Yesterday, I outlined a possible scenario for Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons, using the 80’s movie “War Games” as my conceit. It was a fun piece to write, but it also let me highlight just how dangerous a nuclear-armed Iran could be, and how bad things could get. And it prompted some great discussions, from folks all across the political spectrum.
I know it’s a bit unfair to use two or three people to tar an entire political faction, but I’m going to do it anyway, because I think these folks do a pretty good job of summing up some of the Lefts’ standard talking points.
First up, chronologically, is SemanticLeo, who meandered over here from Oliver Willis’ site. Leo’s notion:
“Jay is advising caution since the Moolahs are at least two years away from da bomb.”
Leo doesn’t cite a source for this, but I suspect it’s the International Atomic Energy Commission. That’s the same UN body that assured us that Pakistan didn’t have the bomb, India didn’t have the bomb, and North Korea doesn’t have the bomb. Is Leo just being naive, trusting, foolish, and stupid?
There’s an alternative explanation. Two years from now is 2008, and the next Presidential election. Could Leo be hoping that if we delay confronting Iran, the Democratic nominee can hammer the Republican nominee with by tying him or her to the Bush administration, which “let Iran get the bomb.” Great notion there — letting the mad mullahs have the bomb, as long as your side gains political advantage.
Leo also thinks that there is a lot of parallels between Iran’s president and Bush. Because both men state that they have deep religious beliefs, there is a great deal of moral equivalency between the psycho nutcase in Iraq who has repeatedly called for Israel to be wiped off the map, who routinely calls for “death to America,” and who desperately wants nuclear arms, and Bush — who has had control of them for over five years, and has yet to use a one — let alone openly threaten to do so.
Next up, we have good old Mak44. Mak takes a break from his usual tactic of ad hominem attacks and gratuitous personal insults (or, as he put it, “So yes, I feel, on occasion, like a guard in a 1930’s asylum, and every once in a while I find it amusing just to shove a broom handle up some inmate’s ass just to hear you’re (lol) squeal since a reasoned response is not forthcoming.”) to actually bring an argument to the table. Unfortunately, his “argument” (if I may laughingly call it such) is to look at the long history of US-Iranian relations through his own particular filter (also known as “talking out his ass”) and say that every single thing is the fault of Republicans. He blames Eisenhower, Reagan, and Bush (I think he means the current one, but he doesn’t specify). Others rebutted with citations of Clinton and Carter, but that is a bad tactic. It buys into his little game.
And just what is that game? It’s called “change the subject.” Mak doesn’t want to have to deal with the FACT that Iran is a looming crisis that is going to get worse, he wants to discuss how it got that way. More to the point, he wants to get everyone talking about whether or not it was the Republicans’ fault that the situation got to this point, because he’s afraid that if the situation is actually RESOLVED, Bush might gain some political advantage.
If Mak were on the Titanic, he would be the lookout who insists that there be a full investigation into why the weatherman didn’t warn everyone that there could be icebergs around. Why the radioman didn’t get any warnings from other ships. Why the engineers didn’t warn everyone to be more careful because of the ship’s vulnerability to collision. Why the designers didn’t give the ship enough lifeboats. In brief, he’d be thrilled if everyone argued back and forth over his blame-throwing right up until the icy waters slipped over everyone’s heads.
So, confronted with the looming possibility of Iran possessing nuclear weapons, weapons it has repeatedly stated it will freely use to pursue its own goals, and those goals having been stated as the removal of all Western influence in the Middle East and the obliteration of Israel, what are the responses these two (and, in other forms, by many of the Left?
1) It’s not an imminent danger, so what’s the hurry?
2) You’re all a bunch of idiots and losers and morons.
3) How can we spin this to make our side look good?
4) Forget #3, how can we spin this to make the other side look bad?
5) BUSH BAD! BUSH BAD! BUSH BAD!
I’m not quite sure how any of these approaches will actually help avert a nuclear holocaust (yes, I chose that word deliberately), but I’m sure that some of those fine folks who are espousing them will explain the subtleties, the nuances, the finer points that will make the whole problem go away.