Do Not Attack Iran
Former National Security Advisor and noted international relations scholar Zbigniew Brzezinski makes the case against an attack on Iran in today's International Herland Tribune. This is a great piece and I do not have much to add to it besides that fact that despite all the purely logical arguments against a war with Iran (as there was with Iraq), we are faced with an administration that knows nothing about logic, nothing about reality, and one completely detached from the American people (Bush's approval rating have never been lower).
It follows that an attack on Iran would be an act of political folly, setting in motion a progressive upheaval in world affairs. With America increasingly the object of widespread hostility, the era of American preponderance could come to a premature end.
American policy should not be swayed by a contrived atmosphere of urgency ominously reminiscent of what preceded the intervention in Iraq.
While America is clearly preponderant in the world, it does not have the power - nor the domestic inclination - to both impose and then to sustain its will in the face of protracted and costly resistance. That certainly is the lesson taught both by its Vietnamese and Iraqi experiences.
[technorati tags: Iran, war, US, politics, Bush]
Labels: human rights
posted by moi @ 12:58 PM 4 comments
4 Comments:
God ! Didn't they learn anything from Afghanistan and Iraq !
ephhhhtt
Tommy, I fixed the link so you should be able to access the article now.
I do not believe that an attack on Iran is justified simply because it wants to possess a nuclear bomb. Many countries today possess this type of technology for defensive mechanisms. Unfortunately, eyes are usually set on countries the US deems "too dangerous" to possess them. Ironically, the US is the only country in the world that has actually used this type of weapon and had come very close to using them again during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
In the eyes of the world, the US is doing less to promote international security and human rights than it claims it is doing. The United States’ influence in the world is not seen as a positive one by the majority of the world's population. Therefore, I do not see that it has the right to tell others what to do or what kind of weapons to own when it possesses the largest amount of the most dangerous weapons on Earth. I do not appreciate that Israel is allowed to have its own stockpile of nuclear weapons while most Arab countries see it as the most hostile one in the region. I do not like double standards.
The solution is for every country that possess these lethal weapons to destroy them and disarm completely. We are in a world that is too dangerous for these kind of weapons to be in the hands of so many nations. I, and the majority of the world's population, would much rather live in a nuclear-free world. That would make me feel safer, not an attack on Iran.
Tommy, I don't feel safe with any country possessing these kinds of weapons. Iran's president, to put it simply, is full of talk. I recently attended a lecture by an expert on Israeli-Iranian relations and he spoke of the huge gap between Iranian rhetoric and Iranian action. In addition, the president doesn't have as much power as many people assume because there is a lot of others behind him who are more powerful, including the ayatollahs. It is simply not in the interest of Iran to use that type of weapon, even against Israel, because it will ultimately cause the deaths of Palestinians as well.
I just don't find it acceptable that the international community is trying to talk Iran out of building a nuke when many other countries possess it and continue building them and developing them. I understand that it may be difficult to dismantle existing ones, but many countries are developing the ones they have and building more! Why the double standard?!
Until we have an international body that can really govern all its members, without exempting the veto-holders, then we cannot hope for any such type of regulation on international security matters.
I don't think invading Iran is the solution because Iran will not be the last country hoping to possess nuclear weapons. After Iraq, we found N. Korea, and now Iran, and who's next? There will always be someone who needs to be "stopped" and this vicious cycle will continue. There needs to be a more comprehensive plan to bring an end to nuclear proliferation across the world, and the existing NPT is not the right one.
BTW, Tommy, just out of curiosity, how come you don't have your own blog?
Post a Comment
<< Home