Iran an American Superpower

Well if the USA was working to eliminate nuclear ambitions on itself, maybe the story would be singing another tune.

Seems to me you left out a major complainer named Jack Straw of Britian. Britain always has their nose in making trouble instead of themselves likewise seeking nuclear ambitions stopped within their own country.

It is not enough for a country to say we are responsible so we are allowed to wave our mighty bombs as a flag in the Air. They need to do the same. This is what negotiation and diplomacy is suppose to do to stop aggresssion.

As Iran thumbs its nose to the world, lets remember that the USA did the same when the world said no to invading Baghdad.

I think America has lost its sense of judgment.

by Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments) on Sunday, January 15, 2006 at 1:11:30 AM
 

An alternative to war in Iran

Thank you Mr Leser ! More, of course, in sorrow than in anger, you present us with a rationale for an invasion of Iran, conventional if possible, nuclear if necessary. At the same time you inform us that the fault that «we» have come to this pretty pass is that of the egregious Mr Bush, so that if that international crime which the Nürnberg court called «the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole», that of a war of aggression, is committed and Iran is invaded, no responsibility rests upon «us», but only upon Mr Bush and his policy advisers. Even more than the thought of people being killed in yet another illegal and ill-conceived war, the idea that I should have to share in the responsibility me makes me uncomfortable. Thus it did make me feel a whole lot better to learn that war is inevitable, and that the fault is entirely that of others !...

Still, I can’t help but wonder whether, in fact, you have explored all available avenues prior to suggesting the regrettable but alack, so necessary alternative of war - an act which, as you know is prohibited under the UN Charter, and thus, according to Article VI of the US Constitution, by «the supreme law of the land». Fortunately, I have here a suggestion that may yet save us from the scourge of war and allow at least some pruning hooks to be beaten into ploughshares, to wit : suppose the United States government were to inform its Israeli counterpart that as it is in the vital interests of the United States that Southwest Asia, aka in Orientalist terminology as the «Middle East», become a nuclear weapons free zone, the United States will refrain from providing financial, military, diplomatic or other aid to the state of Israel until such time as that state has acceded to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 5 March 1970, destroyed its nuclear weapons, and opened up all its nuclear facilities to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (which after almost three years of go-anywhere see-anything interview-anyone inspections, has yet to find any indication that Iran has—or ever had—a nuclear weapons programme). Naturally, the Israeli government would balk at such a démarche on the part of the United States, but it is extremely unlikely that the US would have to go to war to enforce it – all that would need to be done would be to inform the Israeli government that if it does not conform to the deep-felt wishes of its closest ally, the US funding on which Israel is completely dependent for its financial existence would come to an end. To show that the US government meant business, it could remove all of the high-placed officials in, say, the State Department and the Pentagon who hold dual US-Israeli citizenship and freeze the assets of US organizations which transfer money to Israel in the name of charity, moves which would certainly come as a surprise to the Israeli government and impress it deeply. When the Israeli government had acceded to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, destroyed its nuclear warheads, and opened its nuclear facilities to the same type of intrusive inspections to which Iranian facilities are now subject, I am sure that little will be needed to convince the Iranian government to fulfill its own obligations under the treaty, in which, as we all know, «the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes» (Article IV) is guaranteed....

I am sure, Mr Leser, that after reading the above you will fully agree with me that my proposal represents a far better alternative than your somewhat hasty call for another war in Southwest Asia. Please feel free to present it as your own to friends and acquaintances ! In matters of such pith and moment as those which concern (nuclear) war and peace, priority struggles are definitely out of place....

by mhenriday (0 articles, 11 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 152 comments) on Sunday, January 15, 2006 at 3:32:48 PM
 

It's not OK to nuke Iranians

The Steven Leser article states that Iran "must" be attacked if they pursue nuclear weapons. I hope I'm not going to be the only person who writes back to say that's cruel and outrageous. If it was wrong to attack Iraq preemptively, how could it be OK to attack Iran preemptively?

Let me ask everybody a moral question: Don't the people in Iran have a right to live?

