I feel like it’s the W. era all over again. Where are those weapons of mass destruction? Has anyone seen them? Are they under the coffee table? Are they buried in the sand? Oh, right. They don’t exist. Now I remember how this story goes!
The New York Times ran an article on February 24th stating that the C.I.A. has so far failed to confirm the existence of a nuclear weapon in Iran. Well, actually, that isn’t just the opinion of the C.I.A., but rather it is an opinion shared by all 16 of the United States’ intelligence agencies. Let me repeat that. Sixteen intelligence agencies have failed to confirm the existence of a nuclear weapon in Iran. In fact, an intelligence assessment dating back to 2007 stated that Iran had abandoned its nuclear aspirations some time ago. That view was re-confirmed in 2010, and it is the opinion of the intelligence agencies that it is still held today. So why in the world are we talking about going tear-assing into Iran because they have nuclear weapons?
This whole business smells like another Iraq. Can you smell it, too? It’s a cross between a burning oil field, napalm, and the Fed overheating the computers that “print” the funny money. And believe me, folks, this gasoline smell doesn’t smell like victory. It smells like death, destruction, and further loss of freedom for American and Iranian citizens.
Iran has not yet enriched uranium, which is absolutely necessary to make a warhead. Although it is not outside the realm of possibility for them to accomplish this, and they could be making moves in that direction, in all probability, it has not yet been accomplished. And that brings me around to another point in the debate about Iran’s nuclear capability: Why shouldn’t they have a nuclear weapon?
Approaching this from a purely unbiased standpoint, if other countries such as the US, China, Russia, and others are allowed to arm themselves for “defensive purposes,” why isn’t Iran allowed to do it? Who gets to decide this? Why do they get to make that decision? Does the United States get to make that decision, and if so, what is the logic behind it? Is it a case of whomever has the biggest guns gets to determine the destinies of everyone else? Because if that is indeed the case, one might be able to understand why Iran would want to have a nuclear weapon: self-determination.
Frankly, I am rather surprised that Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapon. One would think it might be one of the few ways to keep the American military from invading, quite truthfully. At least the US government would be far less willing to go to war if Iran had such a weapon. Certainly we never made so bold a move as to attempt to send an invasion in the USSR at the height of the Cold War. To have done so would have been risking nothing less than total annihilation.
Let’s assume that the C.I.A., the Mossad, and others are completely correct in their analysis that Iran has not yet produced a nuke, as of today. Are we going to head into Iran on the off chance that they will have a nuclear weapon? It seems to me that their only motivation for producing one is the threat of invasion. And if we are so concerned about this situation, why have we not stopped other countries, such as North Korea, from producing nukes? What stopped us then? Was Kim Jong-Il deemed more reliable somehow? Or could it possibly be that Iran has run afoul of the US government in a way that the North Koreans could never dream?
I have discussed petrodollars and the role that I firmly believe they play in US foreign policy. The world market is saturated with US dollars, courtesy of our numerous and hefty bailouts. Iran still refuses to trade in US dollars. All of its transactions, particularly those big, juicy oil transactions, are settled in currencies other than the US dollar (and, to the best of my knowledge, the euro and pound). Call me crazy, but I’d be willing to be that if Iran suddenly caved and started settling its international transactions in petrodollars, the US government would suddenly be far less interested in putting boots on the ground.
The article has an interesting moment when it interviews David A. Kay, who was the head of the C.I.A. team that searched for Iraq’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction after the invasion. He says that, “They don’t have evidence that Iran has made a decision to build a bomb, and that reflects a real gap in intelligence. It’s true, the evidence hasn’t changed very much [since 2007], but that reflects a lack of access and a lack of intelligence as much as anything.”
Maybe I’m being a bit dense – feel free to tell me if I am – but that almost sounds like Mr. Kay is hesitant to believe that any reports claiming that Iran doesn’t have nuclear capabilities are somehow false. If the evidence hasn’t changed much, does it necessarily reflect a lack of intelligence? What if it reflects a simple truth, that Iran is not nuclear capable and has not concluded that it wants to become so. Granted, there could be a lack of intelligence, and I’m certainly not an intelligence expert nor would I claim to be such, but the fact that 16 US intelligence agencies agree with this assessment makes me think that perhaps we are trying to see something where there is nothing in order to justify an attack to the American public. Even the former head of the Mossad has said that Iran isn’t nuclear armed. Is the US government trying to scare us into war by making us believe that Iran is a Muslim boogeyman that wants to blow us off the map?
I acknowledge that there are extremists in the Muslim world. However, I don’t think for a second that the Iranian government has a death wish. I don’t think that they would reach the conclusion that they were going to bomb us simply as a result of them having a nuke. I do think, however, that their unwillingness to work with the US government probably has something to do with the decades-long sanctions against them imposed by said government. Sanctions are, after all, the precursor to war.
The economy is the real safety concern in America, not Iran. Iran is not nuclear capable and even if they were, they would still have to have a way to deliver that payload to US soil. What is a serious problem, however, is the massive amount of US money floating around in the world economy that could potentially lead to hyperinflation. A hyperinflation of the US dollar would have disastrous consequences at home and abroad, and the US government cannot be so stupid as to not recognize this simple fact. Anyone who thinks that inflation is not a serious problem doesn’t know the definition of the word inflation. As my devoted readers know, inflation is simply the increase in the money supply – nothing more and nothing less. Therefore, it is silly to argue that inflation does not exist in the current climate. If trillions of dollars have been pumped into the economy, inflation is real, regardless of whether or not it is yet reflected in prices.
We are embarking down an increasingly dangerous path. By threatening Iran, we may end up arming a country that was not previously nuclear. We will be risking the lives of our own young soldiers, and we will be risking the lives of the Iranian people. And they are people. I think sometimes that, because the US is somewhat isolated from the rest of the world geographically, we forget that these are real people. They have homes and families, hopes and ideals. They may be different from us and we may consider them strange, but they have just as much right to be here as we do.
When it is all said and done, there is only one candidate who is truly a candidate for peace, and that is Ron Paul. Dr. Paul is the only candidate who is speaking truth to power, in terms of our foreign policy. He is the only person who is talking about changing our insane monetary policies for the better. The bottom line, whether or not Republicans, Democrats, or others want to admit it, is this: If you believe in fiat money, bailouts, and redistribution of wealth both at home and abroad (especially abroad), you are in support of war. That is not a statement I make lightly, but it is the truth. Without war, our current system will eventually lead to economic failure. From the looks of it right now, war may not even be enough to feed the widening black hole of debt.
I strongly encourage those of you who haven’t already to consider Ron Paul. He is the only person on the stage, including Obama, who is talking about real change. We cannot re-elect Obama just because he says that he is for change; he isn’t. We cannot elect goons like Mitt or Newt who say they they will work for change; they won’t. Their records are proof enough that the status quo is all a vote for them will garner us. It is now or never, folks. Now is the time to change America for the better. Vote Ron Paul – he is the best hope for a peaceful and prosperous future!
Check out the Times article here!