On Ron Paul And Rethinking Iran
What shall we say about Ron Paul, that crazy isolationist loon with a hopelessly insane foreign policy? He has little or no understanding of international politics, we are told, and of the existential threat posed by Iran. If he were to emerge from the Republican primaries victorious (unthinkable), then Republicans would be better off to vote for Obama, or at least not vote at all.
That's what Newt Gingrinch says he will do. And I'm thankful for his honesty. It speaks volumes for (or against?) Gingrinch that he would rather start a war with Iran than roll back entitlement spending and considerably lessen the size of our government.
The GOP establishment has found it much easier playing politics with Paul than responding to him. Why answer his objections when it's so much easier to brand him a liberal, or even to ignore him outright?
Alas, our own beloved Ricochet is not immune from this tendency. Even the thoughtful Paul Rahe has smeared Ron Paul, and his followers, with the most facetious of arguments. Consider what he said in a post little more than a week ago:
We had troops in Saudi Arabia, says the Congressman, and that is why Al Q’aeda attacked the twin towers and the Pentagon (if, of course, it was not the work of Mossad). Ron Paul conveniently ignores the fact that the troops that we stationed in Saudi Arabia were there at the invitation of the government of that country, and he never mentions the fact that the first attack on the twin towers arranged by Al Q’aeda took place before we had any troops in Saudi Arabia at all. In an alternative universe in which the libertarian isolationists reside, inconvenient truths are resolutely ignored.
One would think that in a statement well calculated to offend Paul's supporters--claiming they ignore inconvenient truths--a thinker as distinguished as Dr. Rahe would do some fact checking of his own. As it turns out, American troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia by August of 1990. The bombing of the World Trade Center occurred in February, 1993. How inconvenient. The only explanation I can give for this blatant, and ironic, disregard for actual facts was an over-eagerness to criticize Ron Paul.
There's something about Ron Paul that encourages his critics to stop thinking, apparently. For the sake of more rational discourse, I would like to ask my fellow Ricochet members two questions regarding Iran.
1). Do we have any historical evidence that sanctions against Iran will work? In other words, is there any reason to think sanctions, and sanctions alone, will keep Iran from procuring Nuclear Weapons?
Sanctions have not worked particularly well in the past. They certainly did not work in Iraq, propelling our nation into war with breathtaking speed. The same seems to be happening now with Iran. The evidence is mounting that U.S. sanctions are only making Iran more belligerent and are viewed as Acts of War--this according to Vali Nasr, writing for Bloomberg. Vali Nasr is not a voice to dismiss. Says Robert Write for the Atlantic, "Vali Nasr, in addition to being a highly respected expert on the Middle East, belongs to a family that, according to Lobelog's sources, has 'a direct line into Iranian Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's inner circle.'"
It's becoming increasingly clear that the Iranian regime is between a rock and a hard place, needing to look strong to appease its own people, but unable to please the United States without making the most humiliating of overtures. Robert Write, again:
When President Ahmadinejad visited New York last year, he gave reporters unmistakable signals that he wanted to negotiate, but the Obama administration chose to ignore them. After Ahmadinejad 'went home empty handed,' reports Nasr, power increasingly shifted to Iranians who argued for confrontation over diplomacy.
Even so, Iran's foreign minister made another appeal to re-open talks only days ago, suggesting that they be held in Turkey. But, as the New York Times reported, western nations interpreted this overture "as an effort by Iran to buy time to continue its program." Got that? If Iranians refuse to negotiate it means they don't want a deal, and if they ask to negotiate it means they don't want a deal.
Nasr says the tightening of the screws is making Iran increasingly determined to get nuclear weapons--not to start a war, but to prevent one. Having seen what happened to Muammar Qaddafi, says Nasr, Iran's leaders worry that foreign powers would "feel safe enough to interfere in the affairs of a non-nuclear-armed state."
This is the kind of thing Ron Paul presumably had in mind when he said Iran may want nuclear weapons in order to get some "respect." But hey, what does Ron Paul know?
Very, very little, if we take the view of pundits as gospel.
After all, Iran acts purely in accordance with radical Islam. If Iranian citizens, with similar motivations, will strap bombs to their waists and blow themselves up in order to "kill the infidel," why wouldn't the government of Iran do the same on a larger scale with nuclear weapons? This line of reasoning leads to the second question.
2). Do we have any historical evidence of a country committing national suicide knowingly and purposefully without being backed into a corner by her enemies?
