- Nobody in their right mind is totally “comfortable” with a country like Iran having nuclear weapons. That said, the question is far more complicated than just liking or not liking the acquisition of nuclear weapons. And when advocates of War on Iran try to equate arguing AGAINST War on Iran with arguing FOR a nuclear armed Iran, they are being ridiculous.
- Despite recent attempts to paint Iran as a menacing threat to other countries and despite the fact that Iran is indeed a horrible despotism, Iran’s concern right now is primarily defense and not offense. If you think I’m being crazy here, start reading U.S. Department of Defense documents. You might start here.… Look at the “Goals of Iran’s Strategy” section. Notice the constant theme of Iran defending itself against external threats, their first priority of survival, and deterring an invasion. Notice that the mention of offense is qualified by “limited”. Iran’s current strategy, regardless of how hawks are trying to paint it right now, is primarily concerned by not being blown to pieces by the U.S. and Israel.
- Building on the previous point (#2), it is glaringly obvious that the treatment of Western powers to the nuclear question has given smaller, marginalized, fringe countries incredible incentive to get nuclear weapons. If you don’t have nuclear weapons you get treated like Iraq, Afghanistan, or Iran. If you do have nuclear weapons you get treated like North Korea or Pakistan. You can infer from the treatment of a country as to whether it is truly believed that they have nuclear arms (which is why it was no surprise to me that no nuclear weapons were found in Iraq). If you want a good case for this point I’m making, look at U.S. political leaders and their statements. You need to look no further than recent GOP debates. Look how Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann are speaking about Pakistan and the nuclear issue. Rick Santorum boldly said (in the context of Pakistan), that Pakistan has nuclear weapons and therefore has to be treated as a friend. So, what’s the easiest way to get different treatment? Bingo. Nuclear weapons.
- If it is Israel you are concerned about…high and well-placed officials and former officials in Israel have indicated they can handle Iran on their own (Israel has lots of nuclear weapons to defend themselves if needs be). Why not take them at their word?
- Either Iran is wildly incompetent or they have no plan to build nuclear weapons (Israel and the U.S. have been claiming they are “just this close” for many, many years).
- It’s pretty funny (and sad) to see how shocked and indignant people are that Iran didn’t return the U.S. drone. What else would you expect? Image China was flying drones nearby…
The National Defense Authorization Act
December 1st – The Senate
Back on December 1st, the U.S. Senate voted on the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1867). The vote was 93-7. “An original bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.”
Democrats were 48 yea to 3 nay, Republicans were 44 yea to 3 nay, and Independents were split between yea and nay with 1 each
December 14th – The Congress
Today, the U.S. Congress voted on the NDAA (H.R. 1540), “To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.”
Congress was much more divided. The bill was passed 280-136 (with 14 non votes). Republicans supported it 190-43. Democrats were split between yea and nay 93-93.
A Couple Questions
- Does anyone know why the Republic and Democratic Senator yea/nay tallies are so close, while in Congress the Republicans are way more on the nay side and the Democrats are split?
- Would anyone venture to say what % of these voters have read through these massive documents (HR 1540 is 908 pages and 5503 sections!!!!!!!)
Final Thoughts
Richard Hannah, a congressman who voted Yea for this act explained that “The legislation would authorize a total of $554 billion in base funding and $115.5 billion in funding for overseas operations, ensuring our fighting men and women are properly trained and equipped to complete the missions we ask them to do. This bill also gives our troops a 1.6 percent pay raise.”
Hannah also commented that due to the Budget Control Act, they had to cut back a bit ($19 billion from last year). I don’t by any means want to pretend I can step in and quickly understand the dynamics of the U.S. “defense” budget. However, I can’t think of any reason–except perhaps an irrational attachment to military hegemony–that would cause a country that is in dire economic straits to be unable to cut more than $19 billion from a budget that is in the $500 billion range!
Also while I can’t pretend to have read the entirety of this massive Leviathan bill (for lack of a better word), the snippets I have read don’t give me warm and fuzzy thoughts about the future U.S. (and consequently world) situation in terms of the rule of law, individual liberty, a cautious foreign policy, and a strong economy.
Some Common Sense on all this Iran hype
Whether or not you agree with each point or emphasis, in a recent article Eric Margolis makes some important points that should be factored in as we consider the Iran issue.
