Or against us

The following strikes me as a fairly clear instance of a false dichotomy:

For those who see no moral principle underlying American foreign
policy, the Holocaust Declaration is no business of ours. But for those
who believe that America stands for something in the world — that the
nation that has liberated more peoples than any other has even the most
minimal moral vocation — there can be no more pressing cause than
preventing the nuclear annihilation of an allied democracy, the last
refuge and hope of an ancient people openly threatened with the final
Final Solution.

So, to recap: you either (1) have no moral principles; or (2) agree with Charles’ Krauthammer’s "Holocaust Declaration": here’s the Holocaust Declaration:

"It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear attack
upon Israel by Iran, or originating in Iran, as an attack by Iran on
the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon Iran."

There are many reasons to regard such a policy is foolish and immoral.  That simple fact alone means Krauthammer cannot claim that even the most "minimal moral vocation" means we must adopt it.  Even granting (which we shouldn’t, by the way) that some form of deterrence (of Iran’s as of yet non-existent nuclear capability) is the only available option, there many different ways to achieve that goal than by apocalyptic threats.  Adopting those approaches does not mean that one abandons the (dubious to some) claim that America stands for something in the world.

4 thoughts on “Or against us”

  1. My letter to Krauthammer:
    I fixed your flawed Declaration:
     "It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear attack upon its neighbors by Israel, or originating in Israel, as an attack by Israel on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon Israel."
     This should be followed with a simple explanation: "As a beacon of tolerance and as leader of the free world, the United States will not permit a second Holocaust to be perpetrated upon the Arab people."
     Don’t be such a hypocrite. Israel has killed 1000 times the number of Arab civilians in the past 10 years than the number of Israeli civilians killed by Iran. Israel has NUCLEAR weapons and Iran doesn’t. Israel defied the United Nations to illegally create this technology and has used their own spying agencies in order to steal U.S. Nuclear technology in order to do so. Israel has bombed and murdered their neighbors in non-retaliatory fashion, killing innocent Christians, Europeans, Asians and others in Lebanon (as well as innocent Lebanese Arabs that were in non way affiliated with Fatah, Hamas, etc.)
     Israel uses the most heinous of weaponry, provided with American money that is supported by professional Apologists like yourself. There is currently no rogue nation, armed with nuclear weapons warring on their neighbors with no repercussions whatsoever.
     THAT IS ISRAEL. And apologists like you make certain that Terrorism will never cease to exist by fanning the flames of fear, hatred and holocaust at false targets such as Iran.

  2. Why should we be so afraid of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons when we were engaged in a protracted "cold war" with an enemy, which had far larger resources and military capability than Iran, for almost 50 years (or longer) without serious violence (aside from all the proxy wars and the Cuban Missile Crisis)? Is the worry that Iran’s leadership is fundamentally less rational than the Soviet regime? If so, then the worry seems unfounded (a knowledge of history will quickly dispel that fear). Or is the worry that Iran will develop a military capability that could equal our own and challenge us for global supremacy? That worry seems equally unlikely. Maybe the fear is that Iran will attack Israel, a country with the second largest air force in the world, a large amount of nuclear weapons, and a history of aggressive retaliation. I highly doubt that possibility. What possible justification could one offer for the bombing of a country that poses no serious immediate threat to our existence, or Israel’s? The only real threat Iran poses, as I far as I can tell, is a moderately strong economy based on oil wealth, an ability to assume regional power in a region we are trying to claim for ourselves, and a bellicose leader that rightly regards our intentions in the region as dangerous to Iran’s own sovereignty and national security. Remember that it was the U.S. and not Iran that called the other a member of the "Axis of Evil" and a threat to global security. Notice how we no longer talk about North Korea, a country that was also included in this Axis, which developed nuclear capabilities (or a convincing threat of having these capabilities), then was immediately left alone. What better incentive could Iran have? These are facts and questions that escape Krauthammer, or are willfully denied by him.

  3. Good point Jem.  Here’s a strategic and historical point (from one of no expertise).  The invasion of Iraq has left the US unable to respond to an actual threat posed by a serious belligerent such as Iran.  Without a WWII like mobilization, the US could not even begin to work up plans for the "liberation of Iran" and they are pretty much free (with Iraq gone as a major competitor) to assert their will in the region.   

  4. Right. Iran, unlike Iraq, has a well-organized, functioning military with semi-advanced missile capabilities, a stable economy with a developed technical sector, and a population and area twice that of Iraq. An attack on Iran would be devastating to our military and economy, and would freeze oil output throughout the world (can anyone say $6 a gallon?). As far as I can tell, however, chickenhawks like Krauthammer are merely blustering, and the likelihood of a military invasion of Iran is almost nil. Unless the American public is monumentally stupid…

Comments are closed.