Sarah Palin recently spoke about Iran, Obama and terrorism on Fox News. While we are currently involved in two wars, Palin seems to think that a third war (against Iran) would be something we should do. She said:
“Say he decided to declare war on Iran or decide to really come out and do whatever he could to support Israel–which I would like him to do. That changes the dynamics of what we can assume will happen between now and three years. Because I think if the election were today, Obama would not be elected.”
While support for Israel does make sense (Israel is a consistent American ally in the region), attacking Iran does not seem to be a very good idea.
Three reasons this would be a bad idea are Iraq, Afghanistan and the economy. In other words, we are already bogged down in two wars and our economy is in bad shape. Starting up a third war might well be beyond our means. Two factors that tend to break empires are overextending the military and overtaxing the economy. As such, we should give considerable more thought about the matter before sending tanks into Iran.
Of course, it could be argued that the consequences of not attacking Iran will be far worse than then consequences of attacking. People have argued that Iran is close to getting nuclear weapons and hence we must attack them.
Of course, we have never operated on the principle that we will invade countries to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons and it is not clear why Iran should be the exception. Also, if we a adopt the principle if attacking countries who might get nuclear weapons, then it would make sense to also go after those that already have these weapons. However, this does not seem to be a very good idea since it would probably start a nuclear war.
It might be argued that the time to strike is before a country has nuclear weapons. After all, if someone is reaching for a gun, the time to hit him is before he gets to it. It also makes sense to fight people who do not have guns rather than those who do. Likewise with nuclear weapons in place of guns.
This analogy does work well when you know the person reaching for a gun intends to shoot you. If a person is reaching for a gun because so many other people have guns and having one is a status symbol as well as means of deterrence, then attacking seems far less reasonable. After all, attacking will certainly start a war and allowing the person to get his gun unmolested might not lead to a fight. So far this approach has worked-after all, we are currently living with a world on which many folks are toting nuclear weapons. If we can live with them, the argument goes, we can live with a nuclear armed Iran.
However, some folks claim that the leaders of Iran are religious fanatics and that they will start a nuclear war as soon as they can get the weapons.
If this were true, then this would be a matter of great concern. Going back to the gun analogy, if you saw a madman lunging for a gun while screaming about slaughtering all the heretics/infidels/non-believers in the name of Jesus/Allah/Santa Claus, then shooting him before he can grab that gun would probably be a good idea.
This leads to a critical factual issue: are the people who call the shots in Iran crazy religious fanatics who intend to start a nuclear war as soon as they get weapons?
The answer seems to be “no.” While the leaders in Iran talk the religious talk and act in theocratic ways, they seem to be very similar to all leaders: concerned about power, corrupt, and very much interested in the things of this world. As such, it seems unlikely that Iran would switch from being a fairly pragmatic political player to being an apocalyptic madhouse simply because it gets the bomb.
I could, of course, be wrong about this. Maybe they are dreaming of burning the world in nuclear fire for the glory of God. Maybe Obama
Also, there are other reasons to be concerned about a nuclear armed Iran, such as their willingness to provide weapons to terrorists. But this possibility must be weighed against the cost of attacking Iran and maintaining a sustained campaign to prevent them from acquiring such weapons. Ironically, launching such an attack could make the United States even less safe by providing even more motivation for terrorism and creating even more fear in the Middle East that America has no qualms about attacking Muslim countries.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://i2.wp.com/img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png)
In discussions on this topic, I always wonder about North Korea. I mean, is anyone more nutty than Kim Jung-Il? And there’s no doubt that he has nukes. But alas, he just gets stern warnings. No one wants to do that war again…
Absolutely crazy! If you watch our media than it seems that the whole world is against Iran and the IAEA is sure that Iran is building the nuclear bomb. But if you watch other media from other countries especially from Iran and China than the western countries stand alone on this issue.
Would be nice now to know which side is right.
Here you can compare:
http://www.opiar.com
If somebody finds it out who is right, please tell it.
Ok. I’m breathing before responding.
