Tag Archives: non-interventionism

Thoughts on Iran

24 Feb

Imagine you are the leader of a country, any country. It does not have to be the United States just any fictional country. Let’s say that while you are president of this country, you are a conservative who believes in the concept of defending yourself with lethal and deadly force if attacked. Your country is surrounded by other countries that have nuclear weapons yet your country has none. Would you be attempting to acquire a nuclear weapon in this scenario? As a conservative who believes in defending themselves with lethal and deadly force, are you fine with the idea of being the only person in the room without a gun? Let’s add another factor. While you are the leader of this fictional country and you start to move towards arming your country with a nuclear weapon the only country in the world that has ever used nukes to kill massive amounts of people is asking you to stop trying to acquire a nuclear weapon. Do you trust that country? Ladies and gents meet Iran. Many of the countries in Iran’s neighborhood have nuclear capability; they are China, Russia, India, Pakistan and others. If your neighbors are armed and ready to defend themselves with force, wouldn’t you also want to be armed? You would think that the GOP and Republicans would be the first ones to be able to easily understand such a scenario.

Do I want Iran to acquire nuclear weapons for the purpose of doing harm to other countries? Not at all, I don’t particularly want to see any country do harm to any other country with nukes. People try to make the argument that Iran wants to destroy Israel and that Iran sponsors terrorism. (Keep in mind that there seems to be evidence to suggest that that America gives aid to a group of people that call themselves freedom fighters in Libya and Syria but also call themselves Al Queda while in Afghanistan.) In my opinion, Israel can handle what ever Iran throws their way. Israel has dedicated quite a lot of time and resources specifically to the idea of defending themselves with lethal and deadly force. Israel has even said before that it does not need America’s help in defending itself. In all honesty it is time to start admitting to ourselves that the middle east region of the world has quite a lot problems to figure out on its own without American intervention. According to the research of Dr. Robert Pape, American intervention seems to be driving a lot of the problems we see with terrorism in the middle east. Besides, with 16.4 trillion dollar debt on the books, we simply cannot afford to get involved in the internal affairs of the middle east any longer. Many who call themselves Reagan Republicans seem to forget Ronald Reagan’s advice given in his autobiography;

 the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today.”

 In the last seven years with the rise of the Constitutional Conservative and the Tea Party, the GOP now has a newly found love for small unobtrusive constitutional government. So I must ask, if Republicans do not want the Federal government intruding into their personal everyday lives then why do they think people in the middle east would be fine with it? Where is the consistency?

Is Iran a threat? Iran is currently surrounded by approximately 40 American military bases on all sides, exactly who is threatening who? Even with Fox News (which as a Constitutional  Conservative type I honestly try to stay away from watching) hammering the idea that we need to worry about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, I lean more towards saying that no Iran is not a threat. The Soviets had thousands of nukes and were very hostile towards the U.S, yet America did not go to war with them. Why are we so worried about Iran acquiring one nuke? If Iran is a threat then why is Congress discussing the idea of attempting to place gun control legislation on us and limit our ability to individually defend ourselves with lethal and deadly force?

In this day and age the mainstream media (some might say corporate media) is wrapped up in a lot of special interests and corporate conglomerates that seem to make money off of military contracting. Why would a private commercial entity such as Fox, CNN, ABC or CBS news be pushing the idea of fearing Iran so hard? To my knowledge Iran has no military capability to perform any kind of military strike on the American mainland. In fact America’s military is unmatched by any other country in the world. How is a 3rd world country with a struggling economy a threat to America? In fact let me ask you to think about something that I’ve been thinking about for quite sometime. Can you name a country that America has attacked in the last 35 years that had the capability of military retaliation on American soil? Is it Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya? Maybe you can think of one, I can’t.

Some make the argument that America is ‘exceptional’ and needs to be the leader of the world. They seem to really mean that America must dominate the world in military might. To that I say that this attitude has mainly led us to ‘exceptional’ 16 trillion dollar debt. America is not the policeman of the world and our economy is begging us to acknowledge this. The restraints within the constitution simply do not seem to permit America to participate in the type of foreign policy being practiced today. Why does ‘leading’ have to mean military involvement in other people’s countries? Why can’t ‘leading’ mean becoming the world’s best example of free market economics, individual liberty and prosperity?

If we really take a logical approach and we want to help decrease Iran’s ‘anti-west’ mentalities maybe the first thing we can do is start removing military bases from around their region, and stop sending aid to countries in that region that might be hostile to the U.S. After all if some other country was trying to tell Americans how to live and was setting up military bases in America’s region of the world, I think that would anger quite a few Americans. It works the same way for other countries. In essence maybe we should listen to America’s founding fathers on avoiding getting entangled in the internal affairs of other nations, especially now since we literally cannot afford a foreign policy of intervention. Maybe it’s time to put more focus on America’s borders rather than Iran’s or Pakistan’s. Maybe its time to start fixing America’s problems at home before trying to tell other people how to live. Maybe its time to keep that Reagan quote at the forefront of our minds when thinking of foreign policy, particularly in a time where the GOP is now witnessing a surge not only in anti-war mentalities, but in the concept of Non-interventionism itself.