Here are some of these basic points extracted (only the items in quotes are Eric’s direct words):
- There is nothing fundamentally new in the IAEA report, its the same stuff that has been talked about for a long time. No new case for war with Iran here..
- “In 1992, Natanyahu claimed Iran would have nuclear weapons in 3-5 years. Shimon Peres, now Israel’s president, insisted Iran would have nukes by 1999. In 1995, the New York Times claimed Iran was only 5 years from nuclear weapons. In 1998, US Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld claimed Iran was fielding a nuclear-armed ICBM that could hit the United States……” Is Iran that incompetent that, had they wanted nuclear weapons, they wouldn’t have been able to develop them by now? If they are that incompetent, then what are we worrying about?….South Korea, Brazil, Argentina, Taiwan, and Switzerland could all produce a nuclear device within six months of making the decision to do so…..If Iran really wanted nuclear weapons 20 years ago, why on earth has it taken so long to develop a 1940’s technology?”
- Why did “Ali Khamenei, who is also commander of Iran’s armed forces, [issue] a fatwa, or religious decree, banning nuclear weapons”?
- If Iran is an existential threat to Israel, then the U.S. and Israel are even more of an existential threat to Iran.
- “In 1953, US and British intelligence overthrew Iran’s democratic leader…the US and Britain got Saddam, Hussein’s Iraq to invade Iran….After eight years of bloody trench warfare, in which Iraq was financed and armed by the western powers and their Arab oil allies, Iran suffered at least 500,000 casualties. Iran’s western cities were laid waste. Iraq showered poison and burning gas on the Iranians that was supplied by the western powers.”
- “Last week, Israel launched a new missile capable of delivering a nuclear warhead anywhere in Iran and Pakistan. Israel’s German-supplied submarines lie off Iran’s coast, ready to launch nuclear-tipped cruise missiles.”
- “The big nuclear powers – the US, Russia, China, Britain, France – are in violation of the 1995 UN nuclear non-proliferation treaty that mandated eliminating all nuclear weapons within five years.” How can they complain about Iran?
Foreign Affairs article on GOP Foreign Policy
In an otherwise dull and “status-quo supporting” article on the recent GOP debate in light of foreign policy, James Lindsay has made some astute observations about the mainstream GOP stature on Foreign Policy (observations that I’ve shared for several years). The article, featured in Foreign Affairs, says that “most of the GOP presidential candidates are internationalists intent on pursuing an activist foreign policy”.
For all their attempts to pose as fresh air compared to Obama and portray him as a “softie”, he is fundamentally more like them than they will admit and they are more like him than he will admit.
The most striking statement to me, is this (which speaks of the general GOP consensus, excluding Ron Paul of course):
- “each GOP candidate shares far more of Obama’s worldview than he or she would care to admit. With the exception of climate change — a topic even the White House seldom mentions these days — the president and his critics all see the same dangers and threats: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, and the rise of China. The GOP candidates disagree with the president on the tactics of how to advance America’s interests in the world, not what those interests are.”
I would just add that even the tactical differences are rarely differences of fundamental principle. The tactical differences between Obama and his mainstream Republican rivals can be often explained, rather than by principle, but different advisors, or trying to appeal to different demographics, different wording, or just cultural differences.
Though at this time it is the cool thing on the Right to distinguish oneself from Barack Obama, let’s be clear–listen carefully to the front runners, and don’t be fooled by exaggerated attempts to emphasize antithesis. As much as you can ignore the cultural differences, and the differences in wording, and I think you will find that that on core foreign policy values Cain, Romney, Bachmann, Santorum, etc. share a lot of common ground with Obama.
Libya: Rhetoric vs. Reality
Obama in October: “One year ago, the notion of a free Libya seemed impossible. But then the Libyan people rose up and demanded their rights…The new government is consolidating the control over the country…So this is a momentous day in the history of Libya. The dark shadow of tyranny has been lifted. And with this enormous promise, the Libyan people now have a great responsibility — to build an inclusive and tolerant and democratic Libya that stands as the ultimate rebuke to Qaddafi’s dictatorship.”
Refuges International in November: “The National Transitional Council (NTC), the current de facto government of Libya, lacks command and control over all armed groups, including those responsible for revenge attacks. As such, the NTC cannot yet establish or maintain the rule of law. The plight of these vulnerable civilians foreshadows challenges to reconciliation, integration, and equal treatment of all in the new Libya. Further, civilians suffering losses during hostilities have not been properly recognized or assisted.
As the rebel-led siege began, civilians were indiscriminately shot at, and many residents without access to communications believed regime propaganda that rebels would kill them if they dared leave. Many rebels and their supporters believed that all civilians remaining in Sirte were loyalists linked to Gaddafi and ‘were getting what they deserved.’”
(HT: John Glasser)
Why Foreign Policy Matters So Much To Me
Why am I so often talking about foreign policy on here?
- What the state does in my or your name is not a matter of indifference, but rather a grave matter. Even a just war has grave consequences, let alone an unjust one. And the consequences trickle down to everyone, not just the ones that wage the war. In fact, arguably, in many circumstances the decision makers face less of the blowback personally than your average citizen, even if the decision makes acts were criminal (or near criminal). Foreign policy has consequences on you and I, our children, our grandchildren, etc.
- I want government powers to obey Proverbs 20:18 “Plans are established by counsel; by wise guidance wage war.”. I believe wisdom in war means, first of all determining whether it is really necessary and then proceeding to avoid all wars that are unjust. I believe there has been a marked lack of wisdom in the foreign policy of the Western powers, especially in the past 50-60 years. And its not just “the right” or “the left”, its systemic.
- Not only is it of importance to know what the state I live in does in my name, but also the foreign policy of other countries greatly affects me in the ways mentioned in #1.
- If it were a merely political partisan issue, I would have less interest in it. But its important, relevant, and facts clearly transcend partisanship. When I say XYZ as foreign policy, I’m not saying this as a particular party position but rather a heartfelt conviction based on the information I have.
- So many other important and commonly explored and lamented political issues are related to (and adversely affected by) a bad foreign policy. Economics, excessive taxation, liberty of conscience, liberty of free expression, etc. all relate to the issue.
- If you (or your kids or grandkids) plan to travel and do international business safely and without restrictions, foreign policy matters.
- Due to the amount of hubris and propaganda circulated regarding foreign policy and war, usually there are vast areas or subjects or approaches that are vastly ignored and need exploration.
- War is the health of the big-government state and so I can’t consistently be against “big government” without being critical of the modern warfare state. I can’t complain about spending if I’m unwilling to advocate cutting one of the biggest expenses ever (military/foreign-aid/foreign-meddling spending).
- There are many interesting angles to the question(s) involved (ie. history, technology, movements, disputes, land features, different cultures, etc.)
- I feel that there is a remarkable shortage of theologically-conservative Christian, non-pacifist, pro-freemarket people who consistently speak out against imperialism, wars of aggression, foreign policies of meddling, etc. regardless of what political party or philosophy they come from. Not that they don’t exist, but they seem to be marginalized by folks who are crying out for war, aggression, intervention, etc.
- I’ve seen enough history (repeating itself) to see that so many of the prevailing approaches to foreign policy just don’t get it…
- Domestic policy tends to mirror foreign policy in some sort of way (so if your foreign policy is tyrannical, eventually or in some fashion your domestic policy will be similar or become similar). And we can’t consistently object to the poor treatment of our citizens if we advocated that treatment to others just because they happened to be in another country and on the other side of a controversy. Bad foreign policy brings about many temptations towards statism: suppression of dissent, restriction of free speech, conscription, etc.
- There is almost always blowback and if we want to minimize our countries risk of negative effects, we must study our actions and examine them in light of the consequences (for us and others).
Rothbard on Reagan’s Foreign and Economic Policy
General
- “The quintessence of Ronald Reagan is that he is a master in supplying the conservative movement with the rhetoric they want to hear. In all politicians there is a gulf between rhetoric and reality, but in Ronald Reagan that gulf has become a veritable and mighty ocean. There seems to be no contact whatever between Ronnie the rhetorician and Ronnie the maker of policy. In that situation it is hard to know which one is ‘the real’ Reagan.”
Foreign Policy – Lebanon
- “The second flagrant defiance of the law was Reagan’s refusal to obey the War Powers Act, by which Congress ordered the President to subject the maintenance of U.S. troops abroad to its wishes as soon as these troops become subject to actual hostilities. U.S. Marines have been killed in Beirut, and yet the President stubbornly refused to obey the War Powers Act, and only grudgingly agreed to a compromise when Congress knuckled under and ratified the Marines staying in Lebanon for at least another 18 months.”
