Just noticed this:
Nuclear Iran wouldn’t be the end of the world
United Nations inspectors released new documents on Tuesday containing what is supposed to be a bombshell. “Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device,” according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. The report is the most damning the agency has ever issued.
Unsurprisingly, hawks have jumped on the news to argue that America needs to attack Iran. “If we are in a position where Iran is close to getting a nuclear weapon, then action needs to be taken,” declared Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum. “A nuclear Iran poses a challenge to U.S. influence that cannot be tolerated,” argued Commentary magazine’s Jonathan Tobin. Liberals and leftists, by contrast, claim the report is not as harsh as what is being reported. The report will “not likely” contain a “smoking gun,” wrote Robert Dreyfuss of the Nation.
Dreyfuss is right that the report doesn’t contain unequivocal evidence that Iran has an active nuclear weapons program — but so what? If an Iranian nuke was not containable and a major threat to the United States, then America would be justified in destroying the program before it was fully realized. But it is neither. And it is unwise to overlook those points in favor of obsessively following the daily shifts of Iranian nuclear progress like traders scouring the Dow Jones. History and strategic logic say that a nuclear Iran would not represent a major threat to the U.S. or its allies…
Nah, it wouldn’t be the end of the world. I figure we’d still have about an hour to go…
OK, sorry, but silliness brings out silliness.
If there’s anything more predictable than Hawks reacting by wanting to go take out Iran’s nuclear capability, it’s Doves saying Aw, it wouldn’t be such a big deal…
Related Posts
Rather than calling the pro-war folks “hawks” let’s call them what they are – war mongers. To denigrate the noble hawk by comparing unreasonable diehard war advocates disparages the name of a beautiful and useful creature.
Or, in this case, we could call them Israelis.
And even more predictable than the positions of “hawks” and “doves” would be your misreading of an opinion piece counseling caution (and an unemotional objective assessment of the reality of the situation) as being dovish to the point of saying, “aw it wouldn’t be such a big deal.”
You cut the Salon excerpt off before this quote: “None of this is to say that an Iran armed with a nuclear weapon is a positive development. It isn’t. Nuclear proliferation in any region is problematic; in the chaos-ridden Middle East, it is simply dangerous.”
I urge your readers to click the link at the top of your post and read the whole article in Salon, it seems pretty reasonable to me, whether one agrees with all of its conclusions or not. “Silliness” it certainly is not. If we’re lucky, we’ll continue to have an Administration that navigates the foreign policy waters with a steady hand for the next 5 years. If we’re not lucky…
Nice, Mark!
Actually, we could call them… what do you call people from United Arab Emirates? UARers?
Anyway, we’re slipping them some blockbusters. Just, you know, in case an occasion arises.
And Phillip, two points:
1. AMEN! I ALWAYS want people to follow the link! When I started blogging, I used to just give the link and not quote anything. But I learned that that way, nobody read any of the thing I was referring to. So now I include an excerpt (trying to stay within the bounds of “Fair Use,” which is tricky) as a way of enticing people to do what I want them to do, which is follow the link.
2. The “silliness” is the headline. Perhaps I should explain. I initially encountered this as a Tweet that simply said “Nuclear Iran wouldn’t be the end of the world,” and I reTweeted it with the comment, “No, we’d still have about an hour to go…” Answering silliness with silliness. Then, I followed the link, and turned it into a post. The part of the post that I quoted was the part that supported the headline, which I think you’ll agree makes sense. And my reason for posting it was my reaction to the headline.
Anyway, thanks for following the link, and thank as always for engaging intelligently, Phillip.
For Mark and Kathryn (and anyone else inclined to make ignorant blanket statements denigrating an entire nationality): http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/what-does-death-to-israel-mean-to-you-1.393618
Nice, Phillip!
@Maude, I’m glad you quoted Haaretz because it brings up an important point…I think Mark meant “Israel the state” which also means “Israel under the current government.”
It’s not really fair to lump that in with Haaretz’s editorial which related to a couple of extremist university professors shouting “Death to Israel.” Too often in this country, true and healthy debate about the extent to which we should or should not tether ourselves unquestioningly to Israeli policy (particularly policy of the Israeli right-wing, Netanyahu et al) is cut off at the knees by accusations of anti-Semitism. (Sometimes this is also tied in to the Christianist theocratic side of GOP politics). The fact that there is (as always) an anti-Semitic fringe out there that periodically raises its ugly head, should not warp our ability to approach our relationship with Israel and indeed with all nations and peoples of the Mideast, with rationality and a respect for the rights and interests of all.
In fact, Haaretz, given its generally more dovish stance in Israeli politics, is a good reminder that more Israelis and Israeli politicians openly challenge the policies of their government than it seems that most American politicians and government officials dare to. That article you quoted goes on to remind us that Israel “is a country in which a clear majority of the population, battered by wars and terrorism and heartbreak and frustration, still wants to see negotiations leading to a Palestinian state alongside Israel, and an end to occupation.”
So ultimately you are correct, one should not lump together all Israelis as of a single mind in terms of how to approach a challenge as complex as a nuclear Iran. Now the question is, can we also see the similar diversities and complexities in domestic Iranian politics and society as well?
Knowledge Israelis know that, while an Iranian nuclear strike on Israel might spell “Death to Israel,” the Israeli response would most certainly spell “Death to Iran.” I suspect that sober Iranian politicians know this as well.