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 (4)
Comments:
May '10
Re: On Ron Paul And Rethinking Iran
Nobody's Perfect:
As for Vali Nasr, do yourself a favor and look into who he really is. In an eerie way, he's the Persian-American equivalent of Barack Obama, right down to the sharp crease in his snazzy slacks. · Jan 8 at 6:38pm
Insult aside, your substantive argument against him is?
Dec '10
Re: On Ron Paul And Rethinking Iran
Brandon Zaffini
Western Chauvinist
Brandon Zaffini
Western Chauvinist
Brandon Zaffini
Your assessment of Iran is exactly backward. The people are more secular and rational than the leaders. The leaders aren't savvy. They're corrupt and ruthless. You're indulging in wishful thinking and an inaccurate assessment of the worldview of Iran's leaders.
7:19pm
No, Iran is still a mixed bag. But I'm contrasting followers motivated by radical Islam with the leaders who have a similar motivation. And the whole argument depends, actually, on extrapolating the activities of these followers on the leaders, assuming they will proceed in the same fashion on a larger scale · Jan 8 at 7:23pm
Yeah, I guess the Mullahs and Ahmadinnerjacket probably don't have a well-supplied bunker somewhere where they plan to ride out the nuclear storm while waiting for the 12th Imam, and their people are martyred for the cause. No chance of that. · Jan 8 at 7:30pm
Please. And I'm sure they're naive enough to think the West cannot reach them in their bunker. · Jan 8 at 7:32pm
Well, they seem to believe their nuclear facilities are safe underground.
Re: On Ron Paul And Rethinking Iran
Brandon Zaffini
... Dr. Rahe cannot even imagine cutting our military by 40 percent. He thinks it's "mad." And it is, for his vision of foreign policy. I don't think it's the founders vision though. Or the most conducive vision for domestic liberty. Or even the most effective vision (over the long run). ...· Jan 8 at 7:26pm
And I think Dr. Rahe's description of it as "mad" is charitable compared with my first impressions. The more vulnerable we make ourselves, the more we whet the appetite of the aggressors, who exists as surely as human nature itself. It didn't work for Chamberlain, and it won't work for Barack Obama or Ron Paul.
Jan '11
Re: On Ron Paul And Rethinking Iran
Brandon Zaffini
Protect ourselves, yes. Support our allies, absolutely. Our contention is over protecting our allies. And that's the ultimate divide on this issue. There is a fundamental disagreement over who we are protecting.
We have allies because those nations share our interests. Protecting them and those interests is protecting our interests. You cannot separate the interests you share with an allied nation with that nation itself.
An Iranian nuclear attack on Israel would not only destroy the state of Israel, it would destroy our credibility as an ally. No state in the region would have any confidence in our ability or willingness to stand up to Iran on their behalf. The Gulf would become an Iranian sea.
I asked before:
Iran has repeatedly acted in a belligerent manner toward the US and our interests. They have attacked and killed our diplomats and servicemen regularly since this regime gained power. Do you believe this behavior will increase or decrease if they obtain a nuclear weapon? Will our ability to react to such behavior be improved or degraded if they obtain a nuclear weapon?
Edited on January 9, 2012 at 4:41amMay '10
Re: On Ron Paul And Rethinking Iran
Dave Carter
Brandon Zaffini
... Dr. Rahe cannot even imagine cutting our military by 40 percent. He thinks it's "mad." And it is, for his vision of foreign policy. I don't think it's the founders vision though. Or the most conducive vision for domestic liberty. Or even the most effective vision (over the long run). ...· Jan 8 at 7:26pm
And I think Dr. Rahe's description of it as "mad" is charitable compared with my first impressions. The more vulnerable we make ourselves, the more we whet the appetite of the aggressors, who exists as surely as human nature itself. It didn't work for Chamberlain, and it won't work for Barack Obama or Ron Paul. · Jan 8 at 7:37pm
Cutting the military doesn't mean making ourselves vulnerable. Neither does "strong in defense" necessarily mean having troops stationed all over the world.
Barack Obama has a very different foreign policy than does Ron Paul. Obama is not substantively different from Bush. It's the same vision, just done with a weaker spirit. And that does make us more vulnerable.
