Saddle Up, Boys: Iran is Next

It seems to me that back in the 1940s when the U.N. Security Council was formed, its purpose was for governments to work out differences before one decided to take unilateral action.  This seems to have never worked well, our latest example being the disingenuous Chinese who feign interest in diplomacy with Iran, when it has become perfectly obvious to even the most casual observer that Iran will not give up their pursuit of nuclear weapons.

But is it the Security Council that is failing, or is it just the way we deal with it?  When the same block of characters (and we can expect Russia to join in the obstructionism) constantly put commercial interests in front of greater protection of societies, perhaps the best way to deal with them is to ignore them and proceed blockades, sanctions, and limited military actions, as may be appropriate.  The lawless government of Iran must be checked with first the real threat of such actions, and then actual, well, actions that support principles long mouthed by all, and practiced by few.  Is this cowboy diplomacy?  You bet your sixshooter, but it’s not like any other options are being presented by our so-called partners in peace.

It’s time to take on not only Iran, but clear misbehavior on the part of those who sit in the Security Council.

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Reddit] [Twitter]

One thought on “Saddle Up, Boys: Iran is Next”

  1. Elliot, in what way is the government of Iran “lawless”? You mean, they may choose not to follow rules made for them by some other country? In that sense, the US government is also “lawless”. We fail to follow numerous international norms, such as our use of the death penalty, our shocking lack of social welfare for the poor and homeless, our numerous wars of aggression, and our use of torture and indefinite imprisonment without trial. Should the US be invaded and forcibly disarmed? The US has far more nuclear war capability than Iran.

    What is really happening here is that Iran knows that its best defense against an arbitrary invasion by the US is for it to possess nuclear weapons. The US has invaded many countries it disapproves of — including neighbors of Iran. It does so practically every other year. But the US hasn’t invaded ANY countries that possess nuclear weapons. Because as soon as the US invaded such a country, the US would be a valid target for those nuclear weapons. Under accepted international norms, if a country attacks you without provocation, you are free to attack it back. Dropping an atom bomb on the Pentagon or the White House is neither an act of terrorism nor a war crime, if the Pentagon and the White House attacked you first.

    Did you ever wonder why the US has not walked right into Pakistan the way it walked into Afghanistan and Iraq? There are probably several reasons — and their nuclear deterrent force is one of them. May Iran get one speedily — before the US goads the rest of the world into invading their sovereighn country without cause.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *