Why No One’s Stopping Iran
By Victor Davis Hanson
New York Post
October 27, 2007
At first glance, it would seem a straightforward thing to stop a relatively weak but volatile Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb. It would also seem to be something a concerned world community would be actively working to do.
After all, the Sunni Arab states surrounding Iran don’t want a Shiite nuclear power on their borders.
Europe, which isn’t all that far from Tehran and lacks a missile-defense shield, certainly doesn’t want to be in range of Iran’s missiles.
Israel can’t tolerate an Iranian theocracy both promising to wipe it off the map and then brazenly obtaining the means to do so.
The Russians and the Chinese, both already concerned about India, Pakistan, and North Korea, don’t need another rival Asian nuclear power on their borders.
And the United States, already worried about Iranian threats to Israel and involved in daily military battles in Iraq with pro-Iranian agents and terrorists armed with Iranian-imported weapons, doesn’t want a nuclear Iran expanding its Persian Gulf influence.
But in truth, most players don’t care enough to stop Iran from getting the bomb, or apparently don’t think it’s worth the effort and cost. Some may even see some advantages to a nuclear Iran.
The Arab Gulf monarchies, for example, know that their enormous dollar reserves would likely buy them some reprieve from a nuclear Iran, or at least bring in the U.S. Navy to offer them deterrence from attack.
Meanwhile, the current tension and ongoing fear of disruption in the Persian Gulf sends billions in windfall oil profits the Gulf states’ way.
Leaders of Arab states also have to fear their own populations’ reactions to any action taken against Islamic Iran. Despite his religious Shiite background, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is far more popular among Sunni populations in the Gulf than George Bush — and even perhaps more popular than the autocratic Arab thugs and dictators who run most of the Middle East.
The European Union, like the Arab states, believes as a last resort that its economic clout and deft diplomats can always work out some sort of arrangement with Tehran’s clerics, who, after all, need customers to buy their high-priced oil.
So most in Europe bristle at French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s warnings about an impending war to stop an Iranian bomb. Instead, they feel it’s an American problem to organize global containment of Iran.
Israel also has reason to fear a war with Iran. If Israel were to attack Tehran, it could find itself in three instantaneous wars — and be hit with thousands of missiles from the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. That shower would make last year’s Hezbollah barrage seem like child’s play.
In Russia, Vladimir Putin’s foreign policy is nursed on grievances about a lost empire, America as the sole superpower and the independence of cocky former Soviet republics. In the thinking of oil-exporting Russia, anything that causes America to squirm and world oil prices to soar is a win/win situation. That’s why Russia supplies Iran with its reactor technology and stirs the nuclear pot.
China, like Russia, is a large nuclear power and doesn’t fear all that much Iranian missiles that it thinks are more likely to be pointed westward anyway. True, it would like calm in the Gulf to ensure safe oil supplies, but thinks it still could do business with a nuclear Iran.
And, as in the case of Russia, anything that bothers the United States can’t be all that bad for Beijing. While Ahmadinejad ties the U.S. down in the Middle East, China thinks it will have more of a free hand to expand its influence in the Pacific.
Then there’s the complacent situation here at home. After Afghanistan and Iraq, most Americans don’t feel we’re up to a third war. Some point to nuclear Pakistan and believe we could likewise live with Iran having the bomb.
A few on the left even feel that a nuclear Iran would remind us of our own limitations in imposing our will and influence abroad. They belittle the current warnings of George Bush and Dick Cheney about Iran’s nuclear program, shrugging that the two used to say similar things about Saddam and his nonexistent arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.
Meanwhile, much of the rest of the world, represented in the U.N.’s General Assembly, feels that a nuclear Iran offers comeuppance to a haughty United States, Israel, and Europe without threatening anyone else.
Ahmadinejad may be viewed across the globe as a dangerous religious nut. But to many, he, like Fidel Castro, and Hugo Chavez, also represents an anti-capitalist, anti-globalization popular front against America and therefore shouldn’t be ostracized.
So who wants a nuclear Iran?
No one and everyone.
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
I aspire to be VDH.
October 28th, 2007 at 7:47 pmToo many people are more concerned about what the rest of the world think, than they are about their own nation’s security. That’s where the US outshines the rest of the PC world. Superpowers don’t give a shit what others think when it comes down to national security. Let the rest of the world piss and moan.