Everybody repeating this murderous notion of nuking Iran has got to stop and think. Has it occurred to anyone that Iran might be building up their defenses and a possible nuclear deterrent because they're afraid of being attacked? Remember, they have oil and they have been the target of foreign intervention repeatedly. In 1953, Iranian democracy suffered a US-organized coup. Then, shortly after the 1979 revolution when they threw out the US-backed dictator, they were attacked by Iraq. We've all seen the picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein while Iraq was using chemical weapons against Iranians. In fact, ever since the 1979 revolution, Iranians have been demonized and have suffered from US sanctions. Since George Bush took office, Iran has been labeled part of the "axis of evil." And look what happened to Iraq, another country with that label.

Clearly Steven Leser is worried about Israel, like many Americans. It's quite true that Iranian people in general support the Palestinians. Is that a capital crime? Iran and Israel do not get along. Lots of countries and Israel don't get along. Parts of the Iranian government are supporting some Palestinian factions fighting Israel. Israel is armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons and has a history of preemptive attacks on other countries in the region. Steven Leser thinks all this history makes it obvious that Iran will nuke Israel if they get a chance. I think all this history makes Iranians afraid that Israel will nuke them.

What has changed recently that makes a lot of pundits and politicians say "we" have to nuke Iran? Mostly, people are quoting the big bad mouth of Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president. He's a fundamentalist and a throwback (not unlike the American president). So what? Should the people in Tehran and Isfahan and all sorts of little villages get nuked because of him? A president is not a country. If Steven Leser thinks it's appropriate for Iranians to die for Ahmadinejad's big bad mouth, what should happen to us Americans for Bush's sins, which far exceed hateful rhetoric?

But but, the pundits say, "be very afraid" -- Iran might attack Israel. I say, don't be afraid. Iran has no history of invading other countries and they're not going to attack Israel. They're not crazy! If other Americans would spend as much time in Iran as I do, they'd realize that Iranians are regular people. Iranians pride themselves on being nice, actually. How many Americans have seen the Iran that international aid organizations attest has been very helpful to Afghan refugees for many years?

It's true that Iran has problems, including a lot of people with really old-fashioned thinking who seem to have a strangle-hold on the government. But right now the US seems to be going out of its way to make Iran's internal problems worse. It's almost as if the Bush gang wants Iran to look bad and scary so that Americans are too confused to put a stop to this crazy, murderous talk of nuking Iran.

by Ruth Wangerin (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Sunday, January 15, 2006 at 8:56:14 PM
 

Iran, We are where the U.S. and Britain have put us.

Seems to me, the people doing the most screaming and yelling about Iran seem to be the U.S. Israel and Britain.
Europe, lags behind and only comes onto the scene when pushed, shoved and dragged by the U.S. and Brits, clearly, they have no taste for what their U.S. puppet masters demand of them.
Despite all the yelling and propoganda emanating from the above sources, contrary to the claims being made Iran HAS DONE NOTHING WRONG, and unlike Pakistan, India, Israel,North Korea and of course the U.S. and Britain, is in FULL compliance with the NPT.

Further, despite all the claims and allegations made, NO PROOF has yet surfaced that Iraqn is indeed pursuing nuclear weapons.
After the last debacle (Iraq) where similar claims and allegations were made, you'd think the vocal gangs would be somewhat emabarresed somewhat and tone down their rhetoric some.
No such luck, they believe they can do whatever they choose to do, bend the law to fit their adgenda, besides, whoever said the LAW applied to them anyway ?
America's attacks and beligerence against Iran are nothing but hateful evil greedy selfish self serving aspirations completetly without foundation this is where the greatest danger lies, within the shores of the U.S. and it's compatriot in crime the U.K.

This year, 2006 is going to be a VERY bad year for us all, if we allow these war mongering criminals to have their way, despite all of the above, the signs are, the U.S. will have it's way and discontent and anger will result on a massive scale World wide against them as a result.
This anger will escalate to such an extent that there WILL be catastrophic events on the U.S. mainland and Israel.
I guess you could say, they will be receiving some of their own back, or as the CIA is so fond of terming it, PAY BACK is due.
From that moment on, the die will be cast and the predicted outcome will unfold, which is the demise of the U.S. as we know it.

