Michael, by "the Iran situation, I assume you mean the nuclear question.
Iran clearly wants to develop and possess nuclear weapons and it's not hard to figure out why. I imagine that the vast majority of nations would like to possess a nuclear weapons capacity.
Because of Iraq's war and insurgency limited oil production, Iran's oil production capacity and the increasing demand for oil, Iran holds a lot of oil cards. They know that our military, economic and strategic resources are stretched thinly because of the Iraq war and they seem determined to proceed or, at the very least, determined to get "paid off" for not proceeding.
Should they be allowed to develop a nuclear weaponry capacity? How do we tell others they cannot have such weapons when we not only hold them ourselves but have publicly stated that we're continuing to build and develop them? Do we hold ourselves and the other members of the nuclear club to a different standard because we "wouldn't use them" or, if we did, wouldn't use them without a "good reason?" That seems a little hard to accept. If those weapons are so dangerous why not get rid of all nuclear weapons, or at least pretend we're trying to?
If Iran does develop such weapons how big a risk is it? Are they interested in developing N arms for defensive purposes? Would they use them offensively and risk the devastation that would rain down on them if they did? Are they that nuts? Would they provide them to terrorists? With increasingly advanced technologies is it only a matter of time until such weapons are easily built by most nations? Forget all the pawn moves, what's the end game?
What we need is an easily understood and equitable set of rules governing nuclear weapons and a fair and impartial referee. At one time I thought our nation might become that referee but the Bush Administration has squandered the credibility and trust that would allow us to take that role. Now we're one of the players that needs to be controlled and the world is aligning to counter our aggressive use of the threat of force. It's a long way till dawn and the Iran and N. Korea issues are minor stops along the way.
Ultimately the world will have to find a way to handle conflicts among nations or all of us will pay a heavy price. Our leadership over the last few years has made it more likely that we'll pay that price.
Having said that, my view is that we should participate with the world in addressing the N. Korean and Iranian nuclear issues but we should not take 95% of the load. If N. Korea or Iran secure nuclear weapons we should aim some missiles their way and send them the coordinates with a little note that says, "launch yours and duck cause this is what's coming." Do you think they'd be a nuclear threat to us if that happened?
Or we could run around in fear talking endlessly about what "could" happen if they bombed us with nukes and then spend a fortune trying to put a finger in that dike. Ed |