When a country or a person takes on the mantle of leadership, that country or person isn’t going to be always the popular…just the most right…and the one willing to lead by example and by action…even if it means taking flak from lesser men or countries.
“There is little use for the being whose tepid soul knows nothing of the great and generous emotion, of the high pride, the stern belief, the lofty enthusiasm, of the men who quell the storm and ride the thunder.”
I’d rather ride the thunder…Iran has sown to the wind. Let them now reap the whirlwind.
October 28th, 2007 at 8:01 pmVery interesting…and bwe will better this situation
Off the subject, Keep an eye out for those sneaky bastards who dwell in the far east
….. 
October 28th, 2007 at 9:46 pmAmen brother.
‘No Mr. Ahmadinejad…. I want you to die.’
October 28th, 2007 at 9:50 pmHaving seen personally the results of Iran’s influence in Iraq, I know that there is no negotiating or compromising possible with the Islamists ruling Iran. It has been said that it is a moral failure to compromise with evil, and when it comes to Iran, it would be an intellectual failure as well. Those thugs and Hashishans in power in Tehran have the blood of innocents on their hands, including innocent Americans, and they have been causing trouble worldwide in the name of their twisted religion since 1979, when they seized power with a wink and a nod from that ignorant fool, Jimmy Carter. The mullahs are my mortal enemies, and I will have my revenge.
October 29th, 2007 at 1:41 amDoes anyone know where I can find actual intelligence reports either from the US or the UN that give details on Iran’s plans for Armageddon? I can’t seem to find any and I would prefer not to rely on the MSM…
October 29th, 2007 at 5:43 amDan (The Infidel) says: “Too many people are more concerned about what the rest of the world think…”
Valid point. Kinda makes you yearn for the wonderful days of Theodore Roosevelt, who could say and do what he damned pleased without fear of the CNN and BBC bastards twisting his every word out of context.
Get rid of the media and you get rid of the lies and the pointless yapping of what the rest of the world thinks.
October 29th, 2007 at 6:34 amI have every confidence that one day soon, Iran will go BOOM! Without any warning–BOOM! It is coming–stand by.
October 29th, 2007 at 7:31 amJack:
You aren’t going to find very many people at State or the rest of the Fed, including the military, who are familiar with the subject. As to actual intel…if it exists, it is a well-guarded secret. But if you are really interested in knowing about Iran’s Armageddon plans look here:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID={CD2DBBD0-C153-4D8C-86F6-C63CEA4F3466}
These are the experts on the topic. And they don’t work for State or the Fed , the military, or the MSM either.
October 29th, 2007 at 7:39 amThe dirty work will be left to Israel to take out Iran’s nuclear capability and the world will chastise her like it did when she took out Saddam’s reactor in 1982.
And twenty years from now Israel will never get a thank you and still be hated but most will mutter under their breath it was the right thing to do.
And most of the world will still be a moral vacuum.
October 29th, 2007 at 8:13 amEurope, which isn’t all that far from Tehran and lacks a missile-defense shield, certainly doesn’t want to be in range of Iran’s missiles.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/uc986-iii/ucm102.htm
Chirac has been criticised amid our EU best partners for warning of his ability tu use our nuclear power in retalation to a belligerent action of any country ; he didn’t quote the country, but one could easily understand he ment Iran
October 29th, 2007 at 9:36 amDan- Too many people are more concerned about what the rest of the world think, than they are about their own nation’s security. That’s where the US outshines the rest of the PC world.
Article- But in truth, most players don’t care enough to stop Iran from getting the bomb, or apparently don’t think it’s worth the effort and cost. Some may even see some advantages to a nuclear Iran.
I sometimes wonder if people actually read the articles before spewing their macho kill ‘em all rants. There is nothing in this article indicating that any country “cares about what the rest of the world thinks” in terms of Iran. Instead, the article rightly points out that there are so many conflicting interests in the region going back many years, that are impeding the prevention of dismembering Iran’s nuclear program.
October 29th, 2007 at 10:51 amI’m well aware that current ‘Progressive’ “cutting-edge” thought abandons morality and rationality. But I sometimes wonder why Libs that post here persist in spewing the evidence of its lack on these pages.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:54 pmNO the article does not SAY “Too many people are more concerned about what the rest of the world think”, but that would necessarily be the conclusion a moral person capable of reason would come to; that any political entity might not have ‘adequate’ support of a ‘constituency’ is not valid reason for a moral and reasonable political entity not to DO the moral and reasonable thing.
