I was told yesterday that we should “give peace a chance,” and that the sanctions against Iran are working. We just need to give it time. I asked the person who told me that what makes them so certain the sanctions are working, even as Iran continues to amass and enrich uranium and conduct missile tests? I asked what are the criteria for success? I did not get an answer. Ahmadinejad is openly laughing at the U.N. In a televised interview four months ago, he said “If they want to continue with that path of sanctions, we will not be harmed. They can issue resolutions for 100 years.”
While we are “giving peace a chance,” Ahmadinejad is building a nuclear arsenal.
Another person told me today that, if we were to take military action against Iran, the world would condemn us because they already think we’re a bully. Apparently, some people believe we need to wait for Iran to make the first strike, so the world will “approve” when we retaliate. How many American and/or Israeli lives are we willing to sacrifice to world opinion?
It’s frustrating to know what your enemy is up to (because he has brazenly told you), but be unable to do anything about it because you don’t want to look bad to somebody else, while your enemy gloats because he knows your hands are tied by public opinion.
Within the past three months, Iran has been installing 6000 new super high efficiency centrifuges for enriching uranium, that work five times faster than the old centrifuges. Some people are willing to believe Ahmadinejad when he says he’s going to use all that enriched uranium for nuclear energy just to produce electricity, but are unwilling to believe him when he declares the time is very near when America (the Great Satan) will be destroyed and Israel will be wiped off the map.
I’m not suggesting we should jump into a war with Iran tomorrow. But I have a great deal of concern over the confluence of:
- Their recent dramatic increase in uranium enrichment capabilities.
- Their mounting increase in apocalyptic rhetoric against both the U.S. and Israel.
- Their recent saber rattling exercises, indicating that they feel invincible.
All of this concerns me a great deal. It also concerns me that so many people seem determined to ignore these facts, or refuse to consider their potential underlying significance. Any one, by itself, might be dismissible but, taken together, there appears to be a certain momentum building.
I acknowledge that we’re too overextended militarily right now to be able to effectively engage in direct military action against Iran. I see that as a huge problem, as Iran shores up it’s military might in obvious preparation for a conflict we are not prepared to undertake. I also grasp the urgency to take some kind of action to thwart their build-up of nuclear capability before it gets to the point that we cannot, without exacting a retaliatory strike. (Or first strike, as some would have it.) Once they have a nuclear arsenal in place, it’s too late.
How ironic that “giving peace a chance” might lead us down the path to a nuclear war that could have been avoided…
Government is Not Your Daddy 
Can you prove Iran is not using the uranium to produce electricity (just like Brazil in 2006)? … or better, can you prove they are using it to create weapons of mass destruction? just like (sic) iraq “did”?
Maybe I’m wrong, but US have weapons of mass destruction too right? so I suppose I should bomb you?
btw, I like the way you use the word “enemy” on your post altought I miss the “game over” expression.
shame on you
Why do you believe Ahmadinejad when he says something as implausible as that he needs 6000 super high efficiency centrifuges to produce massive quantities of high grade enriched uranium for electricity, but think he’s kidding when he declares his intention to destroy Israel and the U.S.? (Good ol’ Mahmoud. He’s such a kidder.)
Your confidence in his benign intentions is certainly reassuring to me but, unfortunately, the U.N. Security Council doesn’t share that confidence. Do you know something they don’t?
The commenter uses a classic liberal mindset; reason therefore doesn’t apply. According to relativism, the fact that we have weapons means that it’s okay for everyone else. They completely ignore the fact that although we have the capability, we don’t run around threatening to wipe other nations off the face of the planet, nor do we sponsor terrror.
OK, I’ll try again… please read it with more love.
I’m not on Iran or Iraq side ok? I mean… there isn’t a side to chose! that’s my point! Think again, why someone like me (outside US) would come to your blog (“Conservative Oregon Blog Roll Alliance” (nice snake btw) and maxredline fake-global-warming-friends) and comment something that you and your friends tag as “classic liberal mindset”?
Let me put this way: I don’t remmember how I find your blog, but I remmember adding it on my daily feedlist because you wrote something that I find really good on “Evil oil companies?” and “Private Proprety x Public Trust” posts.
