Musings Of An Indie Writer| « | Toward A New Libertarianism Part 7: An Important Digression |
»
|
|
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Endgame
The world's nightmares over nuclear terrorism began with the competitive acquisition of The Bomb by India and Pakistan. The focus of world fear was Pakistan, quite definitely a have-not state, dominated by a creed that glorifies death in service to Allah. The possibility that Pakistan might transfer its nuclear know-how, or even a few working bombs, to such pillars of world peace as Muammar Qaddafi, Saddam Hussein, or Yasser Arafat cost quite a few people quite a bit of sleep.
It didn't happen. No one really knows why it didn't happen. All three of the abovementioned worthies were "in the market." All three commanded significant amounts of hard currency. All three were religiously and ideologically compatible with the Pakistanis. But it didn't happen. Even the recent revelations that top Pakistani nuclear engineer A. Q. Khan had personally transferred significant items of knowledge to opposite numbers in other Bomb-desirous Islamic states fell short of what we'd feared.
Fear of nuclear terrorism entered its middle phase when the Soviet Union, never known for the security of its military installations, fell apart. The Soviets had quite a number of bombs. Some of them were reputedly small enough to be fired from a large-bore cannon, for use in support of a land war in Europe. It was plausible that Soviet nukes subsequently unaccounted for might have reached evil hands, and would soon be put to evil ends.
That hasn't happened yet either, and no one knows why. Perhaps Soviet security measures were better than we thought, even if their accounting methods lacked a certain something. Or perhaps those who were on the spot when the Soviet state crashed and burned realized that millions of lives were literally in their hands, to safeguard or sacrifice, depending on whether they maintained a firm and constant vigil over the warheads in their keeping.
The endgame of the nuclear nightmare is upon us today.
WASHINGTON - In a major policy shift, the United States said Wednesday it will join other nations in holding direct talks with Iran on its nuclear program if Tehran first agrees to stop disputed nuclear activities that the West fears could lead to a bomb.“Our message to the Iranians is that one, you won’t have a weapon, and two, that you must verifiably suspend any programs at which point we will come to the negotiating table to work on a way forward,” President Bush said Wednesday in responding to a reporter’s question.
“I thought it was important for the United States to take the lead — along with our partners,” Bush said. “And that’s what you’re seeing. You’re seeing robust diplomacy. I believe this problem can be solved diplomatically and I’m going to give it every effort to do so.”
About half an hour ago, Iran responded in the negative, characterizing President Bush's offer as nothing but a propaganda ploy:
TEHRAN, Iran — The official Iranian news agency Wednesday said the American offer to join in direct talks with Iran about its disputed nuclear program was "a propaganda move."The U.S. proposal, a major policy shift after decades without official public contact between the two countries, was made conditional on Iran agreeing to stop its uranium enrichment activities.
"It's evident that the Islamic Republic of Iran only accepts proposals and conditions that meet the interests of the nation and the country. Halting enrichment definitely doesn't meet such interests," IRNA said at the end of a dispatch reporting the offer of talks by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
"Given the insistence by Iranian authorities on continuing uranium enrichment, Rice's comments can be considered a propaganda move," IRNA said.
SPIEGEL: The key question is: Do you want nuclear weapons for your country?Ahmadinejad: Allow me to encourage a discussion on the following question: How long do you think the world can be governed by the rhetoric of a handful of Western powers? Whenever they hold something against someone, they start spreading propaganda and lies, defamation and blackmail. How much longer can that go on?
SPIEGEL: We're here to find out the truth. The head of state of a neighboring country, for example, told SPIEGEL: "They are very keen on building the bomb." Is that true?
Ahmadinejad: You see, we conduct our discussions with you and the European governments on an entirely different, higher level. In our view, the legal system whereby a handful of countries force their will on the rest of the world is discriminatory and unstable. One-hundred and thirty-nine countries, including us, are members of the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) in Vienna. Both the statutes of IAEA and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as well as all security agreements grant the member countries the right to produce nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes. That is the legitimate legal right of any people. Beyond this, however, IAEA was also established to promote the disarmament of those powers that already possessed nuclear weapons. And now look at what's happening today: Iran has had an excellent cooperation with IAEA. We have had more than 2,000 inspections of our plants, and the inspectors have obtained more than 1,000 pages of documentation from us. Their cameras are installed in our nuclear centers. IAEA has emphasized in all its reports that there are no indications of any irregularities in Iran. That is one side of this matter.
...it is no longer possible to entertain optimistic fantasies on this matter.
Iran may be within a year of having both enough weapons-grade uranium to build an A-Bomb and the knowledge required to do so. It already has missiles capable of reaching the entire Middle East and all but the most distant corners of Europe. It has terrorist affiliates worldwide who might just be capable of sneaking a nuke into an American port.
The rulers of Iran are wholly and openly dedicated to the destruction of Israel and of the new republics in Afghanistan and Iraq. They've said as much. For our support of those nations, the ayatollahs and mullahs regard the United States as their chiefest enemy. They would not hesitate to strike us with a nuke if it were within their power.
We don't want another war. A war with Iran could require the entire United States Army and most of its Air Force. It could provoke insurrections and terrorism in Iraq beyond the level that new republic already suffers. It could jolt the restive Iranian people into supporting the theocrats, even though the theocrats have subjected them to the vilest imaginable oppression. Like as not, it would involve the heaviest weapons in our arsenal. However we played it, it would cost many thousands of lives...mostly Iranian lives.
We don't want another war, but we're going to have to fight one.
Pray.
Comments
Well, maybe. Not to deny anything you have said, but the Iranians and Chinese do not have to threaten us with nuclear weapons, let alone send them across our borders. All they need do is make vague comforting noises and *do nothing* until the economic bomb of Medicare + Social Security begins its slow-motion explosion (adding retirement age to 1946 is left as an exercise for the reader). And then stop buying our Treasury notes.
As the Geek with a 45 said not long ago, God, this is going to be a long frikkin life.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 05/31/2006 at 08:27 PMAlthough folks seem to have moved on, I still view things in terms of pre-9/11 and post-9/11. I hope the 9/11 dividing line in time will never become as “quaint” to me as it obviously already has to others, but I fear that it will. Not because I intend to (or could ever) forget, but because something nastier this way comes.
Speaking to the inhabitants of a Vienna hospice in June 1998, John Paul II said that “an anguish-filled future casts a shadow over the still bearable present.” Since he was talking to people for whom death was approaching fast, I started to say I might have lifted his words a bit out of context. On second thought ... no.
Okay. Now that I’ve purged some of the gloom from my system, let me hasten to add that the Shadow is decidely darker these days over Persia than it is over America.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 05/31/2006 at 08:51 PMAre OT comments OK here? Because I just made a post, and it’s been awhile so I want to announce it to everyone. Just added you to my blogroll, so you’re right at the top of it, that’s why I’m here first.
Posted by Dave Munger on 05/31/2006 at 10:54 PMWhen it comes to that (I think it’s a little wishful to say “if” any more), I’d rather the war were conducted entirely by the Air Force.
Specifically, the Strategic Air Command.
I don’t want to risk any American lives ending the danger from Iran, and I don’t see why we’re obligated to do so.
“What about the innocent Iranian lives which will be lost in an American nuclear attack?” you ask.
“What ABOUT them?” I reply. “Their leaders have made them into the walking dead. Either their innocents die, or ours do. Now tell me you can’t choose between them ...”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/06/2006 at 05:35 PM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
