A bit of perspective on Iran

Iran: War and Diplomacy in a nuclear age

I suppose that soon what I write will be OBE (as we called it when I was in Saudi Arabia for Desert Shield – Overcome By Events), but I will venture forth with my perspective anyway.

Iran is trying to develop a nuclear bomb. It is not merely developing its nuclear enrichment capabilities to serve nuclear power generation and nuclear medical needs.

Why do I say that? Because it obvious in today’s nuclear age, that if you don’t have a nuclear weapon in your arsenal, you probably don’t consider yourself among the “players”, the “big boys” who play the major role in shaping and directing the current course of human history.  Iran, like North Korea, wants to be considered as one of the Big Boys. Pakistan, India, Israel, North Korea get our attention because they have nukes. The rest sit as permanent members of the UN Security Council. Iran wants that attention.

Granted, Iran has a much older claim to being ranked among the “Big Boys” because the history of Mesopotamia and Persian really does go back almost to the dawn of recorded history. In that history, for a very long time, Persia and the predecessors of modern day Iran indeed were a major player among the Big Boys. Iran, under the ayatollahs, wants to see its return to what they see as their rightful place in the society of nations.

So, Iran sees having the “bomb” as being in its interest. It is, so to speak, the price of admission or the ticket to the modern day insiders’ club. Make no doubt about it, they want into that club and they want to be the big kid on their block and make the rest of the gang in the neighborhood follow in their tracks.

I don’t fault them. This is absolutely natural. I just don’t think they are good candidates for the Adult Club just yet. Let’s say, I think they have a way to go in the human relations and rights department before they should be allowed in (not that some of the other members are much better, but it seems to me that maintaining a measure of exclusivity is called for here).

What struck me about the article that I linked to was the assertion that war as an extension of diplomacy was a 20th century concept, because it isn’t.  No, it did not originate with Chou En Lai or Ronald Reagan or some U.S. State Department spokesperson this week.

Von Clausewitz, the  German 19th war-fighting philosopher, strategist and theoretician who became the idol and guide for many a military leader in the past two centuries, posited the same point in his treatises on war.

Then there is Sun Tzu, the Chinese war theoretician and strategist, who wrote a seminal treatise on warfare back in the 5th or 6th Century BC (or is that BCE, as in Before Christ or Before the Current Era. I am so politically incorrect). He also pointed out that that war is merely conducting diplomacy with other than words.

Those who attempt to separate the two, in my mind, are either deliberately trying to be disingenuous (i.e. lying) or are terribly ignorant of affairs of state.

Now, the question is (in re Iran): What should or can the US do about it?

Ah … as things stand right now? Not much. Can we impose more sanctions? Well, it is obvious that is not the choice of the Obama Administration. It could definitely make things more painful for Iran, but we can’t have that.

It seems that the progressive view that backing your diplomatic position with a credible threat of  force is inherently wrong, if not evil, is holding sway here. We must believe that our rhetoric and logic will carry the day and the Iranians will see the light and right of  the position of the P-5+1 (the five members of the UN Security Council and the EU) and comply.

As the saying goes, if you believe that, then I have some oceanfront property in Arizona I am glad to be able to sell you.

One must remember that in this case that the theocracy that is the Islamic Republic of Iran is dealing with infidels. All the members of the P-5 plus the EU are non-Islamic nations. As such, a proper Muslim knows that it not necessary to be truthful to dhimmis, especially when it involves advancing the cause of the Islamic revolution.

It always fascinates me when Western politicians willfully ignore the rhetoric of non-Western leaders when it doesn’t fit their preconceptions or idealizations about the outcome they want, but accept the platitudes that are directly contradicted by that rhetoric as the “God’s honest truth.”

I have pretty much resolved myself to the fact that this administration will let the Republican Guard Corps to come into possession of nuclear weapons. No doubt in my mind.

Of course, the Saudis and the Israelis might try to say something different, at which point the Middle East will become one big funeral pyre as nations get sucked into the conflict.

Guns of August, anyone? 2014 seems a propitious year to repeat 1914, but with nukes this time.