Wed 16 May 2007
Ivan Eland writes:
“…the world’s greatest nuclear weapons state wants to deny Iran, which lives in a rough neighborhood, a few nuclear warheads. That is not to say that it would be good for the despotically ruled Iran to dominate the gulf region or to acquire nuclear weapons.”
Where’s the evidence that Iran is persuing nuclear weapons?
As David E. Sanger of the N.Y. times points out,
“The material produced so far would have to undergo further enrichment before it could be transformed into bomb-grade material. To accomplish that, Iran would likely first have to evict the I.A.E.A. inspectors, as North Korea did four years ago.”
No such eviction as of this writing.
The only evidence that I see of a motive to acquire nuclear weapons on Iran’s part is best exemplified by V.P. Cheney’s recent aircraft carrier antics in their face.
And it’s a long technological path from producing weapons grade nuclear fuel to effectively shooting it at the world’s number one nuclear power on the other side of the planet.
If an American citizen or group of citizens is concerned, they should be free to try to alter the situation. But how is it Washington’s problem if Iran is “despotically ruled”?
Why are we concerned with who “dominates” the gulf region?
Why can’t we just send empty oil tankers, fill them up, write a check and mind our own damned business?
We consume oil; they produce oil. The oil “dependency” perspective fails to account for the fact of interdependency; how long would wealthy oil-producing states stay wealthy if they refused to sell to their best customer?
At least twice a week I go to a Publix supermarket.
When I’m there, I never shoplift, I never vandalize their property. I’m never abuse or threaten or fail to respect the employees and management. I just take what I want off the selves, put it in the cart, take it to checkout, pay for it and leave.
But by the logic of U.S. foreign policy, I should be concerned. My “grocery dependency” makes me “vulnerable” to Publix arbitrarily refusing to sell to me. Actually, it’s Publix that should feel threatened.
I guess I’d better start thinking about taking military action against Publix, no? At least that would appear to be what John Bolton would suggest:
“…if the choice is between a nuclear-capable Iran and the use of force, then I think we need to look at the use of force.”
That sort of raving rapaciousness is hardly a surprise from the likes of Bolton, who the above-linked UK Telegraph article ominously reminds us in closing, is “…still a highly influential voice and Mr Bush remains adamant that he will not allow Iran to become armed with nuclear weapons.
The Pentagon has drawn up contingency plans for military action and some senior White House officials share Mr Bolton’s thinking.”
4 Responses to “When In Doubt, Bomb”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.