It's written folks, all you have to do is read it, whether WE ALLOW it to happen, is entirely in OUR hands.

by Eddy Schmid (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 207 comments) on Monday, January 16, 2006 at 8:22:38 AM
 

Response to the Responses...

First, I want to clarify something. The three responders are talking as if I am some sort of hawk. My wife and I fought against this latest Iraq war tooth and nail. We demonstrated on the streets, we wrote to various members of congress, we spoke in person to one member of the house and one member of the senate, I wrote article after article and posted message after message on my website and various others. Since the war began, I have continued to write articles critical of the war, not just because it affects our abilities regarding other potentially hostile countries, but because I am completely convinced it was morally wrong.

I'm going to address all of your arguments here in my response, but a few more preliminary points first. I don't mind if people disagree with me. If my articles do nothing more than to get people's minds working or provide fodder for public disagreements in which better courses of action are unearthed, I feel I have done my job as a journalist. But, please don't misquote me or change my words in an effort to set up a straw man argument. I feel that is done at least once by each of the responders here. Not to pick on Ruth, but her first sentence says that my article "states that Iran 'must' be attacked if they pursue nuclear weapons". I certainly did not say that. If nothing else changes and Iran does in fact pursue nuclear weapons (something that is not at all clear at this point), I think that it is in the best interests of most of the region and world if Iran is conventionally attacked, occupied and in general, prevented from succeeding in its nuclear ambitions. In general, people wanting to debate should avoid using logical fallacies such as straw man, two wrongs make a right, ad hominem etc, see http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

One of the problems I see among my friends on the ideological left (Democrats, Greens, and even further down the line), is that Iraq has caused a sort of weltpolitik knee jerk against the US' use of force. I am generally anti-war, but I do acknowledge that there are some mitigating circumstances where it is necessary. The idea of Weapons of Mass Destruction, particularly of the nuclear variety, falling into the hands of madmen is one such mitigating circumstance. The reason the administrations rabid assertion of said justification with Iraq fell flat with me is twofold. First, Saddam Hussein may have been cruel, and evil, but he wasn't a madman. He very much wanted to live and wanted to continue to rule Iraq. As we can see with how he was eventually found, the guy wanted to survive at all costs. I always believed that about him. Mutually Assured Destruction is a sad policy on which to have to rely, but in
some cases necessary, but in any case it completely depends on both parties caring about being destroyed. Saddam cared and thus, even if he had had WMD, he could be successfully dealt with and prevented from using them. After all, he did not use chemical or biological weapons against us in the first Gulf war, when it is accepted by all that he had them. He knew the response from us would swift and nuclear and that he would not survive it. The second important reason that the administration's machinations on the Iraq war justification fell flat was that I became more and more
convinced before the war that Iraq did not have WMD, that level of assuredness reached nearly 100% when the March 6, 2003 reports by the UN weapons inspectors came out saying that after four months of on the ground inspections, they had had good cooperation from the Iraqis and found no WMD. As far as I am concerned, it is unforgivable to have invaded Iraq on a WMD justification two weeks after said reports.

My friends on the ideological left have an intellectual post traumatic stress disorder with regards to the use of force as a result of the Iraq war. Iran is not Iraq. Saddam Hussein and the Baath party are not Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs. I have zero confidence that Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs would not initiate a nuclear war knowing full well that they and their countrymen would likely be destroyed in the response.
Some more specific responses. Dominic said that the US should essentially worry about disarming itself from WMD before disarming anyone else, and that the US violated international law by invading Iraq so we should now let Iran violate international law. I believe that the world should essentially disarm from any weapons of mass destruction, but that is not the immediate issue, nor is what the US did with Iraq the immediate issue. People need to seperate Iraq from Iran in their minds. I know it is hard given what the administration tried to sell this country regarding Iraq, but there it is. Just because we are in the hands of a criminal administration that lies doesn't mean that they will never need to act to protect us.

