Wednesday, December 11, 2013

The Opponents of the Agreement with Iran Exhibit Moral, Political and Intellectual Cowardice – Opposition Without Providing an Alternative

Incredibly, George Will Has the Correct Position

Let’s see, the purpose of economic sanctions against Iran was to get that nation to stop enriching uranium to the level necessary to build a nuclear weapon and to get them to the bargaining table.  Last month Iran agreed to stop enriching uranium to the level necessary to build a nuclear weapon and agreed to engage in further bargaining to reach a permanent solution.

Wow, no wonder politicians in both parties are aghast and horrified. 

Of course political points can be made by Democrats and Republicans alike in opposing the deal.  Democrats can show that they are not ‘softies’ and Republicans can continue to appease the base by being opposed to each and everything proposed by the Obama administration.  And because the media does not hold politicians accountable for their folly, these politicians can take the position of opposing the deal without offering the slightest alternative.

Really, what do they expect if sanctions are made more stringent?  Do they really think Iran will stop enriching uranium altogether, that such a position is even politically possible in Iran.  Some of course want war, some always want war particularly if the war can be fought by OPC, Other People’s Children. 

Incredibly, Washington Post columnist George Will, a man who is usually either wrong on an issue or incoherent, and sometimes both, has the right stance.  Quoting and supporting author Kenneth Pollack, he argues for containment of Iran, the same way the U. S. and its allies successfully contained the Soviet Union when it obtained nuclear capability.

The logic of nuclear deterrence has not yet failed in the 64 years since the world acquired its second nuclear power. This logic does not guarantee certainty, but, says Pollack, “the small residual doubt cannot be allowed to be determinative.” His basic point is: “Our choices are awful, but choose we must.” Containment is the least awful response to Iran’s coming nuclear capability.

The parallels to the Cold War and the issue of Iran are eerie.  In the 1950’s many people advocated that the U. S. engage in a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the Soviets, including British philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell, one of whose claims to fame was winning the Nobel Peace Prize (huh?)  Looking back, does anyone think that would have been the right moral, political and military policy?  Really, anyone?

No comments:

Post a Comment