Iran's Nukes not the real problem.
A NUCLEAR IRAN WOULD BE BAD.
A FORCIBLY De-nuked IRAN
WOULD BE far WORSE.
The largest antiwar mobilization in history occurred three years ago this month, when over 10 million people marched in more than 600 cities around the world to prevent the United States from launching a unilateral, preemptive, illegal, unprovoked, and unwise invasion of Iraq.
Before that war has ended there can be no doubt that at least two military options are now being "war gamed" by our Pentagon. One, a full scale invasion of Iran, intended to change its regime. The other, assorted "surgical strikes" aimed at "taking out" its nuclear assets.
Either would prove lethally and economically devastating to our proud and unique nation. The costs of modern warfare will exceed all benefits by creating more problems that it will solve. And thousands of innocent souls who have nothing to do with this dispute will end up paying the steepest price.
The next anti war mobilization needs to say more than "war is unhealthy for children and kittens and other living things." It will need to document the enormous unintended but predictable consequences that will befall our nation and the world.
First, Iran would put up an almost infinitely better fight than Saddam's Iraq. There is no doubt the US military would prevail in dislodging Iran's theocratic regime if ordered to do so. But what then in a country with three times the population, four times the area of Iraq, and a three thousand year heritage of fierce national pride? The economists Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz have concluded that our war, occupation, and nation building in Iraq will eventually cost Americans between $1 trillion and $2 trillion, with no guarantee of success. Any attack on Iran would cost more.
Even a "surgical strike" option would be a disaster with an almost certain prolonged spike in oil prices. Worse yet, without UN Security Council authorization, we would again flout the UN Charter and further enfeeble an international legal system that needs strengthening not gutting.
The one thing the peace community failed to do before the last war was take a stand based on the foundation of our own nations lasting peace....the rule of law. If one nation repeatedly disregards the law of nations, then all countries end up with the law of the jungle.
On a tactical note, in retaliation for any kind of attack, Tehran would likely launch missile strikes on both Israel and the many American military bases throughout the region. And, with its extensive ties to the Shiite majority in Iraq, Iran could cause U.S. casualties there to skyrocket. Tehran might also enhance its sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel (or Palestinian terrorists might react on their own) or in our own cities here at home.
A great deal of discord does exist within Iran between the forces of theocracy and liberty, but not surprisingly, virtually all Iranians would come together in their defiance of an American strike. Even ordinary Iranians would react negatively to any US military action. Iran’s hardliners would be immediately vindicated -- and their positions in the Iranian power struggle greatly enhanced. The Iranian government could then discard the pretense of "only seeking nuclear electricity," and formally withdraw from the NPT (as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad already has hinted, North Korea already has done, and all parties have a right to do under Article X). Iran would then proceed directly toward constructing a sizeable atomic arsenal. Persistent US targeting these efforts would inevitably drive Iran into the cheaper and easier to hide alternative of biological or chemical weapons --weapons with the potential to devastate our nation socially, economically and politically. Only a US invasion and full occupation of Iran could even begin to stem the production and distribution of these weapons of mass destruction.
During the Vietnam war, many military leaders believed that every time we killed a Viet Cong guerilla, we created two more. US military command has now stated that our war efforts are creating more terrorists than we are killing. There are just too many Muslim young men inside and outside of Iran who have spent most of their childhoods in madrasa Islamic schools and are now unemployed and idle. Many are likely looking for some purpose in life, some meaning, perhaps even a cause worth dying for.
Our forcible denial of Iran to acquire even a single atomic bomb when we have thousands will undoubtedly drive many Muslims now on the fence to obtaining nuclear or biological destructive capacity. Some will find ways to smuggle them into this country regardless of who manages our ports. Such an attack could make September 11 seem like minor irritation.
Isaac Newton's laws of action and reaction applies to nations as well as billiard balls. Eliminating Iran's nuclear capabilities over there will likely ensure far greater terror back here. There will be no victory…or mission accomplished. Only mass murder on a scale we can barely imagine.
WHAT CAN the US Do ABOUT IRAN.