May '10
Re: On Ron Paul And Rethinking Iran
Klaatu
Brandon Zaffini
Protect ourselves, yes. Support our allies, absolutely. Our contention is over protecting our allies. And that's the ultimate divide on this issue. There is a fundamental disagreement over who we are protecting.
We have allies because those nations share our interests. Protecting them and those interests is protecting our interests. You cannot separate the interests you share with an allied nation with that nation itself.
Sure I can. I don't wear the uniform to protect American "interests" across the world--and all the varied things that fit within that vague term, but to protect the American people. That is an interest, but far from the vague "interests" you just mentioned.
Jan '11
Re: On Ron Paul And Rethinking Iran
Brandon Zaffini
Cutting the military doesn't mean making ourselves vulnerable. Neither does "strong in defense" necessarily mean having troops stationed all over the world.
Of course it does. Military capability costs money.
Jun '10
Re: On Ron Paul And Rethinking Iran
Congrats on a great debate y'all. If Paul were elected president what are the chances that the first few briefings would temper his enthusiasm for worldwide withdrawal? That certainly seemed to be the case with Obama. All this begs the question of how to pay for another war if it comes to that. Why do we continue to pay for Europe's and Southeast Asia's defense with borrowed money?
May '10
Re: On Ron Paul And Rethinking Iran
Klaatu
Brandon Zaffini
Protect ourselves, yes. Support our allies, absolutely. Our contention is over protecting our allies. And that's the ultimate divide on this issue. There is a fundamental disagreement over who we are protecting.
An Iranian nuclear attack on Israel would not only destroy the state of Israel, it would destroy our credibility as an ally.
I'm not sure about that, but it would definitely destroy Iran itself, and they are well aware of that fact.
May '10
Re: On Ron Paul And Rethinking Iran
Klaatu
Brandon Zaffini
Cutting the military doesn't mean making ourselves vulnerable. Neither does "strong in defense" necessarily mean having troops stationed all over the world.
Of course it does. Military capability costs money. · Jan 8 at 7:44pm
Yep. And the military has many different uses, some effective, some not.
Also, the size of one's military isn't the only factor that affects vulnerability, or the lack thereof.
Edited on January 9, 2012 at 4:49amJan '11
Re: On Ron Paul And Rethinking Iran
Brandon Zaffini
Klaatu
Brandon Zaffini
Protect ourselves, yes. Support our allies, absolutely. Our contention is over protecting our allies. And that's the ultimate divide on this issue. There is a fundamental disagreement over who we are protecting.
We have allies because those nations share our interests. Protecting them and those interests is protecting our interests. You cannot separate the interests you share with an allied nation with that nation itself.
Sure I can. I don't wear the uniform to protect American "interests" across the world--and all the varied things that fit within that vague term, but to protect the American people. That is an interest, but far from the vague "interests" you just mentioned.
"... I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
I don't see anything that limits this to those enemies that threaten the American people directly.
Jan '11
Re: On Ron Paul And Rethinking Iran
Brandon Zaffini
Klaatu
Brandon Zaffini
Protect ourselves, yes. Support our allies, absolutely. Our contention is over protecting our allies. And that's the ultimate divide on this issue. There is a fundamental disagreement over who we are protecting.
An Iranian nuclear attack on Israel would not only destroy the state of Israel, it would destroy our credibility as an ally.
I'm not sure about that, but it would definitely destroy Iran itself, and they are well aware of that fact. · Jan 8 at 7:45pm
Who would destroy Iran? Us? Are you sure? Israel? How can you be sure of that?
Jan '11
Re: On Ron Paul And Rethinking Iran
Brandon Zaffini
Klaatu
Brandon Zaffini
Cutting the military doesn't mean making ourselves vulnerable. Neither does "strong in defense" necessarily mean having troops stationed all over the world.
Of course it does. Military capability costs money. · Jan 8 at 7:44pm
Yep. And the military has many different uses, some effective, some not.
Also, the size of one's military isn't the only factor that affects vulnerability, or the lack thereof. · Jan 8 at 7:46pm
Edited on Jan 08 at 07:49 pm
A vulnerability is a weakness that an enemy can exploit. The smaller the military, the greater the number of exploitable weaknesses.
May '10
Re: On Ron Paul And Rethinking Iran
Klaatu
"... I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
I don't see anything that limits this to those enemies that threaten the American people directly. · Jan 8 at 7:50pm
Goodness. This is thickheaded argumentation. Obviously I wasn't making a legal argument but a general feeling I, and countless other soldiers, have about what we are accomplishing. And it is the interest that we are praised for by good citizens and the media alike. That's because we all know, instinctively, that it's the real justification for war and the best motivation for war.
And that was my point. Your "interests" term, while sounding innocent, hides a neoconservative agenda behind it. But yes, I will and have served in theaters and wars I do not agree with. That was my vow, yes
Jan '11
Re: On Ron Paul And Rethinking Iran
Brandon Zaffini: Do we have any historical evidence of a country committing national suicide knowingly and purposefully without being backed into a corner by her enemies?
Ah, well, the rise and fall of Nazi Germany might fit the bill.
But, getting back to the original gist of the posting, I'm just puzzled how Paul still has followers that actually believe he's electable.
His newsletters are replete with conspiracy theories; how 9/11 was possible rigged by the Mossad, and how it, and other atrocities committed by Muslims were results of justifiable grievances for the US bombing their countries. And there's the racist nonsense, i.e., in 1992, referring to the Los Angeles riots: “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.” And there's the anti-Semitism. Not really necessary to go on, is there?
Taking a page from Obama's excuses book, he tells us that of course he wasn't aware of any of that. Right.
There are no excuses for any decent person supporting someone who thinks as Ron Paul does. Yes, I know what the polls say, but nevertheless...
May '10
Re: On Ron Paul And Rethinking Iran
Klaatu
Brandon Zaffini
Klaatu
Brandon Zaffini
Protect ourselves, yes. Support our allies, absolutely. Our contention is over protecting our allies. And that's the ultimate divide on this issue. There is a fundamental disagreement over who we are protecting.
An Iranian nuclear attack on Israel would not only destroy the state of Israel, it would destroy our credibility as an ally.
I'm not sure about that, but it would definitely destroy Iran itself, and they are well aware of that fact. · Jan 8 at 7:45pm
Who would destroy Iran? Us? Are you sure? Israel? How can you be sure of that? · Jan 8 at 7:52pm
Israel if they can. The United States if they don't.
Unless Ron Paul becomes President. If he does, Israel may think about attacking Iran preemptively, which they have every right to do.
Jun '10
Re: On Ron Paul And Rethinking Iran
Anon, could you link to some of those newsletters?
Jan '11
Re: On Ron Paul And Rethinking Iran
Brandon Zaffini
Goodness. This is thickheaded argumentation. Obviously I wasn't making a legal argument but a general feeling I, and countless other soldiers, have about what we are accomplishing. And it is the interest that we are praised for by good citizens and the media alike. That's because we all know, instinctively, that it's the real justification for war and the best motivation for war.
And that was my point. Your "interests" term, while sounding innocent, hides a neoconservative agenda behind it. But yes, I will and have served in theaters and wars I do not agree with. That was my vow, yes · Jan 8 at 7:55pm
I know enough to end a discussion when a Paul supporter starts throwing around the 'neo-con' word. They have exhausted whatever argument they may have had and are turning inward to their conspiracy roots.
You have not answered the questions I posed and that speaks for itself.
Jun '10
Re: On Ron Paul And Rethinking Iran
Klaatu
Brandon Zaffini
Protect ourselves, yes. Support our allies, absolutely. Our contention is over protecting our allies. And that's the ultimate divide on this issue. There is a fundamental disagreement over who we are protecting.
We have allies because those nations share our interests. Protecting them and those interests is protecting our interests. You cannot separate the interests you share with an allied nation with that nation itself.
Israel puts its money where its mouth is but do our allies generally spend their money and get their children killed for American interests? or for the interests of the coalition of "interested" parties?
Dec '10
Re: On Ron Paul And Rethinking Iran
Aw, Brandon, I wish you hadn't played the neocon card. And it saddens me to know that so many of our soldiers, if what you claim is true, believe that they should only be deployed when direct attacks against Americans have been perpetrated. It's a shortsighted and niggling view of America's role in the world.
There are two justifications for exercise of American force, as formulated by George Will(?): a moral cause and national interest. Both are necessary preconditions and have nothing to do with the Jewish cabal implied by the neocon accusation. Americans are protected when America's interests are protected. Thank you for your service and goodnight.