Mr. Day, your suggestion regarding economic sanctions and in effect, an embargo against Israel unless they disarm would not work. No Israeli Prime Minister in their right minds would accede to such demands, even with the destruction that said measures would wreak on their economy. Nuclear weapons are viewed as much too important to the safety of Israel. In fact, Syria has indicated it has enough chemical weaponry to kill every citizen of Israel if it came to it. I don't think any nation would easily give up WMD if it has a hostile neighbor who also has them. Maybe its just me, but I find the ease with which people dismiss the fact that Israel has been invaded five times in the last 60 years by its neighbors hard to understand. The distrust and seige mentality that any population would feel having been subjected to this shouldnt be left out of the equation when discussing any such country. The former Soviet Union had and China has similar fears and much of their military posturing and actions since the end of the second world war were dominated by them. If you dismiss what these people clearly feel, you will not be successful in dealing with them. China still does not forget the open door policy and how any foreign power with a gunboat and a desire to rape and pillage felt free to set up shop in their country. You can see this in virtually everything they do. Do you blame any of these people or countries for feeling this way?
To Ruth, I am concerned about Israel, you are right, but not in the way you imply. I am concerned in the same way I was concerned about and for both India and Pakistan on more than one occasion over the last 5-7 years where I was VERY worried indeed that they might have a nuclear exchange. One interesting point Ruth makes is that if Iranians 'deserve' to die as the result of Ahmadinejad's policies, might that also mean that we deserve to die as a result of Bush's policies. This is basically the reason and justification bin-Laden gave as to why he attacked the towers, a civilian target. Are the people responsible for their leaders? Were the German people responsible for Hitler? Were the Russians/Soviets responsible for Stalin? The Cambodians for Pol Pot? Are we responsible for Bush? These are extremely difficult questions to answer, but how exactly do they factor in with what is in front of us? In front of us is what to do if madmen pursue WMD. If that becomes a decision between should their people die or ours, I know it may seem selfish, but I would prefer not to be on the dying end. Are we responsible for Bush, well, unfortunately, yes we are, even those of us who did not vote for him. The responsibility those of us have who oppose him is to fight as hard as possible to prevent him from doing the wrong things like what he did with Iraq. Ideally, we should have prevented him from being elected/selected in the first place.

Itchyvet raises an interesting point. If the administration misled us about Iraqi WMD, how do we know they arent misleading us about Iranian WMD. The answer is, we don't listen to them (the administration), and I havent been. My eyes and ears are on ElBaradei, the head UN Weapons inspector for Nuclear weapons who categorically said that Iraq had NO nuclear weapons program on March 6, 2003, and on France and Germany, two countries who told us to go jump in a lake regarding Iraq. If THEY are singing a different tune, I'm worried. Does that not change your thinking at all?

by Steven Leser (228 articles, 49 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 1647 comments) on Saturday, January 28, 2006 at 11:45:35 AM
 