I can think of none. Of course, the history of the World is rich and varied, so perhaps an example exists. Maybe some Ricochet scholars will enlighten me. Even so, it is an extremely unusual occurrence on this planet. And this fact remains the Achilles heel for this whole argument, regardless of how stridently Santorum says otherwise. This argument confuses national action with the actions of a nation's citizens, the suicide bomber with the rich warlord who employs them. Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein died in far less heroic fashion than many of their followers.
Another good example is Japan in World War II. Perhaps no nation has ever utilized so many suicide bombers over such a short span of time. Kamikaze planes attacked so frequently and viciously that one eyewitness said, "It looked like it was raining plane parts." Yet the leaders of Japan did not evince this same suicidal spirit. After dropping two nuclear bombs, the Japanese surrendered unconditionally.
I would suggest that we need a President who is prudent enough to recognize these differences and historical realities, who understands the nature of diplomacy and understands our enemies. I would further suggest that Americans take statements regarding the destruction of Israel with a grain of salt. Any beast, when backed into a corner, will snarl and growl savagely. Provoke the animal enough, and it might even attack in a suicidal manner.
GOP presidential favorites keep prophesying that Iran will use nuclear weapons. Iran may indeed, but not for the reasons cited. This may be what we call a "self-fulfilling prophecy."
- Comment (92)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments :
Dec '11
Re: On Ron Paul And Rethinking Iran
Brandon, sort of off-topic here, but you might enjoy a documentary titled Wings of Defeat, about the Japanese Kamikaze pilots. It turns out that the Kamikazes, with very few exceptions were not fanatical volunteers. They were very young men who enlisted as Naval Aviation Cadets and then in a single day, they found themselves reassigned to be Kamikaze pilots. They had no choice in the matter. Suddenly, rather than training to be conventional pilots, they were compelled to train for suicide missions until, one morning, they were marched to airplanes with only enough fuel for a one-way flight. To refuse was treason.
Jul '10
Re: On Ron Paul And Rethinking Iran
As a counter to your second excellent question, has there ever actually been a country (like Iran) that has loudly proclaimed its preference of death over life in the pursuit of destroying another country? The Soviet Union, Japan, and Germany, lunatics all...did operate on a somewhat rational basis of deterrence and MAD.
May '10
Re: On Ron Paul And Rethinking Iran
By "preference of death," I assume you're referencing Ahmadinejad's remarks about wiping Israel off the map, which seemed to portend use of Atomic weapons. Actually, his remarks were mistranslated by the Western media. See here, here, here, here, here, and especially here.
If you meant something else, please explain.
Edited on Jan 7 at 1:52pmRe: On Ron Paul And Rethinking Iran
Brandon, you miss the point entirely. Why do you think that Iran wants nuclear weapons? To defend itself against the threat posed by the United States? That is Ron Paul's claim. But why should it fear that? We have had considerable reason to attack the Khomeini regime now for thirty-three years, but we have refrained from doing so. They took our diplomats hostage; they blew up our embassy in Lebanon; they blew up our marines outside of Beirut; they blew up an apartment building filled with our soldiers in Saudi Arabia. They plotted to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in DC -- and we did not attack.
Why, then, might they want the bomb? Are there other advantages to having it? For example, could one intimidate one's more immediate neighbors? Could one shut down the Straits of Hormuz with impunity? Oil is a strategic substance. The world economy depends upon it, and much of it comes from the immediate vicinity of Iran. The mullahs know this. Don't you?
Do you really want to cut our defense budget by 40%? Have you gone mad?
Edited on Jan 7 at 4:53pmDec '11
Re: On Ron Paul And Rethinking Iran
Something I came across paruzzing the weekly standard this morning was an article in which it indicated that the cuts to defense were to free up funding for our entitlement programs... So......
Do we really want to neuter ourselves to avoid corrections to our entitlement state?
Re: On Ron Paul And Rethinking Iran
Guruforhire: Something I came across paruzzing the weekly standard this morning was an article in which it indicated that the cuts to defense were to free up funding for our entitlement programs... So......
Do we really want to neuter ourselves to avoid corrections to our entitlement state? · Jan 7 at 4:59pm
Like Ron Paul, Barack Obama blames the United States for what is wrong with the world. Neutering the US would, these two men think, do us and the larger world no end of good. For Obama, the model is Europe -- which operates as if trouble from abroad could never ever come its way, and which spends its money, instead, on what we call entitlements. To date, Ron Paul has presented no proposal for entitlements reform. I think I know why.
May '10
Re: On Ron Paul And Rethinking Iran
Paul A. Rahe: Brandon, you miss the point entirely. Why do you think that Iran wants nuclear weapons? To defend itself against the threat posed by the United States? That is Ron Paul's claim. But why should it fear that?
Edited on Jan 07 at 04:53 pm
Maybe because we have done the same with Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Seems reasonable to me.
Do you completely discount, then, the testimony of Vali Nasr, and if so, on what basis?
May '10
Re: On Ron Paul And Rethinking Iran
Paul A. Rahe:
Why, then, might they want the bomb? Are there other advantages to having it? For example, could one intimidate one's more immediate neighbors? Could one shut down the Straits of Hormuz with impunity?
Of course. There are strategic reasons to have a nuclear weapon. And that justifies going to war? That has never been the argument against Iran possessing the weapons. Most critics argue they would use the Nuclear weapons with impunity. Never mind "strategic purposes."
Your one-sided recounting of Iranian actions against us ignores our own active interference in theirs, as I noted in your own post. You want to start your history in 1979. Why not 1953?
May '10
Re: On Ron Paul And Rethinking Iran
Paul A. Rahe:
Do you really want to cut our defense budget by 40%? Have you gone mad? · Jan 7 at 4:51pm
Edited on Jan 07 at 04:53 pm
Yes, and no.
May '10
Re: On Ron Paul And Rethinking Iran
Guruforhire: Something I came across paruzzing the weekly standard this morning was an article in which it indicated that the cuts to defense were to free up funding for our entitlement programs... So......
Do we really want to neuter ourselves to avoid corrections to our entitlement state? · Jan 7 at 4:59pm
No. But I would argue that historically, the entitlement state has followed in the wake of the warfare state. The two are inevitably connected.
Re: On Ron Paul And Rethinking Iran
Brandon Zaffini
Paul A. Rahe: Brandon, you miss the point entirely. Why do you think that Iran wants nuclear weapons? To defend itself against the threat posed by the United States? That is Ron Paul's claim. But why should it fear that?
Edited on Jan 07 at 04:53 pm
Maybe because we have done the same with Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Seems reasonable to me.
Do you completely discount, then, the testimony of Vali Nasr, and if so, on what basis? · Jan 7 at 5:22pm
We have done the same to Lebanon? The same what? We did attack the Afghanistan regime when it sponsored an attack on us in our own country. Are you arguing that the Iranians want nuclear weapons so that they can get away with such an attack? We attacked Iraq when it swallowed a neighboring country that we had close ties with. Are you arguing that the Iranians want nuclear weapons so that they can get away with such an attack? If this is your argument, I congratulate you. You have ably defended my position.
And who, pray tell, is Vali Nasr, and what is his testimony?
Re: On Ron Paul And Rethinking Iran
Brandon Zaffini
Paul A. Rahe:
Why, then, might they want the bomb? Are there other advantages to having it? For example, could one intimidate one's more immediate neighbors? Could one shut down the Straits of Hormuz with impunity?
Your one-sided recounting of Iranian actions against us ignores our own active interference in theirs, as I noted in your own post. You want to start your history in 1979. Why not 1953? · Jan 7 at 5:26pm
We did next to nothing in 1953. We certainly did not attack Iran. Are you arguing that the Iranians want nuclear weapons so that they can prevent a coup inside their own country? Or are you trying to justify their taking our diplomats hostage, killing our diplomats in Beirut, massacring our soldiers in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia? I start my history in 1979 because that is when the current regime came into power. I point to recent events pertinent to this argument. You point to the irrelevant (as does Ron Paul).
Re: On Ron Paul And Rethinking Iran
Brandon Zaffini
Paul A. Rahe:
Why, then, might they want the bomb? Are there other advantages to having it? For example, could one intimidate one's more immediate neighbors? Could one shut down the Straits of Hormuz with impunity?
Of course. There are strategic reasons to have a nuclear weapon. And that justifies going to war? That has never been the argument against Iran possessing the weapons. Most critics argue they would use the Nuclear weapons with impunity. Never mind "strategic purposes." Jan 7 at 5:26pm
Actually, the strategic question has been front and center. We rightly fear that the mullahs might believe their own rhetoric and actually use the weapons. It is always wise to take what people say seriously. Those who laughed off Hitler's rhetoric learned that lesson the hard way. But the question of strategic leverage and the balance of power has always been our main concern -- and, yes, indeed, the attempt of another power to get a stranglehold over us and our allies justifies going to war. Our liberty would be empty if another power could dictate how we made use of it.
