Illegal, Immoral, and Ineffective
One of the big Republican talking points about the Iran agreement is that we got swindled into a "bad deal" because we took the "military option" off the table.
First of all, the deal isn't bad or the lesser of evils. I hate when even supporters of the agreement get apologetic like this. The agreement is among the most stringent agreements in the nuclear era, and across the history of modern diplomacy, aside from when a nation has been fully vanquished in war and agrees to unconditional surrender.
Next, does anyone think Obama would be gun shy when it comes to missles and drones? He has arguably been too quick to use these options around the world.
Finally, the military option is rightly "off the table" for the simple reason that a military strike on Iran would be illegal, immoral, and ineffective. Let me repeat: illegal, immoral, and ineffective. Illegal: At Nuremberg, the waging of aggressive war was identified as the "supreme international crime." (Of course this is never enforced.) Immoral: Any strikes to try to prevent the future development of nukes falls into the category of "preventive war," which is by definition an unjust war. Ineffective: Even war hawks admit that strikes would constitute only a temporary setback. WTF?
Oh, and if that military "option" was off the table, it was mostly because the American people had awakened to the catastrophe that was the Iraq invasion with little appetite for more. Temporarily awakened, that is. The deranged brain trust that brought us Iraq is the driving force for all Republican candidates now, with Rand Paul possibly being an exception. This is insane.
Oh, and one more thing. I bet that the Republican candidates don't even know that this was not an agreement simply between the US and Iran, but also included the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, and China. If they do know this, then they are being mendacious when they suggest that a Republican could just go in, tear up the existing agreement, and impose our terms on Iran by talking tough. Mind you, the other states would not reinstate their sanctions, so that leverage would stay gone.
First of all, the deal isn't bad or the lesser of evils. I hate when even supporters of the agreement get apologetic like this. The agreement is among the most stringent agreements in the nuclear era, and across the history of modern diplomacy, aside from when a nation has been fully vanquished in war and agrees to unconditional surrender.
Next, does anyone think Obama would be gun shy when it comes to missles and drones? He has arguably been too quick to use these options around the world.
Finally, the military option is rightly "off the table" for the simple reason that a military strike on Iran would be illegal, immoral, and ineffective. Let me repeat: illegal, immoral, and ineffective. Illegal: At Nuremberg, the waging of aggressive war was identified as the "supreme international crime." (Of course this is never enforced.) Immoral: Any strikes to try to prevent the future development of nukes falls into the category of "preventive war," which is by definition an unjust war. Ineffective: Even war hawks admit that strikes would constitute only a temporary setback. WTF?
Oh, and if that military "option" was off the table, it was mostly because the American people had awakened to the catastrophe that was the Iraq invasion with little appetite for more. Temporarily awakened, that is. The deranged brain trust that brought us Iraq is the driving force for all Republican candidates now, with Rand Paul possibly being an exception. This is insane.
Oh, and one more thing. I bet that the Republican candidates don't even know that this was not an agreement simply between the US and Iran, but also included the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, and China. If they do know this, then they are being mendacious when they suggest that a Republican could just go in, tear up the existing agreement, and impose our terms on Iran by talking tough. Mind you, the other states would not reinstate their sanctions, so that leverage would stay gone.
Comments
Post a Comment