Southwest Asia, nukes, and what's to be done : keeping both

Thank you, Mr Leser, for doing us all the courtesy to reply, in so thoughtful a manner and so completely devoid of invective, to those of us who responded to your recent OpEd «Iran: We are exactly where I feared we would be». I shall here attempt to respond in kind to the points you raise with regard to my own response. I start at the end with your (presumably rhetorical) question about China’s memories of Western (and not least Japanese) gunboat diplomacy, which in fact antedates Mr Hay’s so-called «Open Door Policy» - a matter which as a coincidence I had occasion to study in some detail while working on my PHD thesis in Chinese history some 30-odd years ago - and then work toward the beginning. No, I do not «blame» the Chinese leadership or the Chinese people for remembering in great detail the events of the 150 years of interaction with the «international community» up to and through the establishment of the People’s Republic, and the pain, suffering and humiliation that it brought to hundreds of millions of Chinese. (I should, however, «blame» the Chinese leadership if it confused its own situation today in 2006 with, say, that facing the Qing Dynasty authorities in, say, 1834, when Lord Napier was sent to Macao, but I see no evidence that it does.) Nor do I blame the Soviet leaders for feeling besieged by a very aggressive USA, toting, as Mr Baruch put it, the A-Bomb rather ostentatiously on its hip, after the collapse of the alliance which had defeated Germany and Japan. And Israeli leaders are certainly well aware of how hated and despised they are by neighbouring populations, who regard the establishment of the state of Israel on 78 % of the territory of Mandate Palestine (and, in 1967, the occupation of the remaining 22 %, the grabbing of water resources, and the building of colonial settlements and roads serving them – all illegal under international law) despite the opposition of the vast majority of its inhabitants in precisely the same way as the Chinese view, say, the Japanese occupation of Manchuria – i e, as yet another example of Western imperialism’s colonial oppression. But Israeli leaders are also well aware that today, with an estimated 200 or more nuclear warheads and in addition the most modern and costly (funded, not least, by US taxpayers) conventional military in Southwest Asia, and since 1969, when Nixon (who ironically enough, disliked Jews but found Israel very useful) came to power, the unreserved support of the United States, they are in no danger of being attacked by any of their neighbours, and indeed, since 1973 Israel has not been engaged in any wars with a neighbouring state, even though it did take advantage of the Iran-Iraq war to attack Iraq in 1981. That Syria represents a danger to Israel greater – or even remotely comparable – to that which Israel does to Syria is simply absurd ; it is not Syria which flies F-16s over Tel Aviv or Jerusalem in order to send «signals» to Israel, but rather Israel which punctuates its diplomacy with flights over Damascus. (It should also here be noted that leaving aside the question of the legitimacy of the establishment of the state of Israel on the territory of the Palestinian people, you are in error in claiming that Israel has been invaded by its neighbours five times during the last 60 years. Israel has actively participated in the following wars : the 1948 «Arab-Israeli War» in which the armed forces of neighbouring countries entered Palestine to fight agains the establishment of Israel on Palestinian territory, the attack on Suez in 1956, in which Israel, along with Britain and France, aggressed against Egypt (and were forced to give up their gains by the intervention of the United States under Eisenhower, the last time to my knowledge that the US has intervened against Israel), the so-called «Six-Day War» of 1967, which was launched by Israel with a surprise attack on Egypt, the so-called «War of Attrition» 1968-70, a limited war initiated by Egypt to recapture Sinai, which had been taken in the Six-Day War, the so-called «Yom Kippur War» of 1973, launched by Egypt and Syria to recapture Sinai and the Golan Heights, respectively, and Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982 (and, as mentioned earlier, the Israeli attack on Iran in 1981, but while that was an act of war, it did not lead to a wider conflict). Thus, Israel was the aggressor in 1956, 1967, and 1982, Egypt in 1968, Egypt and Syria in 1973. The war of 1948 is more difficult to classify as Israel did not exist at its beginning ; I should compare it to Japan’s establishment of Manchukuo in Chinese Manchuria in 1932….)

But let us return to the present. In syllogistic form, your argument for going to war against Iran is basically the following :
Major Premise : Madmen (a term you use three times in your response) can not be allowed to dispose over nuclear weapons.
Minor Premise : The present Iranian leadership is composed of madmen.
Conclusion : Therefore, the present Iranian leadership can not be allowed to dispose over nuclear weapons.

Madmen who disposed over nuclear weapons would worry me as well ! The problem with a madman disposing over nuclear weapons is that he might be disposed to use them. Interestingly enough, in the more than 60 years since the world entered, willy-nilly, the nuclear age, only one head of state has been mad enough to order the use of nuclear weapons : President Harry S Truman of the United States. Although it was feared that the spreading of nuclear weapons to more states would lead to greater risk of their use, even though they have been and are employed to coerce and pressure non-nuclear weapons states, none have, in fact, been dropped since 9 August 1945. So, mirabile dictu, a balance of terror in which several states possess these weapons seems to have prevented their use in war, as opposed to the case in which only one state possessed them.

