Friday, April 27, 2012

Iran Two-Step Returns (Again)

If you don't remember the Iran two-step, here it is in a nutshell: The Huffington Posters are anti-war (except against Israel) which means they will use any talking points they feel is necessary to convince people not to go to war with Iran. I don't take issue with people who hold that position but I do take issue with people who are dishonest about it. Anyway some of those talking points include: "America and Israel are bad too!!!!" and "Iran isn't building a nuclear weapon so we would be attacking them for basically no reason."

It is the latter that I wanted to discuss. The Iran two-step basically involves swinging back and forth between telling your audience that Iran is harmless (so there's no reason to attack) and that Iran is armed to the teeth (and so an attack would be a disaster).

This discussion return with an article by Bob Kerrey, a former senator and governor of Nebraska. He wrote an an article on the Huffington Post which was basically designed to fulfill their weekly "somebody gives his opinion about Iran" article. Mr. Kerrey's argument is basically the following:

"Three trillion dollars for Afghanistan and Iraq. Six thousand Americans dead. I think invading Iran will make Iraq and Afghanistan look like a cakewalk. There are 80 million people living in Iran. If we were undersized with 250,000 men and women going into Iraq, it's going to take a million to go to war with Iran. That's a mistake we just can't afford to make."
Now you'll have to excuse me, if I haven't been following the rumblings of action with Iran as closely as I should have. But I was under the impression that the goal with Iran would not be regime change (like in Iraq) or pushing the ruling groups out (like in Afghanistan). It would be bombing the nuclear facilities and then leaving. Now I know that this could be wrong, or that circumstances could change once a hypothetical war got started. But this paragraph seems like a strawman: As close as I can figure it no one is talking about invading Iran, as the title of the article declares it would be a disaster.

Anyway it sure appears like Mr. Kerrey's argument is the second part of the Iran two-step, that Iran is too strong to be defeated militarily without taking heavy losses and that's why we shouldn't do it. As I said, a legitimate point of view. The only problem, of course, is that he is talking about a theocracy that arms terrorists and is dangerous enough to deter the US military and that could soon be gaining nuclear weapons unopposed. A counter argument is not presented in Mr. Kerrey's article. Fortunately he has his friends on the Huffington Post to defend him and the Iranians. Most of the arguments that I saw were on the line of "America can't afford another war," while not mentioning whether or not America can "afford" to have a nuclear armed Iran.

Most of the posters, on the other hand, stuck with the second part of the Iran two-step, that of Iran as a danger to America forces across the region:

Gee, now Iran sounds kind of threatening doesn't it? As much as the anti-Zionists complain that "we can't have an honest debate about Israel in this country," I have yet to see an honest debate about Iran, at least on this thread. It's all talking points being thrown at each other. That being said, I'm sure it's only a matter of time before we return to the first part of the Iranian two-step, that of the harmless Iran who hasn't invaded anyone in 400 years. Or however long it's been.


  1. The Huffington Post is the only place on earth where idiotic arguments like this matter.

    Rhetoric on Iran is slowing down that is because a) Israel and Obama have some sort of understanding, whatever it is
    b) The upcoming US elections
    c) Israel has a plan down and does not want to tip its hand. If an attack comes it will be swift and unexpected.

    Idiots like Kerry might be useful. The Iranians do not really understand the US. They thought Occupy Wall Street (50 hippies and a couple of pup tents) was going to bring down our government. If we do have a military plan to attack under certain conditions the less the Iranians know the better.

    Whatever the Norks are doing there it is comforting to know that these two losers are consulting on missile technology as the N Korean ones have a tendancy to fail.

  2. Your problem is that you wrongly assume that bombing Iran's nuclear facilities would the end of the matter. It would not. Instead we would be sucked into a major conflagration, with no discernable "end". And, both American and Israeli intelligence say there's no sign that Iran is interested in nukes. So you would be bombing a civilian, IAEA-monitored nuclear facility that isn't making nukes, thus not only sparking a war that may end up god-knows-where, but which would at the very least actually encourage Iran (and others) to develop a nuclear deterrent. Good job, that!

  3. "The Huffington Posters are anti-war (except against Israel) "

    When did huffpost start advocating an american invansion of Israel?

    I rarely even hear anyone on that site suggest the US should stop supplying their military with weapons let alone what you are talking about

    But yes as to your other question, bombing a countries nuclear energy facilities is a clear violation of international law and a very serious war crime. nuclear terrorism is pretty much the worst crime possible in this day and age and you are advocating it


Hey guys we've started to employ a slight comment policy. We used to have completely open comments but then people abused it. So our comment policy is such: No obvious trolling or spamming. And be warned: unlike the Huffington Post we actually enforce our comment policy.