A FEW WORDS ABOUT IRAN

From the Washington Post's Eugene Robinson, who I have grown to love watching his pundit stints on Maddow the last couple of years:

Gulf War III isn’t an option

We’ve heard this quickening drumbeat before. Last time, it led to the tragic invasion and occupation of Iraq. This time, if we let the drummers provoke us into war with Iran, the consequences will likely be far worse.

Rat-ta-tat-tat. Weapons of mass destruction. Boom-shakka-boom. A madman in charge. Thump-thump-thump. Mushroom clouds.

Tune out the anxiety-inducing percussion and think for a minute. Yes, there are good reasons to be concerned about the Iranian nuclear program. But it doesn’t follow that launching a military attack — or providing support for an attack by Israel — would necessarily be effective, let alone wise. The evidence suggests it would be neither.

To get that evidence, click here.

I don't agree with every single bit of Robinson's analysis of the situation, but it's some good stuff, so check it out. I mean, after all, I do agree with his conclusion: attacking Iran is fucking stupid. But I do want to throw out there some of my analysis, which is apparently not at all within the mainstream US public discourse, but should be. And it's really simple, just a couple of points.

First, Iran sat on the sidelines and watched as the US conquered with impunity its neighbor and former enemy, Iraq, which insisted, correctly, that it had no weapons of mass destruction. Iran also watched from the sidelines as North Korea, at around the same time, boldly declared to the world that it does have weapons of mass destruction, nukes to be precise, and dared the US to invade. Put yourself in Iran's shoes. If you walk away from witnessing the behaviors of Iraq and North Korea vis-a-vis the United States and don't try to develop nuclear weapons, you're fucking stupid. That is, it is mind-numbingly clear that nuclear weapons successfully deter American aggression. In short, it is the Iranian government's responsibility to create a nuclear arsenal.

Second, Israel already has a nuclear arsenal, and much of it, you can be sure, is aimed at Iran. The history of nations armed with nukes teaches essentially the same lesson as the one in the paragraph above: if you want to deter a nuclear strike on your homeland, you'd best have the capacity to fire back. Again, under these circumstances, Iran's responsibility to its people is to go nuclear.

Now I know that a lot of Iran's diplomatic rhetoric is downright disturbing, all the Great Satan shit about the US, all the wipe Israel from the face of the Earth crap. Of course, when compared to Israeli and American rhetoric on foreign policy, "Axis of Evil" and similar shit, Iran's really isn't too terribly different. But the bottom line here is that the Persian nation has some damned good reasons for wanting to have nuclear weapons, and until we address those reasons, until we move beyond the hypocritical "Iran bad; nukes bad" framing of the issue, we're stuck here. Or, worse, we could end up stuck in another stupid fucking war, this one potentially far worse than Iraq or Afghanistan because Iran has a real army and can cause some major fucking damage.

I'm well aware nobody gives a shit what I think about this.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$