Which in this particular case is ‘kill ‘em all’.
Sully- once again your ability to distort logic in order to support your pre-fabbed conclusions never ceases to amaze me. The basic point of the article that you seem to so easily dismiss is that were we to “kill ‘em all” in the traditional Iraq-style military invasion, there would be consequences not just in the immediate region, but worldwide as well. And we are not just talking pissing off some native Muslim Indonesians in Java, we are talking destabilizing the Middle East even further, possibly giving Russia an excuse to do something rash such as decreasing energy exports to Europe (economic sabatoge) not to mention the fiery spectre of missiles being launched from God-knows-where towards Israel. I’m not saying we should care about the oil profits of OPEC, but we should really look long and hard about how we choose our strategy in preventing Iran from getting nukes, and the long-term consequences of any military action, a component seemingly not given much consideration in Iraq.
October 29th, 2007 at 1:40 pmThank you for continuing to make my point for me that you are not able to discern morality and reason.
I do not “dismiss” anything Hanson writes and I’m quite familiar with the balance of his writings which, if YOU were, you might get a tad further along the path of drawing a proper inference. Although that is seriously doubtful given the complete lack of a moral AND rational foundation in much if anything you write here yourself; obviously preferring the obfuscatory writing styles of your mentors Marx and Engels.
And:
YOU: “…And we are not just talking pissing off some native Muslim Indonesians in Java, we are talking destabilizing the Middle East even further,”
Please name a time and circumstance post-Islam when the “Middle East” has been ’stable’.
Article: “Then there’s the complacent situation here at home.”
And, as any of our personnel serving in a war zone will confirm:
http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j97/stars5501/DSCF0512-1.jpg
Maybe your Mom could help?
October 29th, 2007 at 2:02 pmSully,
ME: “…And we are not just talking pissing off some native Muslim Indonesians in Java, we are talking destabilizing the Middle East even further,”
YOU: Please name a time and circumstance post-Islam when the “Middle East” has been ’stable’.
IMPLIES THAT: It is ok to FURTHER destabilize the Middle East simply because it is by nature an unstable region. That’s like someone who is on a diet saying, “Well, I am already fat, I may as well give up on my diet become more gluttonous.” Maybe we just differ in our idealistic goals for the Middle East. I would like to see it get better and become more stable because I think we will be safer as a result, you apparently don’t give a rat’s ass.
I think both you and the author mistake complacency for ignorance. People don’t realize that this war is all part of a greater plan to establish our authority in the Middle East (you can’t possibly argue against this point). They still think it’s about WMD and terror!! It’s complacency that Uncle Sam wants, otherwise people start asking the really tough questions. “Why do the people over there hate us?” “What about all of the benefits they get from doing business with us?”
Also, I don’t prefer Marx or Engels as mentors as you would like to believe, because it fits your already formed conclusions once again. I prefer my mentors of Reason and Logic.
October 29th, 2007 at 3:25 pm“It’s complacency that Uncle Sam wants…”
Ah yes. There it is. The *evil conspiracy*.
“Uncle Sam” is out to get poor Eric and that poor misunderstood Ahmadinejad is just a pawn in Sams’ wicked game. Forced to finance terrorists and build a nuclear bomb to protect his nihilism from evil America.
Dude if Reason and Logic were anywhere close to the intellectual filters you and your Lib/Ronpaul brethren used then the whole world would become a much more ’stable’ place; not just the Muddled East.
“Why do the people over there hate us?” “What about all of the benefits they get from doing business with us?”
Every time you post I’m more convinced you’re like 12 years old.
“I prefer my mentors of Reason and Logic.”
LMFAO! ‘Cuz I said so’ Logic.
Oh. One last thing. Try and avoid analogistic argumentation. It usually fails (like yours) and talkin bout fat people like that ain’t very PC.
October 29th, 2007 at 3:58 pmYOU of all people should already know that. What if you calling ‘em fat makes them hate you? Get it?
Sully,
You crack me up dude. “Try and avoid analogistic argumentation. It usually fails (like yours) and talkin bout fat people like that ain’t very PC.” You are joking, right? How typical it is for you not to argue the facts, but to try and diminish my argument based on your bad jokes.
