qaeda the most - the Taliban was more helped by al quaeda than a help to it. We do have the minimum rationality to understand that our international position shouldn't be summed up by "shoot first, think about it later."

Putin has done an excellent thing, in bringing Khamenei into the picture. He is the supposed "supreme leader", and he promised that Iran wouldn't make nuclear weapons. Ah, the hawks cry, you can't trust that! Although they do think they can trust Ahmanedijad's quoting Khomenei about Israel disappearing from the map as proof positive that this is Iran's policy.

Real, unconditional negotiation going towards dropping sanctions on Iran should also address Hezbollah. In particular, integrating Hezbollah into the Lebanese army. That is going to take time, and Hezbollah does not take orders from Iran any more than Israel takes orders from the U.S. - if anything, Hezbollah allied with the ultra side in Iranian politics, trying to bring down the moderates in 2002-2003.

After we recognize Iran, maybe Michael Reuben, who seems magically in touch with the common man in Teheran, might want to go over there and run for office. Man, I bet he'd knock em dead!

"Our "containment" of Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians through disease and malnutrition and was turning Iraq into a third-world country. It also didn't prevent Saddam from continuing to slaughter his own people, or deter him from aggressive acts towards his neighbors."

Our sanctions of Iraq caused thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths through disease and malnutrition. The UN food for oil program, which conservatives maligned, did a good job of ending that. But there is no reason to confuse the sanctions and the containment policy.

And when our envoy indicates that we don't care what Iraq does with Kuwait, (and we actually support an invasion of Iran) it becomes rather ludicrous to claim that these things were done in the face of deterrence.

What is true is that deterrence has little effect on how a country acts internally. And that could justify humanitarian action in Iran (although obviously an argument for that would be necessary. Why should we think we would do more good than harm).

But if the rational for not relying on deterrence with Iran is a fear that they will commit suicide by attacking us, then the argument requires ignoring the history of deterrence and Iran. But perhaps that was your point in changing to these examples which were in keeping with my point.

Lon,

Our sanctions of Iraq caused thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths through disease and malnutrition. The UN food for oil program, which conservatives maligned, did a good job of ending that.

No it didn't. Dennis Halliday, the Humanitarian Co-Ordinator for the U.N. in Iraq, described the program in an interview as follows:

Well, the definition of the resolution that put this together - Resolution 986 - said that the programme was designed to prevent further deterioration, and that means sustaining the level of deterioration at the level that it was at the time. Well that deterioration level was very high, and it's that level of child mortality - perhaps five, six, seven thousand children dying per month, and adults on top of that, together with malnutrition widespread amongst children and adults - that's what the programme was designed to sustain.

But there is no reason to confuse the sanctions and the containment policy.

The sanctions were the "containment" policy. They were intended to prevent Saddam from acquiring the funds and equipment he needed to support his military aspirations. They had the effect of killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, and causing enormous suffering and misery to the rest.

Mixner of course can't address any of my arguments, so he resorts to really stupid ad hominems.

I on the other hand simply state that he's a nitwit troll. I don't need fancy insults to make that point.

I've taken virtually every argument he's ever written here apart point by point. It's easy since his "arguments" are invariably either lies or bullshit without a shred of reasoning or evidence behind them.

By the way, I use capitalization to do what it's intended to do on the Internet - to SHOUT!

Since Matt appears to be hard of hearing...or reading...

Or simply never bothers to read the posts responding to his posts - another thing he learned from the "pundits" over at TPM, apparently. The only two people at TPM who respond to posts are MJ Rosenberg and Larry Johnson.

The other reason is that I'm too lazy to use HTML tags to style the response or do things like use *asterisks* around a word to emphasize it.

As long as people can understand what I'm saying, I really don't give a shit if Mixner doesn't like the style.

It's hilarious that people who mostly backed the war do not want to live with it's consequences. We will not ever be able to get Iran to give up it's nuclear aspirations. It would be insane of them. Israel isn't going to stop agitating for a war between us and them. Sooner or later, the Iraq war will be history and the Israeli's will have another ally in office who hates brown people and is entirely willing to lie us into another war. When that happens, the only think that will protect Iran's sovereignty is a nuclear weapon.

Let me make that clear: The only thing that will actually guarantee Iran sovereignty is a nuclear weapon. An agreement with us won't do that. Getting them to say that they are giving up their nuclear aspirations won't do that. Only being able to turn an entire army or small country into dust will be able to do that. As such, it is perfectly reasonable for them to want to pursue these weapons. This is the bed we've made with our decisions. This is the word we've made.

"The sanctions were the "containment" policy. They were intended to prevent Saddam from acquiring the funds and equipment he needed to support his military aspirations. They had the effect of killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, and causing enormous suffering and misery to the rest."

What nonsense. Hussein did not have a lack of money. He skimmed money off of the oil for food program. He skimmed money off of the smuggling. And things like a nuclear arms program are not that expensive compared with the kind of luxury spending that Hussein did on palaces and the like.

The idea that Hussein did not develop nuclear weapons because our sanctions left him short of cash is delusional.

Sanctions can be effective when there is a business class that decides that having a ruler who leads to such sanctions costs more than he is worth, and with the power to do something about it. But sanctions have not stopped North Korea from spending most of its budget on military spending.

What you are showing, I guess not surprisingly, is that your belief that deterrence can't work is based on the fact that you don't have any clue what deterrence is. If you think deterrence is equivalent to sanctions then I guess it makes sense why you think that it is of limited effectiveness. After all sanctions are of limited effectiveness. But deterrence based on the idea that there will be serious consequences to certain kinds of transgressions has a history of working well against serious transgressions. It worked with the Russians. It worked with Iraq when we actually pursued such a policy. (But I will grant you that it did not work with Iraq when we were not pursuing such a policy. So it is the kind of questionable policy that only works when it is in place.)

But confusing sanctions and deterrence does not suggest you are someone who deserves to be taken seriously.

Let me make that clear: The only thing that will actually guarantee Iran sovereignty is a nuclear weapon. An agreement with us won't do that. Getting them to say that they are giving up their nuclear aspirations won't do that. Only being able to turn an entire army or small country into dust will be able to do that. As such, it is perfectly reasonable for them to want to pursue these weapons. This is the bed we've made with our decisions. This is the word we've made.

Wasn't it Disraeli who once stated that "Nations have no friends, only interests". The absolute fallacy of the Bush Administration is to assume that because Iran is an islamic republic, that an Iranian nuclear bomb would be an 'islamic bomb'. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have absolutely no doubt that the Iranians are pursuing a nuclear weapon because it is clearly in their own national interest to do so. Any sane Iranian leader is going to want nuclear weapons. With a sunni nuclear Pakistan to the east, nuclear-armed US and Israel to the west, and nuclear-armed Russia to the north the Iranians are clearly in a box. I think it makes absolutely no difference what kind of government is in power in Iran, their interests will be the same. And given American expansionism in the region, nuclear deterrence is clearly an Iranian interest.

By contrast, countries such as Argentina or South Africa, with similar-levels of development but different geographic circumstances have no real strategic interest in nuclear weapons.

Exactly. Or to put it another way

Why does fuckswithgoats hate America.
Funding proxies to fight on your behalf has
been one of the Unites States' preferred policies
for the past 50 years. Why do you denigrate America by calling it a "snake." The US is a force for truth, justice and democracy you ass wipe.


Comments closed November 02, 2007.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.