Should Iran Be Allowed Nuclear Power?

Recommend (2) Comments (2)

[Boundaries set by this forum limit the number of objections to an argument.  The following is a response to Mr. Sahimi's post, " Self-Righteousness is Not a Sovereign Right ".]

Rather than addressing each unproven assertion or outright misrepresentation, or sinking to inflammatory and insulting language, let us state some basic principles to serve as a foundation.

The Moral Superiority of America
As the only nation ever to be founded on ideas, the most fundamental of those ideas being a deep and profound respect for individual rights, the United States of America stands alone as the greatest nation in history.  For all the compromises and fault lines that have been introduced since the American Revolution, our republic still stands alone as the beacon of hope for free men to pursue their rational self-interest and happiness. 

You, however, seem to ignore this context and with profound moral relativism, compare America to a barbaric, mystical nation like the Islamic Republic of Iran, claiming that because its barbaric and mystical Persian ancestors have a 4,000 year tradition, it means that America has a false sense of superiority.  This is absurd.   A free republic founded on individual rights is objectively superior to a dictatorship based on Islam or a 4,000 year-old pedigree of unreason and savagery, regardless of the "many many important contributions to human civilization, and a culture so deep and rich." 

The fundamental fact of America’s moral superiority is true regardless of who is holding the office of the President, or what irrational or failed policies have been tried in the past.  It is true whether or not America is winning any popularity contests in the Middle East or the morass of the UN.  It is true because it is derived from the ideas laid out in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.  As the most moral nation on earth, it has a moral right to protect itself from external threats.


The Straw Man of “Preemption”
If America properly identifies a threat using reason, and decides to take action to protect itself in its own rational self-interest, such actions would be moral, not “empire-building.” 

The term preemption is loaded because of its association with President Bush and his failed and misdirected policies.  But acting unilaterally – also supposedly a bad word – and before a catastrophic attack, is not in itself wrong when such actions are undertaken rationally and with evidence.

There is no need to “put ourselves in Iran’s leaders shoes” to see things from their perspective.  Whether or not one might empathize with the impact on Iran of some of the more irrational and meddling policies the U.S. has pursued, Iran’s feelings are irrelevant in assessing the situation.

It matters not that they might feel slighted that the U.S. has not recognized the legitimacy of the bloody regime that held Americans hostage in 1979.  It matters not that you or Iran’s leaders hold the fantasy that there is any moral equivalency between the USS Vincennes accident – where the American ship was taking fire from Iranian guns and mistook the Iranian jet for a fighter plane – and an act of state-sponsored terrorism purposefully carried out to kill innocent civilians. 

This point must be stressed:  there is no need for a free and just nation to seek consensus in identifying threats and acting accordingly.  Although it may not arbitrarily initiate force, it is justified in answering force, or the threat of force, from an enemy.

The Threat Iran Poses
You say that “there is no evidence of any threat whatsoever.”  This is absolutely wrong.  The theocracy in Iran has been waging a proxy war against America and the West since it took power.  It is tied to Hezbollah, the U.S. Embassy bombing in Lebanon and the Khobar Tower attack.  There have been ties established between Iran and the 9/11 terrorists, and Iran is known to be supplying technology and training that has led to the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq.

Add these acts of war to the violent rhetoric of the leadership, and it is crystal clear that Iran must not possess nuclear technology of any kind if there is even a hint that it might lead to the development atomic weapons.

You said, “Just because you label a nation a threat, it does not make it so.”  This is true.  One must weigh the facts of reality, decide what they mean, and make a rational determination.  In this case, the facts of reality are overwhelming.

The world is not a jungle precisely because of the civilizing influence of Western thought and the sociopolitical system of capitalism.  It is the ideas behind the theocratic totalitarian dictatorships of the Muslim world that threaten to plunge the world into the darkness and savagery of the jungle. 

The best hope the world has to stop the savages is an America proudly willing to stand and fight, on principle, in her own self-interest.