As to the “conspiracy” you think I’m talking about- it isn’t really a conspiracy, it is a simple fact of life. There is no other way for us to consume as much as we can in America if it were not for our foreign policy. We simply find the resources that we need, and take them. At first we try using both political diplomacy and corporate alliances, and if that fails and their leaders don’t want to play ball, we use another type of intervention, be it subversion or overt military force. Do you really need examples? Let’s see, Kermit Roosevelt and the Shah’s rise to power in Iran is a prime example, Suharto’s regime in Indonesia is another. I know that faced with learning the reality in the world as opposed to continuing to live in a fantasy world you would choose the latter, and that’s your prerogative. But there’s no conspiracy, no one is trying to cover up the facts. Look around you at all of the comforts and material things you have and compare that to 90% of the people in the world who live off less than $2 dollars a day. It is a mutually exclusive relationship my friend, and it is not a coincidence. But I guess those people don’t deserve it, moral un-equivalence, right?
October 29th, 2007 at 4:49 pmYou ignore my “fact” regarding Ahmadinejad and accuse me of ignoring your “facts”. The Harry Reid/Ron Paul school of ‘logic’.
Present a “fact” and we can argue it. Nothing in your posts is ‘factual’. And it certainly does not ascend to the level of being named an “argument”.
Well, a person with the name Kermit Roosevelt and another with the name Suharto did/do exist and there did used to be Shahs in Iran. Other than that your posts are mere political assertions proscribing motivations that you *assume* to be correct because it fits *your* worldview that America is evil and capitalism is a conspiracy against humanity. (Fave theories of Marx and Engels BTW)
Assuming to be true that which you are supposed to be proving is called circular reasoning dude. And it is an undertaking I’d advise you again to abandon. That is unless what you are really trying to prove is how stupid you really are.
“But I guess those people don’t deserve it, moral un-equivalence, right?”
What does “deserve” have to do with it?
October 29th, 2007 at 5:26 pmSully, they can’t comprehend the aggressive multi-dimensional politics being played throughout the world. They have a relaxed view because nobody is coming into our country and whipping their fu*king the Peter Pan club has really no idea what makes those with aggressive politics abroad fear us…Those of us who have been apart of the 3rd world Politics ie drug, terrorism etc know they only respect our can of whoop ass, and all those liberal pukes make us look weak in their eyes…That how they view it and we can’t change it.
A simple perspective:
October 29th, 2007 at 6:02 pmRussia wants a nuclear Iran. Russia still deals with a criminal mind (fact, and far than what those homegrown fucktards think we do) and needs allies(Iran) who can help them leverage a defense that allows them to pursue what ever activities they want without fear of reprisal.…Fuck the stable or non stable ME..we don’t give a shit…capiche…The land of Jesus does not have an easier life because we live with a philosophy of “I’m okay, your okay”, or what happens over their can’t effect us here.
Oh I know. Eric and his sister kipp are mental lightweights. As are all conspiracy theorists. They believe because they’re stupid but can dream up the scheme then somebody *really* smart (that is probably SO smart that they even work for the government) could actually figure out some way to really pull it off. Doesn’t matter if it’s stealing oil or blowing up buildings in NYC.
October 29th, 2007 at 6:49 pmWithout the Mullahs, none of this would be happening
1979- Good bye Shah of Iran, hello Islamic Republic
Nice job Iran, you pathetic fu*knuts did this on your own without our help
October 29th, 2007 at 7:45 pmEric
“Look around you at all of the comforts and material things you have and compare that to 90% of the people in the world who live off less than $2 dollars a day. It is a mutually exclusive relationship my friend, and it is not a coincidence. But I guess those people don’t deserve it, moral un-equivalence, right?”
Yeah, Eric, look at that statement that you made . . .
News flash Eric, instead of pointing your finger at the U.S.A. for every plight in the world why don’t you point your finger at the leaders, rulers, and ideologies of the nasty fuks that run those countries instead. The ones who really keep the people living in a world of shit while those groups and leaders live in the lap of luxury. They have palaces to live in. Not us. Apparently you think they are just fine. Maybe if they spent more time and money building up their countries in constructive and good ways instead of trying to dominate and oppress their own people and spread their backward ways on the rest of the world things would get better for them.
Oh, yeah, that would not support your political slant of us being the bane of the world.
You are the one living in a fantasy world.
November 9th, 2007 at 3:03 am