Lennon Didn’t Write This One
I’ve felt sort of scattered brain over the last week or so making it sort of hard to write anything interesting and coherent. I would, however, like to point out a perfect point-in-case of the type of paranoia-style of politiking that excites easily manipulated populations into supporting hawkish and unrewarding ventures against what are made out to be overseas adversaries. The most recent example is “nuclear specialist” Alan Kuperman’s Times article entitled There’s Only One Way to Stop Iran. Sifting through the shoddy qualitative analysis, dubious dichotomies, and inaccurate legal interpretations leads you to quite a jarring central message: we ought to bomb Iran.
My first reaction was … What?! No, too soon. It’s been less than a decade! Good god, man. I know politicians have short memories, but the latest fiasco is still pretty fresh, even for gullible Joe “these colors don’t bleed” Smith and his selective-amnesia suffering Congressman. Or, maybe not.
On a more serious note, I think Mr. Kuperman, who’s probably close to stardom in Israel, is suffering from an acute case of sociopolitical blindness. I honestly don’t think he’s actually thought about the ramifications of bombing another country, particularly a country that just so happens to be in the region of the world that hates us the most. The mind-numbing simplicity of his analysis leads him to this dichotomy regarding the options available to the U.S. come Iran and its nuclear development:
The U.S. faces a stark choice: military air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities or acquiescence to Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.
In case you didn’t notice, the choices of B, C, D or E are conspicuously absent. The only thing stark here is Mr. Kuperiwannabombiran’s ignorance. Or, perhaps his defiance of political common sense. I don’t know. Apparently there are no other diplomatic options. Perhaps the art of negotiations and diplomacy aren’t taught in nuclear physics class. Whatever the ryhme or reason for his absurd suggestion, it strikes me as odd that a distinguished intellectual would write such an bizarro article for a major newspaper. I don’t think Mr. Kuperman thought this one through. I’ll defer to a section from Stephen Walt’s write-up about the article. He provides a concise and starkly logical explanation of what Kuperman is actually calling for.
Let’s be completely clear about what Kuperman is advocating. No matter how careful and discriminating the attack might be, an aerial assault on Iran will kill a substantial number of Iranians, including innocent civilians (and possibly some who are in fact opponents of the current regime). In short, he thinks it is perfectly OK for the U.S. government to kill innocent civilians in another country, in order to prevent that country from having access to the full nuclear fuel cycle (to which Iran is entitled, under the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty). When respected intellectuals can say things like this in the pages of major newspapers, do we really have to wonder why the United States is so disliked in many parts of the world, and especially those areas that have been feeling the sharp end of the American spear in recent years?
No, I guess we don’t.
In short, what Kuperman has implausibly devised is a nightmare scenario that gives credence to the hawkish mantra that blowing things up solves all life’s problems. A typical paranoia approach that so easily excites all the right-wing hawks to start beating on the war drums. In this case, it’s bombs over Tehran instead of bombs over Baghdad. Like it did in 2003, this strategy suffers from huge logical gaps and totally vacuous reasoning. Iran is a country that has not attacked us and shows absolutely zero signs of wanting to do so. The only real “threat” that Iran possess to the United States is upsetting the already upset balance of power in the Middle East by acquiring nuclear weapons; everyone should remember that we brought the card house down on this one by invading Iraq. With Iraq out of the picture, a nuclearized Iran would find itself in a much more favorable position of power with a considerable increase in leverage (on the contrary, this may actually be a good thing – see: stability).
Furthermore, Iran is experiencing a lot of internal unrest and is in the midst of what seems to be reform/revolution fever. Ahmedinijad’s authoritarian regime is quickly losing legitimacy and popular support. Iran could be in the middle of a huge political transition. If the Green Movement is all that it’s cracked up to be, then the world could soon see a much more liberal Iran. But there’s one sure way to prevent that from happening, and it doesn’t involve arresting opposition leaders or sending in crack troops on motorcycles. Bombing Iran would give the already brutish authoritarian regime carte blanche to dispose of any dissident in the name of national security. Bombing Iran would stir a fury of nationalistic (and probably religious) fervor; all political dissidents would be labeled traitorous, enemy sympathizing villains who support the continued servility and submission of the East to the West. If not shot on spot, they’d be thrown in jail and forced to eat the key. One sure way to thwart Iran’s Green movement would be to bomb it.
So, I think Kuperman has either been paid by some top-dog Hawk lobby or is writing this as a mean joke. Either way, I’m not laughing. No, actually I am. At this ridiculous conclusion he comes to at the end of his article.
Air strikes could degrade and deter Iran’s bomb program at relatively little cost or risk, and therefore are worth a try.
Honestly, I laughed my ass off at this, true LMAO style. It felt kinda weird, too. I’ve never done that reading a “serious” op-ed for the Times. Such a simple sales pitch: Just give it try! A little bombing never did anyone harm.
Although Kuperman might not be totally wrong. I suppose his statement is true if he’s talking about the price of generating more hate and defiance from the Middle East. Then, yeah, sure it’s a low-risk and relatively inexpensive deal. There’s no cheaper way to drive the wedge even further between the U.S. and the Middle East than drop exploding hate mail over their heads. They already fancy spitting in our faces, and rightfully so. Bombing Iran would likely compel them to swim the oceans so they can beat us with a long stick.
This is a total relapse to 2003. Kuperman is advocating for preventative war. Were we not still occupying the two countries that border Iran (wow, that can’t help Iranian confidence), I’m sure Kuperman would have just as easily called for full invasion, guns n’ all. But all he is saying is give peace bombing a chance…