May '10
Re: On Ron Paul And Rethinking Iran
Paul A. Rahe
Brandon Zaffini
Paul A. Rahe: Brandon, you miss the point entirely. Why do you think that Iran wants nuclear weapons? To defend itself against the threat posed by the United States? That is Ron Paul's claim. But why should it fear that?
Edited on Jan 07 at 04:53 pm
Maybe because we have done the same with Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Seems reasonable to me.
Do you completely discount, then, the testimony of Vali Nasr, and if so, on what basis? · Jan 7 at 5:22pm
We have done the same to Lebanon? The same what?
I meant Lybia.
May '10
Re: On Ron Paul And Rethinking Iran
Paul A. Rahe
We did attack the Afghanistan regime when it sponsored an attack on us in our own country. Are you arguing that the Iranians want nuclear weapons so that they can get away with such an attack? We attacked Iraq when it swallowed a neighboring country that we had close ties with. Are you arguing that the Iranians want nuclear weapons so that they can get away with such an attack? If this is your argument, I congratulate you. You have ably defended my position.
And who, pray tell, is Vali Nasr, and what is his testimony? · Jan 7 at 6:12pm
No, my point is that Iranians take note. We have led a coup in their country before. Yet they notice that we stay away from those nations with nuclear weapons. They would be idiots not to pursue the same. It's in their strategic interest.
If you read my whole post, you know who Vali Nasr is. That is a basic Ricochet courtesy before writing a comment.
Edited on Jan 7 at 7:19pmMay '10
Re: On Ron Paul And Rethinking Iran
Paul A. Rahe
\We did next to nothing in 1953. We certainly did not attack Iran. Are you arguing that the Iranians want nuclear weapons so that they can prevent a coup inside their own country? Or are you trying to justify their taking our diplomats hostage, killing our diplomats in Beirut, massacring our soldiers in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia? I start my history in 1979 because that is when the current regime came into power. I point to recent events pertinent to this argument. You point to the irrelevant (as does Ron Paul). · Jan 7 at 6:18pm
Thanks to the skill of our Intelligence Agencies, we did "nothing." The greatest difference between our actions and theirs is that our meddling is done more skillfully and in a more deniable fashion. The Iranians do not think we did "nothing."
But this is the problem--a basic inability to put ourselves in the place and minds of our enemies. Again, the Iranians certainly do not believe our actions in '53 to be irrelevant.
Additionally, the current regime came to power in reaction to the one we pushed into power in '53. How is that irrelevant?
Edited on Jan 7 at 7:41pmMay '10
Re: On Ron Paul And Rethinking Iran
Paul A. Rahe
Actually, the strategic question has been front and center. We rightly fear that the mullahs might believe their own rhetoric and actually use the weapons. It is always wise to take what people say seriously. Those who laughed off Hitler's rhetoric learned that lesson the hard way.
Hitler thought he could win. The Iranian regime knows that using a nuclear weapon would be national suicide. See question two above on this exact point. Again, it is a basic Ricochet courtesy to read the whole post before commenting.
May '10
Re: On Ron Paul And Rethinking Iran
Paul A. Rahe
Brandon Zaffini
Of course. There are strategic reasons to have a nuclear weapon. And that justifies going to war? That has never been the argument against Iran possessing the weapons. Most critics argue they would use the Nuclear weapons with impunity. Never mind "strategic purposes." Jan 7 at 5:26pm
But the question of strategic leverage and the balance of power has always been our main concern -- and, yes, indeed, the attempt of another power to get a stranglehold over us and our allies justifies going to war. Our liberty would be empty if another power could dictate how we made use of it. · Jan 7 at 6:22pm
And that is the fundamental difference. I do not think maintaining a "balance of power" warrants war with Iran--a war we cannot afford and would be very difficult to finish.
That doesn't mean another power is dictating our use of liberty--unless by "liberty" you mean the liberty to engage in the affairs of everyone around the world.
Oct '10
Re: On Ron Paul And Rethinking Iran
I'm assuming you're referring to the toppling of Mosaddegh, which was praised by Ayatollah Khomeini. They never liked the guy, especially since he was an atheist and a communist. I'm not sure a strong case can be made that Iran is reacting to that.
Also, how prudent is it to assume that the Iranians just don't have it in them to do something as malicious as to acquire a nuclear weapon. It's an indication of how un-serious the man is to think they have no ill intentions.
May '10
Re: On Ron Paul And Rethinking Iran
Bruce Bueno de Mesquita claims to have used game theory to come to the conclusion that the Iranian government will not develop a nuclear weapon.