Comments on: An Aggressive and Hypocritical U.S. Policy Toward Iran http://www.laprogressive.com/war-and-peace/an-aggressive-and-hypocritical-us-policy-toward-iran/ Progressive Politics Liberal Politics and Social Justice Sat, 13 Mar 2010 20:37:24 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 The LA Progressivehttp://www.laprogressive.com/wp-content/themes/arthemia-premium/images/button.gifhttp://www.laprogressive.com8831Description of your blog. By: Joe Weinstein http://www.laprogressive.com/war-and-peace/an-aggressive-and-hypocritical-us-policy-toward-iran/comment-page-1/#comment-1810 Joe Weinstein Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:19:25 +0000 http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/07/17/an-aggressive-and-hypocritical-us-policy-toward-iran/#comment-1810 US policy toward Iran is but one of many US policies in world affairs. As a general rule, most of those policies under the Bush administration have been sadly, even deliberately and noxiously, wrong or inadequate. For instance, US troops had no consistent reason to go into Iraq, no business there once Saddam was captured, and scant business there now or for much longer. At the same time, if US troops are needed anywhere, it's where Bush has NOT sent them: at least to stop the Darfur genocide, and to relieve the suffering people of Burma and Zimbabwe. But these general facts don't imply that US policy is actually wrong in ALL particulars, for instance Iran. Mr Eland is correct in that there is an Iranian side of the story. But that doesn't prove that the US is wrong or that Iran is right. And he leaves out a key aspect of the Iranian side. Namely, why should Iran want nukes at all? He assures us that Iran "is probably attempting to get nuclear weapons because it lives in a rough neighborhood and fears an Israeli or U.S. attack." That's about like guesstimating that Hitler was probably innocently seeking lebensraum, and ginning up rockets, in order to prevent a Polish or British attack. In fact, the only reason Iran might have to fear an Israeli or US attack (finally, after all this time) is precisely because it has been actively seeking nuclear weapons. Eland's statement of 'probability' as to Iran's motives belies actual stated certainties to the contrary. Depending on its president's latest verbiage, either Iran has no desires for nuke bombs at all (just 'peaceful' nuke energy - in a country blessed not only with oil but plenty of sun and empty desert to tap it) or else nuke bombs are precisely what he wants for the sacred cause of doing away with Israel. Unlike just about any other nation, Iran has, tolerates, and supports a chief of state that goes around violating the first law of the UN charter, namely to peacably accept the existence of all member states. Instead he threatens Israel, and moreover self-righteously, with extinction. Openly. Some people figure that he's so blatant that he can't really mean it. Just as Hitler presumably didn't really mean it. No, Iran faces neither real threats nor is not simply just another country which is seeking some icons of power, out of a bit of puffed up national pride. Its motives go further, and precisely on that account Iran must not be allowed to get nuclear weapons. That's to say nothing of the domino effect. A nuke-armed Iran is perceived as a threat by other mid-east Moslem states, to the point that they will insist on their own nuke deterrent. And that too is to say nothing of the likely failure in this case of the supposedly sufficient policy of deterrence through MAD - mutually assured nuclear destruction. The cold war and recent threats of Pacific war could defuse because neither side really wanted an actual Armageddon. Not necessarily so for suicide-bombers and their fanatic abettors in the mid-east. US policy toward Iran is but one of many US policies in world affairs. As a general rule, most of those policies under the Bush administration have been sadly, even deliberately and noxiously, wrong or inadequate. For instance, US troops had no consistent reason to go into Iraq, no business there once Saddam was captured, and scant business there now or for much longer. At the same time, if US troops are needed anywhere, it’s where Bush has NOT sent them: at least to stop the Darfur genocide, and to relieve the suffering people of Burma and Zimbabwe.

But these general facts don’t imply that US policy is actually wrong in ALL particulars, for instance Iran.

Mr Eland is correct in that there is an Iranian side of the story. But that doesn’t prove that the US is wrong or that Iran is right. And he leaves out a key aspect of the Iranian side.

Namely, why should Iran want nukes at all? He assures us that Iran “is probably attempting to get nuclear weapons because it lives in a rough neighborhood and fears an Israeli or U.S. attack.” That’s about like guesstimating that Hitler was probably innocently seeking lebensraum, and ginning up rockets, in order to prevent a Polish or British attack.

In fact, the only reason Iran might have to fear an Israeli or US attack (finally, after all this time) is precisely because it has been actively seeking nuclear weapons.

Eland’s statement of ‘probability’ as to Iran’s motives belies actual stated certainties to the contrary.

Depending on its president’s latest verbiage, either Iran has no desires for nuke bombs at all (just ‘peaceful’ nuke energy – in a country blessed not only with oil but plenty of sun and empty desert to tap it) or else nuke bombs are precisely what he wants for the sacred cause of doing away with Israel.

Unlike just about any other nation, Iran has, tolerates, and supports a chief of state that goes around violating the first law of the UN charter, namely to peacably accept the existence of all member states. Instead he threatens Israel, and moreover self-righteously, with extinction. Openly.

Some people figure that he’s so blatant that he can’t really mean it. Just as Hitler presumably didn’t really mean it.

No, Iran faces neither real threats nor is not simply just another country which is seeking some icons of power, out of a bit of puffed up national pride. Its motives go further, and precisely on that account Iran must not be allowed to get nuclear weapons.

That’s to say nothing of the domino effect. A nuke-armed Iran is perceived as a threat by other mid-east Moslem states, to the point that they will insist on their own nuke deterrent.

And that too is to say nothing of the likely failure in this case of the supposedly sufficient policy of deterrence through MAD – mutually assured nuclear destruction. The cold war and recent threats of Pacific war could defuse because neither side really wanted an actual Armageddon. Not necessarily so for suicide-bombers and their fanatic abettors in the mid-east.

]]>