You decide, cure, whom to believe, Iran and China or the West. Try living in China or Iran and I think it’ll make your decision quite easy.
Iran is building a bomb. The only question is whether we should do anything about it.
On one hand, adding one more nuke pile to the world wouldn’t seem to make a big difference. On the other hand, having another stack of nukes does raise the probability of war, accident or terrorist acquisition a bit.
Currently, there are nine nations that have nuclear capability. I would not codify that as “lots.”
Your comment about Palin’s comment is really, really self serving. Obviously Mike, she was saying that she would like Obama to come out and strongly support Israel. I guess to satisfy you (unlikely that anything Palin said could do this) she would have to speak like we do here in the military when we’re talking on the radio:
Palin: National News Media, This is Rogue One, how copy, over?
National News Media: Rogue One, this is National News Media, call sign: Spinster. You are loud and clear, over.
Palin: Roger that. Just inquiring as to the projected anaysis of political atmospherics in three years, should one of three courses of action be undertaken. Break. One, that the US does not enter a war with Iran, and two, that the US does enter a war with Iran. Break. Three, that the American Commander in Chief should make a public and resolute statement that America stands fully behind the state of Israel. We’re hoping for the last course of action. Out.
Also, your comparisons with a gun and nuclear weapons in good–almost. Except you conveniently leave out the fact that if a man were to say he has a gun, and be known to have a gun, and then articulate that he planned on shooting his wife with it, he would be arrested and charged with terrorizing or aggravated criminal threatening.
Iran has stated that they will burn Israel with nuclear fire. Will they? I don’t know. I don’t think it’s a cut and dry situation and even Obama has stated that he is leaving all options on the table.
Read Ghost Wars. No, it’s no an appology for reagan or conservatives. Steve Coll, the author, is a journalist and the book won the Pulitzer, so that should tell you that lots of libs love it. I loved it too. It shows me that throughout history, things happen that could be contrued as happening because of poor government and leadership decisions, as if all bad things hinged on one obvious decision. This isn’t the case. Most times, there are very tough calls to make alongthe way, weighing the outcomes of inaction and action. Only after do the talking heads weigh in and try to look smarter than everyone else. There have been time when catastophic decisions have been made, but i look at what caused these decisions and I can understand. Hopefully we can learn.
Examples of decisions that were not easy (again, pundits want them to seem so obvious) but ended up being wrong:
1) Iraq invasion. I understand why it happened.
2) Rumsfeld’s decision to underman the occupation of Iraq after Saddam fell. He wanted a small footprint, thinking that occupation was the same as crushing an army in a standup fight. It wasn’t the same. To occupy, you need less firepower but more manpower.
3) Paul Bremmer’s decision to disband the Iraqi Army asfter the fall of Saddam’s regime. Better he’d kept these men employed.
Seems the mistaken decisions alluded to in magus’ numbered list seem to make the outcomes you describe in your concluding sentence even more likely.”Ironically, launching such an attack could United States even less safe by providing even more motivation for terrorism and creating even more fear in the Middle East that America has no qualms about attacking Muslim countries.”
Again though, if we really think they’ll nuke someone, it’s a tough call. Fingers will point from both sides of the aisle.
I do know that Iran has been responsible for US troop death in Iraq. They fear Iraq. They don’t want Iraq to get too powerful. The two countries hate each other. Let’s not forget that Shia and Sunni Muslims hate each other more than they do the West. The war between Iran and Iraq included the use of WMD and was probably the bloodiest war since WWII. 500,000+ people killed and a trillion dollars in economic loss.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htm
And I completely disagree with Dr. labossiere in his assessment that the leadership in Iran is not really religious. I think they are capable of justifying any act in the name of Islam and the 12 Imam.
“They fear Iraq. They don’t want Iraq to get too powerful. The two countries hate each other.” Most everyone agreed on this point pre-2003. Would it be to big a leap from there to add a #4. Actually it would precede your original #1). As follows: For at least six years after 2003 the war rendered Iraq less stable. Made Iraq a nation feared less by Iran. Gave Iran time to pursue a more dangerous path?
