The Iran Question

[equality72521]

I want some input on the Iran situation.

Does the US or Israel have the right to bomb Iran Nuke sites? If yes why if no why.

Consider that while no strikes have been carried out by Iran the leader of that country has explicitly said that it is his role to bring about the Apocalypse "with blood and fire", also consider that he is a 12er.

[Selene]

Alan:

Are we responding as objectivists, libertarians or as leaders of the respective republic [uS] or democracy [israel]?

As anarchists the answer is no.

Adam

Edited September 22, 2010 by Selene

[9thdoctor]

Can you specify what you mean by “right”? I think the reasoning that applied to the Cuban missile crisis and to the Iraq invasion could be applied mutatis mutandis, but the Obama administration is not going to be taking such a position. North Korea could also be attacked for violating treaties to get nukes.

Are you asking if preemptive war justifiable under Objectivism?

[kiaer.ts]

The question is not whether we have the right, per se, but whether we would be justified.

All that is relevant is whether there is a casus belli. Yes, there are plenty.

Iran is directly subsidizing our enemies in Afghanistan and Iraq. Most of the IED's used against us in Iraq came from Iran. These are acts of war. We should have declared war on Iran in 1979, and should do so now.

How best to prosecute that war is a separate question. I think blanketing the country in pamphlets and then bombing all military and state targets flat would be reasonable, but I am not military expert and am not privy to the intelligence and advice that would be necessary for me to make an actual decision.

Obama is is not the sort of man who could make such decisions, even if he weren't actually an enemy of the United States.

Edited September 22, 2010 by Ted Keer

[Sum Ergo Cogitabo]

The United States of America, and Israel especially, would be perfectly within their rights to bomb Iranian nuclear sites.

Ahmadinejad has not only been constantly utterly opposed to America and praised those who are working to bring about its destruction, but also actively funds terrorist groups in Iran and across the Middle East, one of which was directly responsible for 9/11, an act of Islamic terrorism that claimed the lives of thousands of American civilians. If Iran, or Islamic terrorists via their support, were to get hold of nuclear weapons there seems to be no doubt that they would use them against the US.

As for Israel, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said with full sincerity that he wishes to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. If Iran gained nuclear weapons this nightmare could actually become reality.

[kiaer.ts]

The United States of America, and Israel especially, would be perfectly within their rights to bomb Iranian nuclear sites.

Ahmadinejad has not only been constantly utterly opposed to America and praised those who are working to bring about its destruction, but also actively funds terrorist groups in Iran and across the Middle East, one of which was directly responsible for 9/11, an act of Islamic terrorism that claimed the lives of thousands of American civilians. If Iran, or Islamic terrorists via their support, were to get hold of nuclear weapons there seems to be no doubt that they would use them against the US.

As for Israel, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said with full sincerity that he wishes to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. If Iran gained nuclear weapons this nightmare could actually become reality.

Mere speeches are not grounds for war.

[anthony]

I want some input on the Iran situation.

Does the US or Israel have the right to bomb Iran Nuke sites? If yes why if no why.

Consider that while no strikes have been carried out by Iran the leader of that country has explicitly said that it is his role to bring about the Apocalypse "with blood and fire", also consider that he is a 12er.

In the last resort I believe this should be Israel's call.

At the very least, the US should not act without Israel's consent. They are in the front line - they have the most to lose from any military mistakes. Plus, Israel has its fingers more closely on Iran's pulse, and has more intimate knowledge of the 'situation'.

So far, as things stand, it appears that Israel is extremely reluctant to 'jump the gun'. Understandably. They do not relish the prospect of war with Iran, and I think will avoid it until, or if and when, the most extreme 'cassus belli' is provided.

But sure, given the present administration of the US, Israel is likely wary of leading the way into the lion's den, without certain back-up from the USA, and NATO.

It is Israel's interests that concern me the most; having the right and the justification for America to bomb Iran right now are not enough. Not if it is going to rebound onto her ally.

Tony

[BaalChatzaf]

One could argue that any act of war that Israel initiates against Iran could bounce back against the United States, since folks in the Muslim world see the U.S and Israel joined at the hip.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

One could argue that any act of war that Israel initiates against Iran could bounce back against the United States, since folks in the Muslim world see the U.S and Israel joined at the hip.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Yes, it could; and yes, they do.

Certainly, it's a two-way street.

Ask yourself this, though - which of the two nations is an easier target? And which of them could conceivably cease to exist?

[BaalChatzaf]

Ask yourself this, though - which of the two nations is an easier target? And which of them could conceivably cease to exist?

In some respects the U.S. is the easier target. Our infra-structure is very exposed. New York City could be rendered inoperative in one afternoon.

Botulism toxin in the Cratona Reservoir, an 18-wheeler filled with cx explosives in the tunnels and the bridges. Anthrax dumped off of a high rise.

A dirty bomb in a container in the port of New York.

And so on.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

Ask yourself this, though - which of the two nations is an easier target? And which of them could conceivably cease to exist?

In some respects the U.S. is the easier target. Our infra-structure is very exposed. New York City could be rendered inoperative in one afternoon.

Botulism toxin in the Cratona Reservoir, an 18-wheeler filled with cx explosives in the tunnels and the bridges. Anthrax dumped off of a high rise.

A dirty bomb in a container in the port of New York.

And so on.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Well, only one such horror, and Iran must know it would be destroyed. I can't say the same for Israel's retaliation - first, she would get little moral support from the West, in this present climate of anti Israel bigotry, second, a single strategically-positioned WMD could reduce her reactive capabilities, dangerously.