- “Just as in Vietnam, we hear from the Reagan Administration that, whether or not the Marines should have been there in the first place, once they are there they cannot be pulled out, else the U.S. will lose its ‘credibility.’ Once a ‘commitment’ is made, no matter how idiotic, it must be pursued to and beyond the bitter end in order to preserve American ‘credibility.’“
- “It is fitting to conclude by noting Ronald Reagan’s allegedly noble gesture in ‘taking full responsibility” for the fact that the truck-bombing killed 241 ill-prepared and badly defended Marines. In this way, by drawing all sin upon his own head, Reagan let our incompetent military commanders off the hook. A noble gesture? But let us examine this: In precisely what sense did Reagan ‘take responsibility’ for the killing of a large number of Americans? Clearly in no sense, for the limit of Ronnie’s assumption of responsibility is obviously his oral statement. After which statement, we are supposed to forget about the whole thing…What should ‘taking responsibility’ for the deaths of hundreds mean?”
Foreign Policy – Grenada
- “Reagan on October 25 invaded the tiny island nation of Grenada, along with a few measly troops from neighboring client governments used as a flimsy cover. Not only was this a reprehensible act of aggression…it violated every tenet of international law and of U.S. treaties…Even more of a violation is a naked act of aggression against another state and its people…As a friend of mine suggested, ‘Reagan has been anxious to Win One for the Gipper, and so he finally picked on a country he could-probably-beat.’ But even teeny Grenada minus an army gave us unexpected trouble, the Pentagon admitting that it had greatly underestimated the fighting capabilities of the Grenadians and of the Cuban construction workers (!) In fact, to defeat several hundred Grenadians, the U.S. had to send wave after wave of fresh troops, totaling over 5,000, from Marines to Army Rangers to the famous 82nd Airborne. “
- “Another heinous aspect of the [Grenada] invasion was the impudence by which the U.S. barred reporters from accompanying the invading forces. It was an act unprecedented in American history. In fact, when the U.S. troops found four American reporters on the island they promptly shipped them off by force. The insulting excuse was that the U.S. “feared for the safety” of the journalists. Again, phony humanitarianism and liberal paternalism were being used to justify arrant aggression. For, of course, it should be up to the journalists themselves whether they should endanger their safety. Does the Reagan Administration think it owns the bodies of the men and women of the press, and is therefore entitled to make such decisions? The real reason why the press was kept out, while the war was going on, is that the Reagan Administration didn’t want any Vietnam-like repetition of the media taking pictures of innocent civilians butchered by U.S. bombs and bullets. As it was, the Reaganite tactics worked beautifully, the embarrassing photos were avoided, and the pictures could be confined to happy Americans (happy to be evacuated from the Grenada war zone, that is) kissing U.S. soil. Far better for the Reaganite image!”
- “[Reagan] claimed he acted to protect U.S. citizens in Grenada. But there was no evidence whatever that these citizens, mostly students at the St. George’s University School of Medicine, were under any threat, imminent or otherwise. In fact, the head of the medical school, Charles R. Modica, was bitterly critical of the invasion, and pointed out that the only threat to the lives and persons of the students was that posed by the invasion itself.”
Foreign Policy Cambodia
- “The Reagan Administration’s continued aid and support to Pol Pot in Cambodia, the most genocidal butcher of our time, is more reprehensible but less visible to most Americans. As a result, Pol Pot’s thugs are mobilizing at this very moment on the Thai border to return and take over Cambodia as soon as the Vietnamese pull out, presumably to renew their bizarre mass murders. ”
Foreign Policy – General
- “Reagan calls for intervention everywhere, in the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan, and demands the blockade of Cuba in alleged retaliation for the incursion into Afghanistan. And what is more, in the service of this policy of global war and militarism, Reagan would totally ‘unleash’ the FBI and CIA, to do again their foul deeds of harassing political dissent, or invasion of privacy, or espionage and assassination.”
