[lit-ideas] Attacking Iran -- moral implications

From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 19:37:30 -0800
My first note presented some controversies but didn't take sides in order to
imagine a time when all has been resolved, much as Fukuyama says that one
day it will be.  

 

Perhaps it would be helpful to consider both why we ought to attack Iran and
why we should not.   Matthew Kroenig argues (all the while considering the
alternatives) that we should.  Kroenig's article, "Time to Attack Iran, Why
a Strike is the least bad option" appears in the January/February 2012 issue
of Foreign Affairs.  Matthew Kroenig is "Stanton Nuclear Security Fellow at
the Council on Foreign Relations and author of Exporting the Bomb:
Technology Transfer and the Spread of Nuclear Weapons.  From July 2010 to
July 2011, he was Special Adviser in the Office of the U.S. Secretary of
Defense, responsible for defense strategy and policy on Iran."



While you can't read Kroenig's article online, you can read opposing
responses to it on the Foreign Affairs web site, e.g.,
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137036/alexandre-debs-and-nuno-p-mont
eiro/the-flawed-logic-of-striking-iran

 

The controversy bears a resemblance to war vs. antiwar arguments prior to
World War Two.  Certain French Generals can in retrospect be seen to have
gotten it right.  France should have poured more money into defense.  French
leaders were arguing that France couldn't afford to, just as there are those
today arguing that we can't afford to do anything about Iran.  But in
retrospect, if we go a short way up the mountain, we can look back at the
cost to France and say without fear of disagreement, that the cost would
have been far less to France if they had beefed up their military and dealt
with Hitler in the early days of his violations of Germany's post-WWI
agreements.  But France dithered as Hitler became stronger and stronger.  

 

We in the U.S. are going to do one thing or the other.  We are going to
attack Iran or we are not, and we cannot know in advance which option will
be the least expensive.  Yes, we can say with the pre-WWII French leaders,
the cost of arms is expensive, but will we after our opponent (in this case
Iran) does whatever it is going to do, decide that we have made the right
decision, and are taking all possible expenses into consideration?  In
France's case it is clear that they did not make the right decision.  If we
do nothing will we have to say the same thing later on?  Or will a new,
mini-cold war, seem preferable and indeed have its benefits?

 

If we do nothing, as Kroenig argues, and Iran develops nuclear weapons,
Saudi Arabia is sure to want them as well. We are going to have to step up
and either dole them out to Saudi Arabia and our other Middle-Eastern
allies, or promise we will guard such states with permanently deployed
ship-board and airborne nuclear weapons.  It might in the long run cost far
more to keep a fleet permanently in the region than it would be to knock out
all or most of Iran's nuclear capability in a single strike.  

 

Do we have moral arguments for a preemptive strike against Iran?  Iranian
leaders have threatened Israel and Britain.  Are these and similar threats
sufficient to warrant a preemptive strike from a moral standpoint?  A case
can certainly be made.  Iran engages in human-rights violations.  Such
violations are intrinsic to Islamic Fundamentalism.  Iran is guilty of
intolerance against non-Islamic religions and has vowed to destroy both
Christianity and Judaism, especially the latter.  Hitler voiced similar
threats in his Mein Kampf, but they were discounted as meaningless bluster
until he actually carried them out.  Are we justified (or more importantly
is Israel justified) in discounting the words of Ahmadinejad?  

 

There will be many in the military who realize that more money will be
pumped into weaponry and maintenance if we do not strike Iran preemptively
and Iran is allowed to acquire nuclear weapons.  A preemptive strike would
use a minimum amount of weaponry during a limited time.  But if we do not
strike Iran preemptively and have instead to guard the region indefinitely
with our war ships and planes, the Navy and Air Force will be assured of
ongoing congressional support for new weaponry and military forces
indefinitely.  

 

In our Liberal Democracy there are many agendas besides the moral one that
we might consider.  And one can by no means assume that the current
democratic president will be less likely to conduct a preemptive strike
against Iran the Republican he defeated.  One can imagine Obama's advisors
weighing the options and telling him that the voting public isn't going to
want to unseat him if he is in the midst of a military action - a strike
against Iran at the right time might be the surest path to reelection.
[lit-ideas] Attacking Iran -- moral implications

Other related posts:
