One of the most notorious regimes in current international affairs is making headlines again.
That’s right; it’s our dear old friend Iran. Shocking news coming from the International Atomic Energy Agency, folks: Iran is attempting to build a nuke.
I hope you can sense my sarcasm here, because I’ve been saying they were close to attaining nuclear weapons for a few years now.
Newsflash: When a country won’t allow weapons and nuclear inspectors free reign to investigate, it likely means they’re hiding something.
Now, the Republican presidential candidates are tossing out their “if I were president” ideas, complete with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney playing the War Hawk card saying they would go to war to keep Iran from having nuclear weapons if all other avenues failed.
Israel is progressively getting more worried, and who could blame them?
It’s impossible to not be terrified when the leader of a nuclear (or near) country prattles on about dismantling Israel and repeats that the Holocaust is a hoax.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been very public about his thoughts on Iran and nuclear weapons. He doesn’t seem the type to hesitate in making an offensive move under the threat of war.
And in spite of the New START Treaty, Russia doesn’t seem to be a staunch ally against Iran since Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov told the Interfax News Agency that Russia will block any new U.N. sanctions, and will see any sanctions as an unacceptable instrument of regime change.
Also remember, Russia’s had an interest in supporting Iran for a long time, making it a potential ally. China has energy relations with Iran. These two “allies” aren’t ones I would rely on in this conflict.
To make matters worse, this administration’s diplomatic effort to coax nukes from the hands of dictators and tyrants through sweet talk has been an abject failure, as evidenced by President Barack Obama’s silence during the 2009 Iranian anti-government protests.
So, what’s a nation to do? The various “solutions” on the table are all unsatisfying. Diplomacy has been a complete disappointment, the thought of war with Iran is distasteful for a myriad of reasons and sanctions seem to be ineffective.
And the politicos on either side seem to be parroting their standard talking points. I sometimes ponder a Ron Paul-like approach to this situation. Israel is an ally, yes; but does that mean we have to engage in a war if they start one?
Not necessarily. Diplomacy has proven to be waste of time and unimportant since Iran hasn’t directly threatened the U.S. If we just let Iran be, and do not kick the nuclear war nest, perhaps we’ll be sitting pretty over here with no worries.
And then I snap out of dream world and realize that the implementation of a Paul plan is kind of ridiculous. As much as I don’t like being so engaged all over the world in various quarrels, the fact remains that Iran has nothing but ill-will toward the U.S. and it would be silly to assume that they wouldn’t point some weapons at us in the future.
Tolerance of tyranny as long as it doesn’t reach our doorstep is a pretty terrible policy.
As philosopher Karl Popper said, “Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.”
Tolerance isn’t the answer. War isn’t either. Yet.
Reach the columnist at page.gerrick@asu.edu