Economic Policy
- “Ronald Reagan was swept into office by the conservative movement, whose leader and spokesman he had become. He made a raft of campaign promises to that movement, each and every one of which he has broken egregiously. He raised income taxes rather than lowered them, he brought us $200 billion deficits rather than balancing the budget…he has deregulated nothing, he has not abolished the Departments of Education and Energy, etc…”
- “Even though [Martin Anderson was] a top Reagan aide…stories began to appear in the press that he ‘lacked clout,’ and pretty soon he was gone. As White House aide in the…Nixon Administration, Marty had plenty of clout, being largely responsible for the end of the draft and the blocking of the pernicious Moynihan Family Assistance Program. But now, despite his characteristic care in picking his spots for battle, Marty indeed lacked clout. Despite what I am sure were his valiant efforts, he failed to persuade Reagan to follow his campaign promises and abolish the infamous draft-registration program. Until near the end, his only accomplishment was to block a Reaganaut proposal for forcing ID cards on every immigrant alien. Then, it was reported that, among the top White House advisers, only Anderson opposed raising income taxes in 1982.”
- “Another noxious device of the 1982 Reagan budget is to raise taxes but to call them ‘user fees.’ In some cases they are simply taxes outright. Others might not be called taxes, but they have the same effect of shifting money from private producers to the State apparatus, raising charges for services monopolized by the government.”
- “He is seeking tax increases, to the tune of $32 billion over the next two years, and his tax raises are more pernicious than mere figures indicate.”
- “Ever since the Eisenhower Era, every time the Republicans win, the effect has been tragic for free-market..institutions” – Murray Rothbard
- “The much-heralded 1981 tax cut was more than offset by two tax increases that year.”
- “Creative semantics is the way in which Ronnie was able to keep his pledge never to raise taxes while raising them all the time.”
- “How about deregulation? Didn’t Ronnie at least deregulate the regulation-ridden economy inherited from the evil Carter? Just the opposite. The outstanding measures of deregulation were all passed by the Carter Administration, and, as is typical of that luckless President, the deregulation was phased in to take effect during the early Reagan years, so that the Gipper could claim the credit. Such was the story with oil and gas deregulation (which the Gipper did advance from September to January of 1981); airline deregulation and the actual abolition of the Civil Aeronautics Board, and deregulation of trucking. That was it. “
- “The Reagan Administration, supposedly the champion of free trade, has been the most protectionist in American history, raising tariffs, imposing import quotas, and – as another neat bit of creative semantics”
Taft on NATO and Intervention
“Is this policy of uniting the free world against Communism in time of peace going to be a practical long-term policy? I have always been a skeptic on the subject of the military practicability of NATO. . . . I have always felt that we should not attempt to fight Russia on the ground on the Continent of Europe any more than we should attempt to fight China on the Continent of Asia.”
- Robert Taft (three term U.S. Republican senator from Ohio)
7 Questions I would Ask Before Signing Up For A War
Contrary to what one might think by reading some of what I write, I am not a pacifist. My stance against many particular wars should not be interpreted as an overall position of pacifism. I would describe myself as an instinctive peacemaker and non-interventionist who would support a just war with a very steep burden of proof.
I believe that all Christians should be peacemakers, not necessarily meaning that they be pacifists, but rather that they are reluctant towards war and only willing to pursue it as a last resort. I also believe that Christians can’t abstract away the morality and ethics of war. As a non-pacifist, I maintain that one can kill in war in a way that is not murder. However, that doesn’t not mean that all killing in war is not murder. If something is murder, it does not unbecome murder just because someone else ordered it. So, a big part of the reason why we should have a steep burden of proof for waging war is this–like every other area of life, the battle field is an area where we can be held accountable for–not only possibly by courts–but also by God. “Someone else told me to do it” is not an excuse.
I would ask these 7 questions (and suggest that others ask them also before signing up for any war).
- THE ENEMY TEST. Does the enemy meet the three-fold criteria of INTENT, CAPABILITY, and REALITY? (In other words: the enemy is disposed toward mounting a serious and perilous attack on my country AND the enemy is capable of defeating my country in some measure AND the real, definable, identifiable enemy is in some real/direct way waging war against MY country–not some sort of potential threat)
- THE ACTION TEST. Does the military action meet the three-fold criteria of PROPORTIONAL, TARGETED, LIMITED, and GOAL-ORIENTED? (In other words: Is the level of force we are applying morally justifiable in terms of being a proportional response to the aggression against us? Is the operation targeted so that it narrowly focuses on rational targets pertaining to a specific enemy under question and specific objectives under question? Are its scope, tactics, and duration specifically limited with clear bondaries? Is it goal-oriented in the sense that there is a clear and specific outline of realistic conditions in which the war is considered complete and full disengagement will happen?)
- THE KNOWLEDGE TEST. Do I know everything I need to know about this conflict and the enemy and the planned military operation? Am I being manipulated in regard being given incomplete or false information? Am I willing to stake my life on this information? (because in some cases you could die for a cause that turns out to be fraudulent)
- THE WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL TEST. Would I be capable of standing up (before a court of the land or the judgement throne of God) and making a sincere, public oral defense of my actions without hiding behind “I was following orders”. In other words, can I own up to what I am doing on a personal level? (though commanding officers have higher responsibility, whether or not the nation recognizes it, at least before God you have responsibility for what you do in uniform)
- THE VOLUNTARY TEST. Will I have the personal liberty, should the nature of the operations change or should I be called on to do something immoral/sinful, to drop out and not participate any more.
- THE LOVED ONES TEST. If I am a parent and/or spouse, is the threat to my country of such a serious nature that THEY would rather become a widow/widower/orphan than have me not valiantly join in resistance against the enemy? If there is danger to the level that they feel seriously and direly threatened, they are much more likely to be supportive. (it is sort of interesting to see some people using “render unto Caesar what is Caesar and unto God what is Gods” to argue against government education, and then turn around and render themselves and maybe even their children to government wars without thinking twice about it)
- THE POWERS THAT BE TEST. Have the powers that are waging the war done their due diligence in terms exhausting every avenue of finding a peaceful resolution, and that failing, doing their due diligence to wage the war lawfully under the laws and constitution of the land? Is this truly a war your country is waging, or is it a unilateral movement of a particular party or particular person or particular segment of the country? And this takes us back to #4, if the war is waged illegally and you are called to account for your participation (even though it would likely not happen because you are not a high decision maker), would you be able to make a justifiable defense for your actions?
Are all these 7 lights are green? Then it sounds like you should go to war. People could still quibble with your particular interpretation of one or two of these points, but I think this is a pretty good guide overall.
Eric Margolis on the GOP Debates
“[S]ome of the leading candidates made monkeys of themselves when talking about the outside world. As a moderate Republican, I cringed with embarrassment. Former senator Rick Santorum…thought exiled ex-Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf was still in power in Islamabad. Michele Bachman stumbled around all those strange foreign names. Herman Cain laughed off his own ignorance of foreign policy, making fun of the name ‘Uzbekistan.’ Swaggering Texas governor Perry confused India and Pakistan, both nuclear powers. But no matter. Ignorance has become a sort of badge of honor…Only two candidates showed a firm grasp of world affairs: Rep. Ron Paul and former US ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman…Of course, no one gets to be president by telling voters the hard facts they prefer not to hear.” – Eric Margolis in a recent article
War on Iran
I. Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran
the list goes on
who else will they bomb?
costs beyond mention
never ending wars of intervention.
II. Our day is all about choices
diversity, variety, various voices
frankly, though I’m not a fan,
for who do you vote for
if you don’t want to bomb Iran?
III. Obama, the lefts boy, is quite the hawk
I know, I know, some look at that with shock
but I saw it coming from the start
he played the election, then he just plays his part
it isn’t a conspiracy or anything that great
just the thing that comes naturally to the state.
IV. The left and right of distinctions make much
but a new, different foreign policy none will touch
they all want to live in a country that’s the world’s cop
if the election features Obama and mainstream GOP
it’s a setup where there’ll be no alternative scheme
to Hillary Clinton’s Iran-attacking dream.
V. Romney thinks Iran is an “Existential threat”
a nuclear weapon, it is said, they can’t be let to get
so he thinks we should deal with it via surgical strikes
and bombardment, yikes!
VI. Bauchmann and her vision of Iran
is one ruled by Marxists who were in league with Saddam
she thinks to help Iran’s Mujahideen group
the U.S. should stoop
even though they are designated a terrorist group
and their human rights abuses are no soup
and in her view if that fails to change Iran’s ways
perhaps the U.S. will have to nuke ‘em for days.
VII. Perry would attack Iran too
and he condemns businesses for dealing with Iran
in spite of a ban
and yet it is interesting also
that he’s received thousands from company that broke that embargo you know.
VIII. How will this turn out in Iran?
I don’t want to be an alarmist man
but my best guess
is this will be a mess.
IX. I often wonder what would be the case
if American policy on Iran had worked in different ways
what if the the coup was not backed by the CIA
what if the U.S. didn’t support the nuclear program back in day?
What if biological weapons were not provided to Iran’s foe
What if the U.S. saw back then that non-intervention was the way to go?
