There is a serious debate going on in the United States over whether or not Iran is trying to develop a nuclear device and whether or not we should use force to prevent them from doing so (really it often seems like the debate is over whether we should bomb Iran a la Libya or proceed with a full scale land invasion). This is a serious debate, and people will argue on one side or the other (when we catch Ahmadinijad and Khameini do we stage trials and THEN execute or do we let the rebels torture them first), but from here on out the debate over what to do with Iran and the are-they-or-arent-they tease is going to be irrelevant to this entry. What I don't understand, and yes, I am being completely serious, is why we care whether or not Iran develops a nuclear device.
I mean, for fuck's sake, Pakistan has nuclear weapons (plural). What does it matter if Iran has one little old weapon of mass destruction?
Okay, that was reductive and a little bit misleading. No country would stop at creating a single nuclear weapon. The better question would be how is it that we allow a country full of people who cannot stand the United States, that engages in all kinds of belligerent acts with its (also nuclear capable) neighbor, and that is constantly teetering on the edge of collapse to have an ever-expanding arsenal of over one hundred nuclear weapons? I'm not suggesting an invasion of Pakistan, but I do believe the very real threat of a Pakistani nuclear device puts the Iran situation in perspective.
But the problem with the rhetoric that inevitably surrounds this debate (even progressives seem to start any opinion on the matter with "if Iran got a bomb it would the single worst thing that ever happened in the history of the world BUT") is that it actually takes a fair amount of backwards, unsupported logic to suggest that it would be a BAD thing if Iran had a nuclear weapon.
If this debate ever happened in the news (it hasn't) and the opinion that it wouldn't be a bad thing were expressed (it wouldn't) the other side would sit with a wide open mouth. "Of course it would be bad," they would say as if it was self evident, "Iran would use a nuclear weapon to destroy Israel!" This is a familiar argument to anyone who watches or reads the news, and somehow it has turned from theory into law in spite of the fact that Iran hasn't started a war with anyone since the Russo Persian war of 1826 (which itself was really just a continuation of a war Russia had started, but now we're nitpicking). Iran has announced no intentions to attack Israel, ever (the "wiped off the map" statement has been so thoroughly debunked that it requires some serious mental gymnastics to take seriously), and who can blame them? Israel has a state of the art army, one of the best intelligence agencies in the world, and, oh yeah, a veritable (although not verifiable) FUCK TON of nuclear weapons.
And a thirty year history of bombing and or invading the shit out of any country in the region that doesn't do what it wants. And a willingness to use weapons of mass destruction in these invasions. All of this suggests that if Iran were to use a nuclear device against Israel (with or without provocation), there would be no more Iran within a few days.
So to recap, there is one country that essentially can do whatever it wants (excuse me, feels necessary for its survival) in the middle east because it has nuclear weapons, and because of that ability has been able to turn the southern portion of a neighboring country into a smoldering pile of rubble and starve another country (excuse me, occupied territory) to the precipice of death. There is a term, "nuclear deterrent," that probably somehow applies here.
NEXT TIME WE'LL PONDER WHY WE CARE ABOUT "SELLING OUT"
No comments:
Post a Comment