But is the present Iranian leadership composed of madmen ? I have seen no evidence that this is the case. You say that you have «zero confidence that Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs would not initiate a nuclear war knowing full well that they and their countrymen would likely be destroyed in the response». What is the basis for this statement ? Leaving aside, for the moment, Mr Ahmadinejad, what evidence have you that «the Mullahs», the people that really run the present regime in Iran, are madmen ? True, after being attacked by Iraq in September 1980 (with the support of the United States), the regime fought a bloody war for eight long years, but it hardly had any choice in the matter. It has not, as far as I know, engaged in a war of aggression. After the destruction of its arch-rival Iraq by the United States, it is certainly in a more powerful position in the immediate neighbourhood than it was in March 2003, but I have seen no evidence of suicidal tendencies on the part of men like Ali Akbar Haschemi Rafsanjani or the Velayat-e faqih, Sayyid Ali Khamenei, who are those running the country. What then about the president, the «radical» Dr Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (PhD in engineering and traffic transportation) ? Surely here we are dealing with a real, ought-to-be-committed-for-involuntary-treatment-in-a-mental-asylum madman ? I’m not so sure. He certainly knows how to play to his base, like Messrs (no-option-off-the-table) Bush and (assassinate Hugo Chavez) Robertson, but he hasn’t started any wars lately, and even if he wanted to, the people with their hands on the reins of power wouldn’t let him. Let me ask you a question : would you be as eager to go to war if Mr Ahmadinejad’s predecessor, the «moderate» Seyyed Mohammad Khatami were still Iranian president ? Didn’t the work on nuclear research (nota bene, first established under the late, but hardly lamented Shah with active US encouragement) continue under Mr Khatami ? After all, Mr Ahmadinejad has only been president since 2 August 2005, hardly time enough to plan and start up a major research programme....

Iran certainly has a nuclear research programme, which it claims is designed for peaceful use only and which it states it is permitted under the NNP (a reading with which, after perusing the relevant documents, for example Article IV of the treaty itself, I must agree). While given the toughness of the neighbourhood in which it exists – Israel to the west with its nukes, Pakistan and India to the south with theirs, Russia to the north with hers, and, hovering over the whole area like a spectre, the biggest, baddest rogue state of them all, the United States, one might suppose that Iran’s (which, after all, unlike Israel does not have any close nuclear-armed allies) need for nuclear weapons would be as least as great as Israel’s. But do the Iranian’s in fact have a nuclear weapons programme ? Here is what you say :

If the administration misled us about Iraqi WMD, how do we know they arent misleading us about Iranian WMD. The answer is, we don't listen to them (the administration), and I havent been. My eyes and ears are on ElBaradei, the head UN Weapons inspector for Nuclear weapons who categorically said that Iraq had NO nuclear weapons program on March 6, 2003, and on France and Germany, two countries who told us to go jump in a lake regarding Iraq. If THEY are singing a different tune, I'm worried.

I think you are correct in discounting Mr Bush & Co’s claims with regard to the Iranian nuclear programme ; the credibility gap here is, as we all know, extremely large. What, then, about France and Germany ? I think if you check it out, you will find that prior to the US invasion of Iraq, even these countries did not question the assessment of WMD in Iraq (they were perhaps, somewhat more sceptical with regard to claims of missiles ready for launching against Europe in 45 minute, but it would take a Mr Blair to believe or at least claim to believe that sort of crap). France and Germany were opposed to the war, not because they doubted that Iraq disposed over WMD, but because they felt that with the intrusive inspections being done by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, these were under sufficient control. Thus, even the French and the Germans were fooled (deliberately or inadvertently, I can’t pretend to know) in the case of Iraq ; what is to say then that they are not – or are not pretending to be – in the case of Iran ?

And the excellent Nobel Laureate Dr Mohamed ElBaradei then ? In your response to me, you, whether by accident or design, ignored my comment to the effect that «the International Atomic Energy Agency (which after almost three years of go-anywhere see-anything interview-anyone inspections, has yet to find any indication that Iran has—or ever had—a nuclear weapons programme)». The latest Dr ElBaradei seems to have said on this matter for public consumption is found in an interview with Newsweek’s Christopher Dickey published earlier this week :

For the last three years we have been doing intensive verification in Iran, and even after three years I am not yet in a position to make a judgment on the peaceful nature of the [nuclear] program. We still need to assure ourselves through access to documents, individuals [and] locations that we have seen all that we ought to see and that there is nothing fishy, if you like, about the program.