It seems to me that bad foreign policy tooth and nail
created a country where a tyrannical government would prevail
and when you create a monster for one reason or another
don’t be surprised when it doesn’t follow your druthers.
X. The prevailing politic
won’t quit
piling debt upon debt
basic financial obligations
can’t be met
and yet
they lead us war-ward
prosecuting wars no one can afford
trying to achieve doubtful gains
muddled by ignorance
and immeasurable pains.
A Brief Chronology of Projections About Iran’s Nuclear Capabilities
From oldest to newest:
- “Israeli intelligence branches spoke of Iran’s making a bomb before the end of the decade“- Early 2000′s
- “Israel’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, said he thought Iran could do it by 2011” – 2009
- “About a year ago, Mr. Dagan told a parliamentary committee that Iran would not have the ability to fire a nuclear missile until 2014” – January 2010? (“about a year ago” from January 2011)
- “Moshe Yaalon, Israel’s minister of strategic affairs, said he believed Iran was at least three years away from a nuclear bomb” – December 2010
- “Israel’s departing intelligence chief said he believes Iran will not be able to build a nuclear weapon before 2015 at the earliest” – January 2011
Source: New York Times
The Early Beginnings of Iran’s Nuclear Program
- “In the 1970′s, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld went to Tehran to offer to sell the Shah 31 nuclear reactors. ” – Eric Margolis
- “Ford’s team endorsed Iranian plans to build a massive nuclear energy industry, but also worked hard to complete a multibillion-dollar deal that would have given Tehran control of large quantities of plutonium and enriched uranium — the two pathways to a nuclear bomb. Either can be shaped into the core of a nuclear warhead, and obtaining one or the other is generally considered the most significant obstacle to would-be weapons builders.Iran, a U.S. ally then, had deep pockets and close ties to Washington….The U.S. offer, details of which appear in declassified documents reviewed by The Washington Post, did not include the uranium enrichment capabilities Iran is seeking today. But the United States tried to accommodate Iranian demands for plutonium reprocessing, which produces the key ingredient of a bomb. ” – Dafna Linzer (Washington Post)
- “Iran’s quest for nuclear energy began under the Shah, who planned to build 23 nuclear power plants throughout Iran by the mid-1990s. The Shah established the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) in 1974 and immediately began to negotiate with the United States, France, and West Germany for nuclear power reactors. In 1967, Iran purchased from the United States a five-megawatt research reactor, located at the Amirabad Technical College in Tehran, which runs on 93 percent highly-enriched uranium. Iran simultaneously purchased hot cells from the United States, which can be used in the process to separate plutonium from spent fuel.” - Mark D. Skootsky
10 Years in Afghanistan and 13 to Go?
The Telegraph is indicating that a pact is close to being finalized between Obama’s administration and Mr. Karzai which would allow “military trainers to stay to build up the Afghan army and police, but also American special forces soldiers and air power to remain”.
The article continues to indicate that “Afghans [who are] wary of being abandoned are keen to lock America into a longer partnership after the deadline.”
Mr. Karzai’s top security advisor said “If [the Americans] provide us weapons and equipment, they need facilities to bring that equipment,” he said. “If they train our police and soldiers, then those trainers will not be 10 or 20, they will be thousands.”
(As a side note, history has shown repeatedly that the U.S. trains, arms, and enables countries and then comes to very much regard it. Is this going to happen again?)
The article goes on to indicate that American officials are saying that around 25,000 more troops will be required.
Mitt Romney Announces His Advisors – Definately A “Lets Stay In Iraq” Group
Mitt Romney recently announced who is foreign policy/national security advisors would be if he were elected.
While there is some variation, his list has a lot of overlap with the signatories of the various open letters advocating war with Iraq.
For instance, the likes of Norm Coleman, Dan Senor, Paula Dobriansky, Vin Weber, and Robert Kagan.
Examples:
- The people who petitioned Bill Clinton to Attack Iraq. They said “We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.”
- The people who petitioned Obama to sustain and/or increase troop presence in Iraq. “We therefore urge you to ensure that an adequate number of U.S. troops in Iraq remain after 2011. We were encouraged by your pragmatism in 2009 as you showed flexibility in the pace of America’s drawdown. We believe that the same pragmatism would counsel a significantly larger force than 4,000 U.S. troops in Iraq after the end of this year.”