Mikhail Gorbachev and Eduard Shevardnadze used "mutual security” to bring the cold war to an end. If you threaten your adversaries, they threaten back. If you make your neighbors more secure, you make yourself more secure. The key was understanding the fears of others.
Unfortunately, our nation has only exacerbated Iranian fears with announcements of our intention to initiate preemptive wars against states we determines might someday pose a threat. Our leader recently declared that three nations (including Iran) constitute an "axis of evil." President Bush even issued a new nuclear doctrine that contemplates nuclear first strikes against non-nuclear states (in explicit violation of the NPT), and actually names seven states (including Iran) as possible targets. Bush has already launched one preemptive war against Iran’s eastern border state. Now, Iran finds itself surrounded on all four sides by American military power -- Iraq to the west, Afghanistan to the east, U.S. bases in Central Asia to the north, and the invincible US Navy in the Persian Gulf to the south. Even Bush’s reassurances only make things worse. He proclaims "This notion that the U.S. is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous," then follows up with, "Having said that, all options are on the table ..."
If Iran looks west it sees Iraq that opened itself to unprecedented international inspections and got itself invaded anyway. If Iran looks east, it sees North Korea that built a nuclear arsenal in secret, and now successfully deters any hint of US aggression. If you were Tehran, what would you do?
Both sides must first ratchet down their rhetoric. Ahmadinejad's genocidal threats to Israel and his Holocaust denial rightfully intensified Western antipathy toward Iran. But few Western leaders seem to grasp that "all options on the table," sounds eerily similar to Hitler’s ‘final option’. Threatening language has no place in a world with nations potentially armed to the teeth with WMD of every nature.
The United States needs to learn the value of carrots over sticks. US aid to Tsunami stricken Muslims or Earthquake flattened Pakistanis did more to obliterate anti-Americanism than anything we’ve yet launched from our shores.
We could start with a mutual security agreement with formal non-aggression pledges if Iran reverses its genocidal hatred for Israel? Or, we could disavowing any effort to bring down the Iranian government through non-military means (as we did in 1953) -- instead of asking Congress for $85 million to "promote democracy" in Iran as Condelessa Rice recently did. Better yet we could offer Iran investments in alternative energy technologies -- wind, solar, tidal -- to wean them from nuclear energy. Most important we should restore the full diplomatic relations we terminated during a hostage crisis that ended more than a quarter century ago.
If we stop making Iranians feel vulnerable and invite them to reap some of the rewards that accompany joining the community of nations, they might feel less inclined to seek any form WMD.
WHAT Could our President say to the world?
A hypocrisy that Washington persistently dodges was framed by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, with his usual clarity. He said that the nuclear states "refuse to initiate or respect any restraints on themselves, while ... raising heresy charges against those who want to join the sect." Similarly the 2005 Nobel Peace Laureate, Mohamed El-Baradei, says that we must "abandon the unworkable notion that it is morally reprehensible for some countries to pursue nuclear weapons but morally acceptable for others to rely on them." In bazaars and barracks and boulangeries in many parts of the world, angry young men must ask, "Why can the United States possess more than ten thousand nuclear warheads, while our country cannot acquire even one?"
The Bush Administration cannot insist on retaining our nuclear weapons and improving on them far into the future. His 2002 "nuclear posture review" put forth plans to unveil new generations of nuclear weapons in 2020, then again in 2030, and then again in 2040. This nuclear double standard cannot stand.
It is possible that the Iranian nuclear crisis could be defused in a stroke of the pen instead of surgical strikes. We could promise in writing to Iranian leaders:
"We don't expect you to endure the nuclear double standard forever. The NPT doesn't just impose non-proliferation obligations on you, it imposes obligations on us. We understand that you will not forever forego your nuclear weapons if we insist on forever retaining ours. Nuclear weapons won't protect you, and they don't protect us. We know that eventually we must abolish these abominations before they or some other WMD abolishes us."
Our problem with Iran could be solved with those five sentences.
If not this President, perhaps the next. If we are not already occupying Iran or recovering from their retaliatory biological strikes.
