iran (so far away)
by Steven Doss
Published: July 14, 2008
Recently, Iran announced that it fired nine test missiles as a result of threats from Israel and the United States. The Israeli ”threat” is founded on the fact that, unfortunately, Israel exists; while the United States, The Great Satan, not only exists, but with Toby Kieth as its frontman. Given the recent show of Iranian military might, how should our demon-in-chief respond? Does the situation call for something along the lines of our reaction to the saber rattlings of North Korea or should we take a more invasive approach (as in, invade Iran)?
Though Toby will certainly disagree, I think recent history provides us with a clear answer: multi-lateral talks work, invasions don’t. Present day Iran and North Korea provide the world with a ready-made experiment in the merits of diplomacy. Both countries have actively pursued nuclear weapons. In North Korea’s case, we decided that the best way to deal with them was to talk with them (gasp) and see why they were building missiles while hundreds of thousands of North Koreans were starving to death. The United States and other nations in the Pacific Rim came together, talks started, stalled and started again. Ultimately, those talks led North Korea to put an end to their nuclear-weapons program. They have since begun acting like big boys and if their good behavior continues, the Axis of Evil will soon be short one member. Not to jump the gun, but there’s even talk of an open border to the south. Good for them.
In Iran’s case, though, for some reason we have taken a decidedly different approach. Maybe since we were already over there, our president decided that the toppling of three totalitarian governments (Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran) for the price of one trip was too good to pass up. Consequently, he has taken every opportunity to enunciate “Amurica’s” antagonism to the Iranian nuclear-weapons program in particular and the Iranian government in general. It has been a war of words ever since, a series of verbal attacks that lies in stark contrast to our Asian approach. Not once have we said that we would talk to the Iranians and see what can be done convince them to stop pursuing nuclear arms. And what do we have to show for our more aggressive approach? Nine experimental missiles and a promise that there’s more where those came from; and by the way, they can easily reach Israel.
So, how should we deal with Iran now that they have tested missiles? The answer is still clear: look at what happened with North Korea. No longer are they a bully in the world. Now they are more like the awkward kid who sits in the back of the class wondering how he’s going to fit in. North Korea has ceased to be a major threat to stability in the region. In contrast, our relations with Iran have hardly ever been worse and the Middle East has never been more unstable. Iran is currently fighting two proxy wars: one through Hizbollah in Lebanon and the other through Shiite militias in Iraq. If they succeed in toppling the Iraqi government, they will be the biggest, most nuclear kid on the block - and no one wants that.
So to our current and next president I say, use our diplomats more and our hot air less. Try to fully understand why Iran is doing what they are doing, and for now, take the military option of the table. If the military option were to become necessary, it’s not like you won’t know where you put it. This time around, if someone is to give MSNBC a reason to put another stupid count-down-to-invasion clock on the air - let it be Iran.
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
July 14th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Steven makes an interesting case, and his description of the different approaches, and their results, while accurate is incomplete. And therein lies the problem with his analogy.
A quick look at the countries involved in the asian multi-lateral talks shows us that mainland China was also party to those talks. China is North Korea’s ’sponsor’ state. North Korea has no economy to speak of, they are dependent upon China to keep them going, which is why they could afford to develop their Nuke program to the extent that they did. The regime in power in Pyong Yang really doesn’t care about the general welfare of its captive population.
But look at things from China’s perspective: For the last 10-15 years, its been fun to have North Korea sitting there rattling it’s saber, drawing all the bad press, and making the PRC look goodby comparison…but China’s economy is growing, ‘free trade zones’ are making money, and the world is coming to Beijing for the Olymoics this summer. China helped turn the screws on North Korea, and things are getting better because it is in China’s best interest now.
Steven, who is there standing behind, or even beside the Mullahs in Iran to help us by turning screws?
July 14th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Steven, when have talks ever worked with terrorists? The answer is never. They may have been a cease-fire here and there, but it was always broken. The answer is because you cannot negotiate with terrorists due to the fact that their are so fanatic. Don’t forget why the shiites are fighting the sunnis. Because when the Islamic empire collapsed, a couple of groups emerged out of it who had different views of who the “ruler” should be. While their differing opinions are causing them to continue fighting, even till this day, their common objective of restoring the caliphate and take over the world through terrorist tactics is still in play.
We dont need to continue trying to understand their motives because we already do; just research the middle eastern regime and history.
Dont get me wrong, I don’t another war whether its just israel and iran, whether its israel and US against Iran or whether its WWIII. No one likes war. If only the world can all unite and do something about it together and not leave Israel, a country the size of delaware, to combat GLOBAL terrorism by itself.
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:37 pm
The premise of the article is wrong from the start. First of all, Iran has lied again. The missiles they launched are actually incapable of reaching Israel. They are the same old ammo they have been using for years. The question we need to be asking is why are they trying to display a power they are patently incapable of wielding? My answer is that they want us to attack and then have larger sympathetic countries and the UN come to their aid and fight the US, making us the big bad bully who picked on the little whiney kid. The problem. In the hands of a little kid whose being bullied, even a little gun can hurt and kill the bully. Our response must therefore be one of a strong and unquestionable defense without any attack until we are actually attacked. Let’s just hope that attack doesn’t happen on our own soil.