So yesterday I was reading this post and thinking “come on, what happened to that guy?” I mean, you argue that US shouldn’t give peace a chance because if you do you (or anybody else) gonna get bombed by the “enemy”. You write so much about law stuffs, isn’t wrong to prejudge someone? So… don’t you think that the US history and the recent Afeganistan and Iraq wars doesn’t tag you bad to the rest of the world? Ignoring ONU and etc? Are you sure that US “don’t run around threatening to wipe other nations off the face of the planet, nor do we sponsor terrror”?
You probabily don’t think much about that, but try to imagine what US represents to people on Colombia, Sweden or Japan.
My point is: today Iran, yesterday Iraq and tomorrow… China? I know that you and all US citizens don’t want to live on war for ever, how many US solders died on Iraq man, come on.
my english isn’t so good and I haven’t a vast vocabulary yet, so if you don’t understand my point I’ll be happy to explain it again later.
best regards.
Artwo, pardon my lack of manners, and welcome to Daddyland. I will try to read your comment with more love.
In answer to your question, I believe that Iran is a special case, because of its direct and repeated threats to both the U.S. and our ally, Irael. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a fanatic who believes that, even if his own country is destroyed in the process, he will be richly rewarded by Allah for destroying us and our valued ally. The fact that he is amassing nuclear weapons makes his threats no longer empty rhetoric, but something that must be taken very seriously. He has indicated his intention to destroy our country and to wipe our ally off the map. He will never have the capability to destroy our entire country, but he could cause massive devastation. Israel is a small country, and very vulnerable to attack.
Once he has nuclear capabilities, given his martyr mindset, I cannot see anything that would prevent him from using them to carry out his threats. Therefore, the only way I can see to prevent him from wreaking some sort of devastation on us or on Israel is to prevent him from ever achieving nuclear capability.
Does this make my position a little more clear? I am not a proponent of war for the sake of war. War is expensive, in many ways, and it would be much better for all of us if we did not have to engage in war. But, when an enemy declares war on you, and has the means to back up their threats, you don’t have much choice but to fight. And, when fighting is necessary, you must fight to win.
Regarding what the rest of the world thinks of us, nuclear weapons can destroy us. Opinions can’t. We must put the safety and security of our citizens and allies ahead of the opinions of those who have nothing at stake (or don’t think they do).
This entire post is, yet again, more mindless fear-mongering. We are doing just as much “saber rattling” as Iran is, and we’re the much more powerful adversary. Idle “threats” from spolied brats don’t add up to much of anything IMO.
“They completely ignore the fact that although we have the capability, we don’t run around threatening to wipe other nations off the face of the planet, nor do we sponsor terrror.”
And you completely ignore the fact that the ONLY country to ever use nuclear weapons aginst another country is us. You also don’t remember the theory of Mutally Assured Destruction that was touted (successfully I might add) by many, many U.S. politicians. That theory applies in this case as well with Iran…what did my former favorite candidate Hillary say about potentially wiping Iran off the map if they attacked Israel?? You also forget that the USA had a 1986 judgement made against us after Nicaragua filed a suit in the International Court of Justice against the USA [Nicaragua vs. United States], which resulted in a judgment against the United States related to us supporting terrorism against them. What happened to letting he who is without sin cast the first stone??
Israel is VERY capable of taking care of itself BTW. I’ll never understand why so many on the Right in this country bow at the throne of the Israelis.
To those who aspire to die while smiting the enemy because that makes them a holy martyr (and guarantees them 72 virgins when they get to heaven), Mutual Assured Destruction is not a deterrent but “a consummation devoutly to be wished…”
This is crazy talk…along the lines of what the Crusaders were told:
“BUT THE KNIGHTS OF CHRIST may safely fight the battles of their Lord, fearing neither sin if they smite the enemy, nor danger at their own death; since to inflict death or to die for Christ is no sin, but rather, an abundant claim to glory.”
http://www.the-orb.net/encyclop/religion/monastic/bernard.html
It’s not as if everyone in Iran (or even a majority of Muslims) believe in that nonsense.
This kind of crazy talk is no betetr that those on the Religious Right in this country that long for the rapture & Armageddon so that they can all go to heaven. THAT’S what’s at the source of a lot of the “pro-Israel” talk on the part some of the most extreme Right-wing in this country.