A FORCIBLY De-nuked IRAN
WOULD BE far WORSE.
The largest antiwar mobilization in history occurred three years ago this month, when over 10 million people marched in more than 600 cities around the world to prevent the United States from launching a unilateral, preemptive, illegal, unprovoked, and unwise invasion of Iraq.
Before that war has ended there can be no doubt that at least two military options are now being "war gamed" by our Pentagon. One, a full scale invasion of Iran, intended to change its regime. The other, assorted "surgical strikes" aimed at "taking out" its nuclear assets.
Either would prove lethally and economically devastating to our proud and unique nation. The costs of modern warfare will exceed all benefits by creating more problems that it will solve. And thousands of innocent souls who have nothing to do with this dispute will end up paying the steepest price.
The next anti war mobilization needs to say more than "war is unhealthy for children and kittens and other living things." It will need to document the enormous unintended but predictable consequences that will befall our nation and the world.
First, Iran would put up an almost infinitely better fight than Saddam's Iraq. There is no doubt the US military would prevail in dislodging Iran's theocratic regime if ordered to do so. But what then in a country with three times the population, four times the area of Iraq, and a three thousand year heritage of fierce national pride? The economists Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz have concluded that our war, occupation, and nation building in Iraq will eventually cost Americans between $1 trillion and $2 trillion, with no guarantee of success. Any attack on Iran would cost more.
Even a "surgical strike" option would be a disaster with an almost certain prolonged spike in oil prices. Worse yet, without UN Security Council authorization, we would again flout the UN Charter and further enfeeble an international legal system that needs strengthening not gutting.
The one thing the peace community failed to do before the last war was take a stand based on the foundation of our own nations lasting peace....the rule of law. If one nation repeatedly disregards the law of nations, then all countries end up with the law of the jungle.
On a tactical note, in retaliation for any kind of attack, Tehran would likely launch missile strikes on both Israel and the many American military bases throughout the region. And, with its extensive ties to the Shiite majority in Iraq, Iran could cause U.S. casualties there to skyrocket. Tehran might also enhance its sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel (or Palestinian terrorists might react on their own) or in our own cities here at home.
A great deal of discord does exist within Iran between the forces of theocracy and liberty, but not surprisingly, virtually all Iranians would come together in their defiance of an American strike. Even ordinary Iranians would react negatively to any US military action. Iran’s hardliners would be immediately vindicated -- and their positions in the Iranian power struggle greatly enhanced. The Iranian government could then discard the pretense of "only seeking nuclear electricity," and formally withdraw from the NPT (as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad already has hinted, North Korea already has done, and all parties have a right to do under Article X). Iran would then proceed directly toward constructing a sizeable atomic arsenal. Persistent US targeting these efforts would inevitably drive Iran into the cheaper and easier to hide alternative of biological or chemical weapons --weapons with the potential to devastate our nation socially, economically and politically. Only a US invasion and full occupation of Iran could even begin to stem the production and distribution of these weapons of mass destruction.
During the Vietnam war, many military leaders believed that every time we killed a Viet Cong guerilla, we created two more. US military command has now stated that our war efforts are creating more terrorists than we are killing. There are just too many Muslim young men inside and outside of Iran who have spent most of their childhoods in madrasa Islamic schools and are now unemployed and idle. Many are likely looking for some purpose in life, some meaning, perhaps even a cause worth dying for.
Our forcible denial of Iran to acquire even a single atomic bomb when we have thousands will undoubtedly drive many Muslims now on the fence to obtaining nuclear or biological destructive capacity. Some will find ways to smuggle them into this country regardless of who manages our ports. Such an attack could make September 11 seem like minor irritation.
Isaac Newton's laws of action and reaction applies to nations as well as billiard balls. Eliminating Iran's nuclear capabilities over there will likely ensure far greater terror back here. There will be no victory…or mission accomplished. Only mass murder on a scale we can barely imagine.
WHAT CAN the US Do ABOUT IRAN.
