Iran Did It!
By Chad A. B. Wilson
Published April 6, 2007, 4:16 pm in News, Military / Foreign policy.
I was wrong. It isn't the first time, and it certainly won't be the last time. But I will say that I'm surprised. Surprised that Iran released the British sailors, and surprised that a big deal hasn't been made about it. I'm not sure what kind of "big deal" I expected, but it seems like the sailors were almost returned at night so that no one would know they were gone. Almost as if Iran didn't want to make a big deal about it, possibly because it could raise the ire of the Iranian people. A New York Times article even hints that Washington may see the release of the captives as a bad thing: "the administration’s public statements indicated a decision not to treat the release of the Britons as a potential diplomatic opening, but rather as evidence of Iran’s unpredictability." Sheesh, what do they want?
Let's talk about this for a moment. The Bush administration has been a harsh critic of Tehran, to be sure. They even see Iran as one reason why we should stay and "win" the war in Iraq. If we leave Iraq, they claim, we will embolden Iran to see the West as weak. In other words, Iran can do whatever it wants in seeking nuclear weapons because, well, we can't do anything to them. Look, we tried it in Iraq and we lost miserably. Or at least lost. Therfore, according to the Bush administration, we must win in Iraq or "stay the course," so that Tehran will have to do what we want. Political strategy gets complicated, eh? It's all tied up in one another so that one move here will affect a future move there. It's like your mom's saying about a little lie: they snowball and eventually get us in trouble. Simply extending our armed forces beyond their capabilities--Iraq, Afghanistan--means that we can't really do anything to Iran.
But now Iran actually cooperates and does something we want. They return the sailors safely and don't make a big deal about it. Soon after the sailors' return, Bush talked to Blair, and then the two of them resumed their insistence that the U.N. sanction Iran for seeking nuclear weapons. They say that there is no indication that Iran is actually willing to cooperate, so they continue to be an outlaw state, deserving harsh sanctions because of their nuclear program.
But hasn't Iran demonstrated their ability here? They have done what we hate and laughed at our inability to do anything about it. Then they do what we want for no apparent reason. Therefore, this entire episode has only strengthened Iran's position. It has made them stronger by pointing out their control. They can do what they want, they have said, and there is nothing the U.S. can do to stop it.
Let's look at something else, though. Before we invaded Iraq, nearly everyone thought the country had WMDs. The question was not really whether they had them but whether they would use 'em on us. It's debatable whether the information was accurate or misleading, but most people did think Iraq was dangerous. They just didn't think they were dangerous enough to do anything. But there was no evidence of Iraq having nuclear capabilities. Yeah, there was the whole "buying uranium from Nigeria" thing, but they knew that was bogus even at the time. There had been a time when Iraq had sought nuclear weapons, but I think they had pretty much ruled that out by 2003. Now if Iraq had been actively seeking a nuclear weapon, I may have supported the invasion. Saddam Hussein in possession of a nuke is a bad thing indeed. The dude was unpredictable, and he made decisions without anyone there to stop him. Who knows, maybe he would get drunk one night and decide that Greece had to go. But there was no nuclear program at the time.
Since the 2003 invasion, North Korea has acquired nuclear capabilities, and Kim Jong-Il is even scarier. Of course, I picture the "Team America" version of Jong-Il, but even if the guy isn't quite so ruthless, I still don't want him to have a nuke. And now Iran is going for it, too. We seem to have weakened ourselves so much that our enemies are able to tell us to go take a hike. We tell them, "You know, we don't want you to have a nuke, so we think you should stop it," and they reply with a "R"-rated epithet meaning "Forget you." Or even "Nanny, nanny, boo, boo! What are you gonna do? Invade? Hah!" They're sending us clear messages, that's what they are.
And Iran with a nuke? I have no idea. Ahmadinejad has said that Israel has no right to exist and has hinted that it should be desroyed. I would hate to be within striking distance of that country. Now I'm sure Hussein thought the same things, but he never came out and said it, at least not that I remember.
So here's my point: Iran is as dangerous now, if not more so, than Iraq was before we invaded. If we wanted to be consistent with our foreign policy, we should invade Iran now. And that would teach 'em, wouldn't it? heck yeah. They'll know not to mess with us when they see the whites of our bombs raining down on Tehran. We'll teach 'em that the U.S. and our allies are not to be toyed with. That countries should bow down to us and do what we want. Yep, that's what we should do alright.
Oh, but wait, we can't. Oh yeah, we're already fighting two other wars. Oh yeah, our country's citizens are tired of trying to bully everyone to obey us.
So Iran? You're off the hook for now. For now, you can go on buying your uranium. You can go on making fun of us for sailing into your waters and being unable to do anything when you arrest us. For now, you can think you have the upper hand.
But watch out! As soon as we get done with Iraq, we're coming after you.
Comments & Trackbacks
No Comments/Trackbacks for this post yet...
This post has 1 feedback awaiting moderation...
Leave a comment