Above which, Israel lacks those huge resources of materiel and manpower to sustain an all-out war. Ahmadinejad knows these simple facts.

All the more reason for the two countries to be "joined at the hip" as you say, when it comes to decisions and action.

One more reason for Israel's agreement and involvement in this, is that the USA will pull out when it's all over, leaving Israel with the mess, and the struggle of reestablishing amicable relations with all its Muslim neighbors. It wants this badly, and has achieved it partially, at this point.

An Iranian war would unsettle the region once again.

Tony

[Jerry Biggers]

The U.S. certainly has many targets of opportunity for terrorists to strike, and being an advanced country dependent on its technologies, may be more vulnerable to any of the WMD. Of the many weapons that could be used against us (all of which could have catastrophic consequences), I am quite concerned about the EMP effects of a nuclear device on our electronic infrastructure. I have read that an EMP could permanently destroy any or all devices that use micro chips. However, I do not have the technological expertise to evaluate whether this is a credible threat, how devastating such effects would be, or whether the U.S. is prepared to cope with such a device. Or whether any country, without the use of heavy bombers or ICBMs, could create and employ such a weapon against us.

As for Obama, some media pundits have already said that his administration is pursuing policies which indicate that the U.S. can "live with" a nuclear-armed Iran. This assumes that Iran would not use nuclear weapons any more than Russia or China has. However, the leadership of those countries did not have an apocalyptic world-view that assured them that Allah would reward their inauguration of nuclear holocaust against the Infidels with Eternal Paradise.

I am not even convinced that Obama would retaliate if a nuclear device was smuggled-in and set-off in one of our cities. Our government might respond that they wiil not retaliate unless it can be conclusively proved (e.g., the perpetrators apprehended; the leadership of some nation gleefully announces, "We did it! We did it!") that such an act of terrorism was sponsored or aided by a specific foreign power. In other words, if the evidence is circumstantial, and the nations in question deny that they had any role in it, the U.S. would issue a "strongly-worded" protest at the U.N. (this assumes that NYC is still there), just sit there and...smolder.

[kiaer.ts]

During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said, "We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/21/AR2010092106706_pf.html

[Robert Campbell]

LM declared, a while back, that the United States has been at war with Iran continuously since 1953, when Mossadegh was taken down by the CIA.

LM also spoke bluntly of Hamas and Hezbollah as waging "proxy wars" for the present-day Iranian regime.

No need for a casus belli, if all of this is true.

There's been a whole chain of them, for at least 57 years.

Robert Campbell

[equality72521]

I would like to thank everyone for their response as I have found them interesting, I would now like to address some of the issues that were raised by some of the responders.

Selene

I was asking for your take on the situation and you can provide that take from any perspective you want.

Ninth Doctor

To make it more clear if your neighbor has the equipment to construct a rocket launcher has pledged to build that rocket launcher and then use it to destroy your house with you in it do you have the right to stop them with force or do you have to wait until they launch the rocket at your house?

Ted Keer

Mere speeches are not grounds for war.

You are correct in asserting that "Mere speeches are not grounds for war." however as I said to Ninth Doctor if your neighbor has the ability to build a rocket launcher and has in "Mere speeches" pledged to use them against you do you have the right to preemptively strike? Keep in mind that this same neighbor also believes that it is his duty to bring about the end of the world in blood so that his prophet will return and his religion will reign over the world.

whYNOT

I don't think you fully comprehend the threat which Iran poses directly to the United States if they are permitted to gain Nuclear capability so I will inform you of a few of the facts. Check out the data on the Iran "space program" the current capability of their missiles would permit them to detonate a nuclear missile that while not capable of striking the US would effectively generate an EMP field which would obliterate ALL non shielded tech in the US. This means that the majority of cars in the US will be dead, computers, tv, cell phones, most cash registers, Ipods, many many clocks, many people would die in the plane wrecks, lets not forget the ships that would be stranded in the ocean, etc. If they are able to gain a nuke and use it in this fashion I would like to be the first to welcome everyone back to 1642.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The questions is would a preemptive strike be the initiation of force?

Robert

We should all thank his eminence, his majesty, his holiness of peace and love, Jimmy Carter for the Iran problem (we should also thank him for the Korean nuke problem) as it was his actions at the time which lead to the fall of the shah.

[Sum Ergo Cogitabo]

The United States of America, and Israel especially, would be perfectly within their rights to bomb Iranian nuclear sites.

Ahmadinejad has not only been constantly utterly opposed to America and praised those who are working to bring about its destruction, but also actively funds terrorist groups in Iran and across the Middle East, one of which was directly responsible for 9/11, an act of Islamic terrorism that claimed the lives of thousands of American civilians. If Iran, or Islamic terrorists via their support, were to get hold of nuclear weapons there seems to be no doubt that they would use them against the US.

As for Israel, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said with full sincerity that he wishes to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. If Iran gained nuclear weapons this nightmare could actually become reality.

Mere speeches are not grounds for war.

It's not the speeches that are the grounds for war, so much as the genuine intent behind them.

[kiaer.ts]

Ted Keer

Mere speeches are not grounds for war.

You are correct in asserting that "Mere speeches are not grounds for war." however as I said to Ninth Doctor if your neighbor has the ability to build a rocket launcher and has in "Mere speeches" pledged to use them against you do you have the right to preemptively strike? Keep in mind that this same neighbor also believes that it is his duty to bring about the end of the world in blood so that his prophet will return and his religion will reign over the world.

Yes, stated intent, combined with means, can be construed as a credible threat. And in this case, there are also plenty of actionable overt acts of war. But the burden is on you to be clear and explicit in your words on a putatively hilosophical, even if we do agree in the end.