Not precisely a clean bill of health, perhaps, but hardly a smoking gun ! The obvious thing to do in this situation is not to go to war, conventional or otherwise, but to push for still more intrusive inspections. To make such inspections more palatable for the Iranians and the other residents of Southwest Asia, they should also be extended to the one regional power which has never condescended to sign the NNP, and which we know disposes over nuclear weapons, i e, Israel. While I do not regard the Israeli leadership as composed of madmen, any more than I do that of Iran, I for one would sleep more easily knowing that Israel’s nuclear research programmes – including its military programme – were under intrusive inspection by the IAEA. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander – and maybe, just maybe, we can keep them both from being roasted !...

PS : While in the course of my professional life I have had occasion to treat patients suffering from PTSD, I am unaware of any «intellectual post traumatic stress disorder», from which you state that your friends on the «ideological» left are suffering with regards to the use of force «as a result of the Iraq war». But perhaps you refer to what those on the right delight in calling «the Vietnam War syndrome» ? My suggestion would be that you might wish to take care with whom you share views on the psychological disabilities from which the left putatively suffers – otherwise you might just find yourself ending up doing a David Horowitz !...

by mhenriday (0 articles, 11 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 152 comments) on Monday, January 30, 2006 at 3:39:47 PM
 

I want to keep things on point

Mr Day,

Thank you for your in kind response. I would have to disagree that you should blame the current Chinese regime if they confused their situation today with China's situation in 1834. My opinion, as I wrote it regarding the execution of Tookie Williams, is that cultural history is long reaching and can affect perceptions dozens and even hundreds of years later. I'm sorry that my tongue in cheek joke-diagnosis of a fake form of PTSD fell flat with you. It certainly was not an attempt to portray myself as a board certified psychiatrist, nor do I think my views in any way qualify myself as a Horowitz.

I also noted that you took the anti-Israeli line on history between Israel and the Arabs and Palestinians. That is your right of course. When introducing my wife to the history of the situation, I showed her examples on the web of authors writing the completely pro-Israeli version of history, authors who wrote the pro-Arab/Palestininan versions of history, and ones that are more pragmatic. I tend to be more pragmatic about it. But even the more pragmatic line shows that in each of the five major wars, Israel was either attacked, or the arab neighbors were preparing to attack, or other clear acts of war were made against Israel (cutting off of water/waterways, etc.). You can post back on this if you wish, but I want to concentrate on the main issue at hand, Iran.

I keep repeating the idea that I strongly believe a nuclear Iran would be an unacceptable threat and an unpredictable one. Very little in the way of responses from people have had any strong points to suggest otherwise. They might attack the United States, they might address other points, but Iran is what we are talking about here. The responses, yours in particular, have made me think long and hard about why, exactly, I believe Iran is such a particular threat with WMD as compared to lets say, a Russia, or a China, or a North Korea, or Pakistan, France, England, Israel, or the United States. What it boils down to is that I have a general fear of religious fundamentalists having access to WMD. Sometimes fear is a bad thing, sometimes it is a very good thing. Like the fear of touching a burning stove, I think this fear is a good one. I would have a great fear if the faction in Israel that assassinated Yitzhak Rabin gained power and thus had access to WMD. I would have great fear if Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson were elected President here in the US and thus had their finger on our nuclear button. Be it Islamic, or Jewish or Christian Fundamentalism, it allows the individuals in power to believe that they are right and right absolutely by virtue of divine given wisdom and to discount reason and indeed fear of death for themselves and everyone else. I wrote once that there should be an addendum to Lord Acton's "Power Corrupts and Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely" and that addendum should be "Religion and Politics are two sources of immense power that when combined corrupt each other absolutely" The power base in Iran, since the overthrow of the Shah in 1979, has been the Mullahs. Not just Mullahs, but Mullahs with a very radical fundamentalist view of Islam. I do not accept such people having access to the reigns of power in government, let alone access to WMD. And again, that goes for at least that one faction in Israel I mentioned, the Christian fundamentalists here in the US, etc. It is interesting to me that anyone on the progressive left would even argue with such a thing.

by Steven Leser (228 articles, 49 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 1647 comments) on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 at 6:38:31 AM