Mikhail Gorbachev and Eduard Shevardnadze used "mutual security” to bring the cold war to an end. If you threaten your adversaries, they threaten back. If you make your neighbors more secure, you make yourself more secure. The key was understanding the fears of others.
Unfortunately, our nation has only exacerbated Iranian fears with announcements of our intention to initiate preemptive wars against states we determines might someday pose a threat. Our leader recently declared that three nations (including Iran) constitute an "axis of evil." President Bush even issued a new nuclear doctrine that contemplates nuclear first strikes against non-nuclear states (in explicit violation of the NPT), and actually names seven states (including Iran) as possible targets. Bush has already launched one preemptive war against Iran’s eastern border state. Now, Iran finds itself surrounded on all four sides by American military power -- Iraq to the west, Afghanistan to the east, U.S. bases in Central Asia to the north, and the invincible US Navy in the Persian Gulf to the south. Even Bush’s reassurances only make things worse. He proclaims "This notion that the U.S. is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous," then follows up with, "Having said that, all options are on the table ..."
If Iran looks west it sees Iraq that opened itself to unprecedented international inspections and got itself invaded anyway. If Iran looks east, it sees North Korea that built a nuclear arsenal in secret, and now successfully deters any hint of US aggression. If you were Tehran, what would you do?
Both sides must first ratchet down their rhetoric. Ahmadinejad's genocidal threats to Israel and his Holocaust denial rightfully intensified Western antipathy toward Iran. But few Western leaders seem to grasp that "all options on the table," sounds eerily similar to Hitler’s ‘final option’. Threatening language has no place in a world with nations potentially armed to the teeth with WMD of every nature.
The United States needs to learn the value of carrots over sticks. US aid to Tsunami stricken Muslims or Earthquake flattened Pakistanis did more to obliterate anti-Americanism than anything we’ve yet launched from our shores.
We could start with a mutual security agreement with formal non-aggression pledges if Iran reverses its genocidal hatred for Israel? Or, we could disavowing any effort to bring down the Iranian government through non-military means (as we did in 1953) -- instead of asking Congress for $85 million to "promote democracy" in Iran as Condelessa Rice recently did. Better yet we could offer Iran investments in alternative energy technologies -- wind, solar, tidal -- to wean them from nuclear energy. Most important we should restore the full diplomatic relations we terminated during a hostage crisis that ended more than a quarter century ago.
If we stop making Iranians feel vulnerable and invite them to reap some of the rewards that accompany joining the community of nations, they might feel less inclined to seek any form WMD.
WHAT Could our President say to the world?
A hypocrisy that Washington persistently dodges was framed by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, with his usual clarity. He said that the nuclear states "refuse to initiate or respect any restraints on themselves, while ... raising heresy charges against those who want to join the sect." Similarly the 2005 Nobel Peace Laureate, Mohamed El-Baradei, says that we must "abandon the unworkable notion that it is morally reprehensible for some countries to pursue nuclear weapons but morally acceptable for others to rely on them." In bazaars and barracks and boulangeries in many parts of the world, angry young men must ask, "Why can the United States possess more than ten thousand nuclear warheads, while our country cannot acquire even one?"
The Bush Administration cannot insist on retaining our nuclear weapons and improving on them far into the future. His 2002 "nuclear posture review" put forth plans to unveil new generations of nuclear weapons in 2020, then again in 2030, and then again in 2040. This nuclear double standard cannot stand.
It is possible that the Iranian nuclear crisis could be defused in a stroke of the pen instead of surgical strikes. We could promise in writing to Iranian leaders:
"We don't expect you to endure the nuclear double standard forever. The NPT doesn't just impose non-proliferation obligations on you, it imposes obligations on us. We understand that you will not forever forego your nuclear weapons if we insist on forever retaining ours. Nuclear weapons won't protect you, and they don't protect us. We know that eventually we must abolish these abominations before they or some other WMD abolishes us."
Our problem with Iran could be solved with those five sentences.
If not this President, perhaps the next. If we are not already occupying Iran or recovering from their retaliatory biological strikes.
posted by Chuck Woolery at 4:50 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home