Nuclear arms and Iran: a right-thinking response from The Left Shue

Below is a comment by Chad Shue, a local blogger and activist. First, let me explain.

The Seattle Times’ David Postman wrote about how right-wing activists are airing commercials about Iran, and why we should take unilateral military action against that country. Never mind most Iranians are young people who are against their own government, neoconservatives want to drop bomb instead of talk. People sometimes get sucked into the “war mindset” and see every global problem with a military solution. While military action is warranted, it ought to be the last resort. I find it obscene to be advocating military action against a nation we don’t talk to. That’s wrong, and it’s wrong whether you are a Scoop Jackson Democrat, a James Baker III Republican, or anything else.

Here’s Shue’s comment:

Let’s see if we have this right.

In what must be the world’s worst kept secret, the country of Israel, a staunch ally of the United States and protagonist of Iran, was the first country in the Middle East to have a nuclear bomb. Indeed, Iraq was certainly in the beginning stages of developing a nuclear weapon right up to the point of the Gulf War in 1991. We know this because the United States almost certainly provided some of the technical capability for this program during the time we were supporting Iraq in its war with Iran during the late seventies and eighties. Then, of course, there are India and Pakistan; both countries with ongoing nuclear programs that are not only accepted by the United States but actually equipped by us to help further those programs. This in spite of the fact that India has yet to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and Pakistan, a country known to have sold nuclear plans and materials to countries throughout the Middle East, is certainly the current base of operations for Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. So while the Bush Administration is happy to openly support and supply the known nuclear weapons programs of regional neighbors, we draw the line with Iran – because?? Maybe we believe that there isn’t room for more than one “aggressor” in the region? Don’t get me wrong. I am not supportive of any proliferation of nuclear weaponry. However, diplomacy through hypocrisy cannot produce any result other than hostility; which brings us back to the crux of the argument.

Peace through War – the Bush Doctrine.

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

Well said.

Comments

  1. 1

    Zander spews:

    Not really well said. Isreal is actually an “antogonist” of Iran and vice-versa.
    Proof-read before posting.

  2. 2

    Yer Killin Me spews:

    I wish I had the citation in front of me. Smithsonian Magazine, about a year or so ago, had an article about present-day Iran. According to the article, to the average Iranian-in-the-street the hate rhetoric against “The Great Satan” is just background noise. Most young Iranians like aspects of American pop culture and don’t think badly of Americans at all.

    We probably would have a great deal to gain from Iran if we would just drop the saber-rattling and start some dialong, but that isn’t going to happen as long as Bush is thwackin’ the beehive.

  3. 4

    Broadway Joe spews:

    YKM @ 2:

    You’re absolutely right. The Iranian people voted Ahmadinejad into office on the premise that he would make the average Iranian’s life better. He failed miserably in this regard, hence the circus of anti-American and anti-semitic hate speech he uses to hide his failures.

    Is this beginning to sound vaguely familiar? I get the feeling we know who he got this tactic from…….

  4. 5

    Average JOE spews:

    Somehow we have come to believe that “It is OK” for the United States, our allies, and others to possess nuclear weapons, however we demand that no one else (Iran, North Korea, etc.) be allowed to join our elite club.

    If these devices pose such an unnacceptable risk to our own humanity, shouldn’t we be taking steps to rid the world of them, including our own? Until we have taken the first steps, we just continue to be part of the problem.

    It is ludicrous to refuse to talk with Iran. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

  5. 6

    Yer Killin Me spews:

    4

    I heard last night on the BBC (when I was half asleep and so no doubt missed much of what was going on) that Ahmadinnerjacket is losing favor with both the Supreme Council and some of his backers in the Majlis.

    So, I checked it out:

    It is becoming clear that the green light has been given from the very top for open debate of President Ahmadinejad’s record in power.

    Normally compliant newspaper editorials have suddenly started criticising his handling of the economy and his undiplomatic language.

    Now the former president, Hashemi Rafsanjani, has voiced public criticism of President Ahmadinejad’s tendency towards a highly centralised state-controlled economy.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6290101.stm

  6. 7

    Jenna Bush spews:

    If those guys in Iran can talk about their Dear Leader that way, what’s to stop Americans from talking about Daddy that way? And we all know Daddy is too stupid to defend himself…

  7. 8

    spews:

    Zander and Will,
    I stand gratefully corrected. My only defense is that, according to a few literary sources I have reviewed, mine was a “common mis-use” of the term.

    Having said that, I want to thank Will for pulling this comment onto HA for further discussion.

    Peace,
    Chad (The Left) Shue

  8. 9

    Milo spews:

    @1

    It is “antagonist” not “antogonist”…at least get it right if you are calling someone’s editorial skills into question.

  9. 10

    Tlazolteotl spews:

    Jenna @ 7:

    Honey, why don’t you quit flashing your snatch and passing out drunk in public, and get a job? Better yet, sign up for the Marines, like Jimmy Webb!

  10. 11

    sam spade spews:

    What a loser article!! He says he isn’t in favor of proliferation of nuclear weaponry and then makes a case for it? Hypocrisy at its worst!!!

    It’s all Bush’s fault and not previous president’s like Carter and Clinton, too?

  11. 12

    spews:

    sam @11

    Obvioulsly you either missed the point or, conveniently overlooked the point.

    The US has been aiding in the proliferation of nuclear weapons throughout the Middle East. At this point, the only people saying that Iran is seeking a weapon are the same people that led us into an invasion of Iraq. My point is, if we are about stopping the advancement of nuclear proliferation into Iran, perhaps we should lead by example and quit giving nuclear aid and comfort to everybody else in the region.

    Peace,
    Chad (The Left) Shue

  12. 14

    Daddy Love spews:

    sam spade

    Wow. His point really went over your head, didn’t it?

    Here, I’ll Bush it down for you:

    – We claim Iran making nuckular weapons. No proof.

    – We help other cuntries with there nuckular weapons. We hypocrites? Jim Baker say so, but Dick say no.

    – Neocon PNAC boys want war with Iran. War with Iraq not working. War with Iran obviously better.

    Not.

  13. 15

    Jack Burton spews:

    Talk with Iran

    So let me get this straight:

    You want “Monkey Boy” to talk to a dude that dresses like a used car salesman thus making the world a more peaceful place?

    How come none of the usual DNC cast of characters hasn’t done so.

    Calling Jim…. Jim McDermott (He IS back from Bagdad right?)

  14. 16

    Yer Killin Me spews:

    I can just imagine someone in Iran saying, “So let me get this straight, you want ol’ Ahmadinnerjacket to talk to a guy with ears like a chimpanzee who wears a flight suit, thus making the world a more peaceful place?”

    That’s a high-level and very simplistic view, but sure, why not. Actually it would probably be more like, some low-level diplomat lets one of his counterparts in a neutral country (let’s say Morocco) know that the US would like to do some back-channel negotiations. Mr. Morocco would pass the message on to one of his friends, a functionary in the Iranian Embassy. Messages would go back and forth, meetings would be arranged to iron out the details of who would meet and when the meetings would occur. Then, somewhere acceptable to both parties (Stockholm, or Nairobi, or Montevideo, the location isn’t all that important) Secretary Rice would meet with Iran’s Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki to work out the details, what things we want, what things they want, what the timetable would be. There would be a lot of back-and-forth, lower-level negotiations, more higher-level talks, and eventually, hopefully, we and they would come to some kind of understanding.

    Civilized nations do this sort of thing all the time.