In “Answering Iran’s defiance (Nov. 18)” Kenneth Timmerman takes the usual position on a nuclear Iran — he’s against it. Apparently, the U.N. is useful for now because “the demands of the international community” have been expressed, and Iran has once again “failed to comply.” Hmmm. First Iraq failed to comply, and now Iran — and don’t forget about those Chinese stalking our carriers.
Actually, there seems to be a lot of noncompliance going around lately. Mr. Timmerman has noticed, and he wants action now. Unfortunately, his position is paternalistic, imperialistic, simplistic and finally unrealistic.
The paternalism is obvious to any parent. Iran is the child who refuses to do as told. Mr. Timmerman’s words, decoded, sound like this: “Well, you know the rules, Iran, you were given till the end of last August to suspend all enrichment and processing-related activities. If you complied, we promised you a bigger allowance and new high-tech toys, but instead you have chosen to openly defy us. Remember four years ago your brother Iraq tested us, and you remember what happened to him? It’s only fair to punish you, too. We have to — how long can we tolerate your defiance? If we don’t enforce our rules, then our threats don’t mean anything at all. You can not be allowed to do the bad thing.”
The problem is that Iran isn’t our child and isn’t obligated to obey us. Also, Iran isn’t the U.N.’s child, and likewise doesn’t have to obey the U.N.’s suddenly sacred resolutions either. Nations needn’t allow other nations, however numerous or well intentioned, to dictate restrictions on weapons or national energy strategies.
After all, we would scoff at any U.N. resolution (read: demand of the international community) that tried to restrict us. However, in the alternative universe of imperialthink, Iran is simply a subhuman regime led by a raving madman, so it’s OK if someone restricts and punishes it. To Mr. Timmerman, that means us, and he’s tapping his toes impatiently.
To do what? Go to war? Bomb the hundreds of centrifuge sites? Just a few — to “send a message”? Any of these could mean the end of the economic world as we spoiled Americans currently know it. How? We would be daring and begging the Iranians to block the Straight of Hormuz. It is their front yard — such a tactic would be justified and a military no-brainer. This would disrupt the economies of all nations. Oil prices would skyrocket, causing a severe shock to our energy-dependent economy. America is way overextended; we can’t afford any new wars right now.
Even if we could, what would we gain? Without another protracted military occupation and rebuilding, (this one presumably successful) is it not a certainty that Iran would immediately set about reconstituting any lost nuclear capacity with absolute steely-eyed determination?
Right now, we can pretend that it’s just that nutty Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who wants nukes. But if we attack, every ordinary person in Iran would want nukes just to spite us.
It’s said Iranian nukes are unacceptable because of Israel. Some Iranian leaders have said they would like to see Israel wiped off the map. Do these statements alone mean we should attack Iran? No. If anyone should do so, it should be Israel.
In any case, the Iranian nuclear threat to Israel is overblown for at least two reasons. One, any attack would be traced back to the source and trigger immediate nuclear retaliation by whatever Israel had left, which we must assume would be enough to destroy Iran totally. Second and more important, if the attack were deadly enough to destroy Israel, the Holy Land area itself would be rendered uninhabitable. There is no benefit for Iran. I think they are just posturing for the media.
The only answer is to accept Iran’s sovereign authority over its nuclear program and emphasize deterrence to ward off aggression. We have no patent on national morality or the nuclear fuel cycle. Time marches on, and the atom’s secrets cannot be kept forever.
Our world leadership has failed in a morass of debt and war, leaving the world with no example of freedom to guide them. Russia is descending into authoritarianism. China is growing, and warning us we are now vulnerable militarily too.
It is not isolationism to get out of everyone’s face and start fixing the damage statism and imperialism have done to us. That is how to lead the world again. There is no other realistic option.
THOMAS H. DESABLA
Libertarian commentator/analyst, Brookeville, Md.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.