I didn’t claim that they are not religious. Being religious is a vague enough state that almost everyone qualifies as religious. Being able to “justify” any act in religious terms is not unique to those folks-after all, some Americans do that as well.
World destruction? Chill out y’all. Have some of comfort food:
http://chefdanielangerer.typepad.com/chef_daniel_angerers_blog/2010/02/mommys-milk.html
@Magnus71 as a question to your reply to my opiar.com comment.
So that I understand, you mean that we have to believe everything to this country that is wealthier and richer?
I don’t know if you can remember the reason for the Iraq war and how the news paper and channels informed us.
Sometimes perhaps it could be better to have a look from different perspectives on foreign affairs by opiar or something else.
Well, if you think Obama is lying…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1249837/Obama-accuses-Tehran-building-bomb-Iran-threatens-stun-West-punch.html
“Mr Obama said Iran’s refusal to accept a UN-brokered atomic fuel swap agreement suggested it was intent on trying to build nuclear weapons, despite its insistence its atomic activities were only for the peaceful generation of electricity.
He said: ‘Despite the posturing that the nuclear power is only for civilian use … they in fact continue to pursue a course that would lead to weaponisation, and that is not acceptable to the international community.’”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aOLRz4Tjnhyc
Well,
perhaps Obama is lying.
Do you think Bush lied when he said this
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-27-2004/moment-of-zen—iraq-weapons
so perhaps it’s better to have more sources of information instead of waking up in a nightmare at the end.
That’s why it could be quite good to use websites like opiar.com to get an objective view.
Mike, Sarah Palin and Dick cheney are saying what I was saying, in that Democrats harp on the details of if the terroists should get civil or military trials, they talk about human rights, but not the human rights violations of the enemy.
Remember when you wrote this article–for me, Doug?
http://aphilosopher.wordpress.com/2007/09/14/for-doug-yes-al-qaeda-is-evil/
That was because you were doing exactly what I see a lot on the left do: Concentrate on lesser evil just because it’s closer. It’s easier too.
You insinuate that America stands for something good, and yet you also seem to argue that we are fighting in contradiction to those values. I can’t think of a more morally fought war by the US. No carpet bombings, soldiers not defending themesleves when it endangers innocents. And yet it’s still not enough. You’re too focused on making Republicans look bad. Who cares?
You liberal ire is misplaced.
As I said in that essay, the terrorists are morally wicked. What they do vastly exceeds in moral evil what we have done. As you say, we do not behead journalists or intentionally slaughter civilians and children to create terror.
However, we must not let the evil of the enemy justify our own misdeeds. After all, when battling monsters you must be on guard against becoming a monster yourself. Terrorists groups are not just our enemy, but also the enemy of mankind and civilization in a very real sense. While people have thought they could have their “tame” terrorists to use against their foes, the terrorists have made it clear that this is not the case.
While I am not probe to hyperbole, this is actually a war over civilization. Our side is supposed to be the side of civilization: reason, order, law, civility, ethics, and all that good stuff. Our true enemy is those who bring irrationality, chaos, lawlessness, incivility, evil and all that bad stuff to the world. On this point I agree with Bush’s rhetoric: this is a moral struggle of good versus evil.
But, as I have consistently argued, we need to be worthy of our elevated rhetoric: we must be good. Merely fighting bad people is not what it is to be good.
I think that what you have failed to point out that American and Israeli hegemony in the Middle East is responsible for the many acts of terrorism around the world.
Israel is a country of stolen land sanctioned by the United Nations and the United Kingdom. Once the Israeli/Palestinian problem is solved terrorism will probably decrease.
As for Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, who are we to question what another sovereign nation does? Whether or not Iran does indeed develop a nuclear weapon is immaterial as it surely knows that any type of attack would ensure its destruction.
The United States is the biggest terrorist nation on the face of the earth and it can never live up to its rhetoric. There is too much money to be made by exploiting the rest of the world.