It doesn’t matter if everyone in Iran believes it. It only matters that the leaders do, because they’re the ones with the power to launch a nuclear attack, once they have nuclear capability.
We’ve had almost 8 solid years of GOP fear-mongering, and those days are finally coming to a close. Talking with your adversaries isn’t the same as capitulation.
In order to negotiate with someone, you have to trust them. If they can’t be trusted, what’s the point of negotiation? Ahmedinejad is lying (very transparently) about his uranium enrichment plans. You may believe him, but the U.N. Security Council sure doesn’t. What is the point of negotiating with a fanatic terrorist who is a known liar? What do you really think you’re going to gain from that?
We’ve negotiated with the likes of the Soviet Union, North Korea, Serbia, Libya, Egypt, China, Vietnam, etc., etc., etc….
“What do you really think you’re going to gain from that?”
What we’ve *always* gained from it…peace & mutal security. You don’t think that the Iranians are scared just like you apparently are?? People are people…
Mr. Guy,
We didn’t “negotiate” with the former Soviet Union, we broke them by investing in massively superior military capability, including the much-derided Star Wars program (which, incidentally, is now capable of its planned task – shooting down inbound missiles). Nor did we “negotiate” with Libya – we scared the crap out of them when we returned to Iraq.
Artwo,
maxredline fake-global-warming-friends
I have never claimed that global warming does not occur – quite the opposite, in fact. I’ve noted repeatedly that global warming, like global cooling, occurs on this and all other planets in the solar system as a result of fluctuating solar activity.
I do deny that humans are the cause, and I further make the case that humans have no significant effect upon global climate. To claim otherwise is the height of arrogance.
I’ve noted that 95% of all planetary greenhouse gases consists of water vapor, and that of the remaining 5%, the much-ballyhooed carbon dioxide is a minor player. Even so, 97% of all atmospheric CO2 is non-anthropogenic in origin. CO2 accounts for a massive 3.618% of greenhouse gases; the human contribution is therefore 3% of 3.5%. Pretty marginal, it must be agreed. Moreover, C)2 is inefficient when it comes to trapping heat; CH4, which comprises some 0.36% of greenhouse gases, is far more effective as a heat sink – yet the number one animal-derived source of methane on the planet happen to be termites.
It seems unlikely that we’ll be able to round up all of the termites and fit them with tiny, methane-trapping butt-plugs, but such an approach would certainly be more effective in terms of overall climatological influence than worrying about one’s “carbon footprint”.
“We didn’t ‘negotiate’ with the former Soviet Union”
Really?? We didn’t negotiate with them during the Cuban Missile Crisis?? The Soviets didn’t negotiate away their Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces through negotiation?? We negotiated with them on a whole host a issues to preserve peace, and they were MUCH stronger than Iran could ever be.
“which, incidentally, is now capable of its planned task”
Baloney. The envisioned defense system (lasers, particle beams, etc.) from the 1980s will NEVER come to pass…much of that technology *still* doesn’t exist today!
“Nor did we ‘negotiate’ with Libya”
Libya was the *first* country to achieve independence through the UN negotiations. Libya’s role on the international stage grew much less provocative after UN sanctions were imposed. In 1999, Libya surrendered 2 Libyans suspected in connection with the Lockerbie bombing for trial before a Scottish court in the Netherlands. The full lifting of the UN sanctions included Libya’s acceptance of responsibility for the actions of its officials & payment of appropriate compensation ($2.7 billion in Libyan funds to the families of the 1988 attack) in 2003. Libya wanted to abandon its WMD program starting in 1999 in order to provide it with *more* security (incluidng economic security) than the continued pursuit of chemical or nuclear weapons.
I’m looking forward to Iran producing and testing nuclear weapons. I’m not worried that they will use them on the US, they don’t have the ability to get a weapon delivered here.
The howling that will ensue after they do their first test will be amazing, and all the liberal European and American political leaders will be forced to deal with this. When they fail to deal with this, these leaders will be seen as failing, exactly like Carter failed against Iran and ushered in the era of Reagan.
The worst case scenario will be that Iran strikes Europe or Israel. I don’t care about that, only a minor effect on the US.