ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Friday, February 03, 2006

Chimpy W. McBushitler's Attack on Iran's Right to Self Defense

Today's OpinionJournal has this interesting editorial. The IAEA is scheduled to send Iran to the Security Council for its refusal to stop its nuclear program. Why it's taken this long, I don't know... I could've told el-Baradei that Iran wasn't going to stop its nuclear program 2 years ago, but I suppose that's the price of going the multilateral route.

Anyway, from a report this AM on FoxNews and from this editorial, it looks like some are still unsure as to whether this "provocative" step should be taken:

An 'Intolerable' Threat
What a world with an Iranian nuclear weapon would look like.

Friday, February 3, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

As we go to press, the Governing Board of the International Atomic Energy Agency appears set to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council. This supposedly indicates the seriousness with which the world views Tehran's decision to resume enriching uranium. Yet while the threat is very real, the seriousness is mostly pretend. The referral includes no call to action, which Russia and China object to in any event.

We will have future occasions to lament U.N. fecklessness vis-à-vis Iran. More worrisome is the hazy thinking about just what Iran's nuclear programs portend, and whether the risks of stopping it outweigh the risks of simply acquiescing in the "inevitable." For now, the weight of elite opinion, sighs and laments aside, seems to be on the side of acquiescence. And the Iranians know it.

"I would sleep happier if there were no Iranian bomb," writes former Times of London editor Simon Jenkins. "But a swamp of hypocrisy separates me from overly protesting it." Iran, he adds, "is a proud country that sits between nuclear Pakistan and India to its east, a nuclear Russia to its north and a nuclear Israel to its West. . . . How can we say such a country has 'no right' to nuclear defense?" In other words, what's the big deal?

Well, the deal is the combination of the world's most destructive weapons in the hands of clerical radicals who might use them. And even short of using them, Tehran's rulers could use the leverage of the bomb to dominate the Middle East and limit America's ability to defend itself and fight terrorism. Now that Saddam Hussein is in jail, the Iranian bomb is the gravest threat in the world to U.S. interests.

The ridiculous argument of hypocrisy appears yet again... it's so prevalent these days, employed to justify gay-bashing against Jeff GannonGuckert, blackmailing a US Senator to vote against Alito, and now to excuse the insanity of a nuclear armed Iran praying for Armaggedon.

The fact that Bush has been going the multilateral route regarding Iran should have comforted many of Bush's critics. Instead, as Bush takes a softer-line in foreign policy, his critics become even more pacifist.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Comments (6)
geoff seago said...

I think Iran should be allowed to develop nuclear power and even nuclear weapons then reach the same magnamous position of every other country that has nuclear weapons and never use them aggressively (except of course the united states which used them when the true horrors of nukes was still unknown). As by imposing restrictions on there development we are not allowing Iran to evolve and are fuelling the fire of the fundamentalists. Iran would never nuke Isreal as it would envolve the killing of thousand of palestinians and make the holy land a nuclear wasteland. Lets face it Iran must feel pretty threatened right now with an American invasion on their doorstep

St Wendeler said...

Wow...

If you think Iran gives two toots about the fate of the Palestinians, you're naive.

If you think Iran's possession of nukes is a good (or even a tolerable) thing, I seriously question your cognitive abilities. Not even the a majority of Democrats think that's a wise position.

By the way, plenty of countries that are "evolved" and full developed do not have nuclear strike capabilities.

I wonder how you'll feel when the nuke is set off on your doorstep. No doubt it'd be Bush's fault.

geoff seago said...

If a nuke did land on my doorstep (UK) it would probably be 'friendly fire'

I think you're wrong about Iran not caring about a few palestinians as shown by the revulsion to the bombing of a wedding in Jordan (adjacent to Israel) last year from the whole of the Arab world. The arab world sticks together if we know anything.

Also the use of nukes on Israel would surely secure their own annihilation which I'm sure even they dont want.

Before Ahmadinejad came to power (elected democratically) there were signs of a softening in the strictures of muslim life in Iran which has since hardened with an invasion on their doorstep of dubious intent.

The right are now spoiling for a fight which could put the world back 100 years.

St Wendeler said...

So, if Iran detonated a nuke in the UK, it'd be "friendly fire?" Interesting who you consider your friends to be... Talk about clarifying moments.

If the detonation in Israel could not be traced to a nation-state, would you condone retaliation on Iran (given their public pronouncements regarding Israel and their capabilities)?

WRT Ahmadinejad, it's not considered a democratic election if those wielding real power (in the form of the mullahs) don't allow open ballots.

The people of Iran are still very pro-western, despite the invasion in Iraq.

Yes, it's the West which continues to call for a return to the past... and it's the actions of the West which might cause such a result.

Meanwhile, the extremist Islamofascists call for a return to the 12th century... restoration of a worldwide caliphate, etc, etc.

You realize that you're delusional AND uninformed, right? Quite a combination.

Brian said...

Also the use of nukes on Israel would surely secure their own annihilation which I'm sure even they dont want.

Would it? A (smallish) nuke goes off in Israel but not launched by a missile. Would the world tolerate an ICBM launch (by any western nation) on Iran? Several million Israeli's die, so the Iranians get to die too?

All the while, Iran is protesting their innocence, but saying that Israel obviously had it coming. Does that constitute a death sentenc e for millions of Iranians?

St Wendeler said...

And you just KNOW that if a smallish nuke goes off, Iran and their apologists would be the first to say that it was the JEWS that detonated the bomb...

because Iran has MUCH bigger weapons and if they really wanted to attack Israel, they would have wiped them off the map...

Oh, and the Iranians would also claim that it COULDN'T be them, sinc e they wouldn't want to hurt the Palestinians. It's more likely that it was a Sharonian plot to attack the Palestinians.