Iran is not a threat

... to the United States

Share/Save/Bookmark

Iran is not a threat
by Jack Hunter
02-Sep-2011
 

Why is it that during the last decade, when Republicans controlled all three branches of government, the national debt still exploded? Why is it that the last time a real conservative sat in the White House — Ronald Reagan — government grew astronomically?

If you asked the average conservative during the Bush years why government continued to grow so rapidly, the typical answer would have been that we were fighting two wars. When conservatives are asked why Reagan did not fulfill his promise to scale back the federal government during his tenure, they typically give one of two answers: either that the Democrats did not follow through on their pledge to cut spending or that we were in the middle of the Cold War.

"Wars cost money," Franklin Roosevelt once said, and no doubt any nation would pay virtually any cost to protect itself against a real threat. Conservatives almost unanimously supported Reagan's defense build-up because they believed the Soviet Union was a serious threat to our safety. Most conservatives gave Bush a pass on his profligate spending because they believed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were priorities. However, when it comes to today, are there any actual threats on the horizon that warrant what we currently spend on our military adventures?

Iran is certainly no such threat. To say that Iran may get a nuclear weapon and become a potential threat to its neighbors is one thing; to say that it is a threat to the United States is another. Yet too many conservatives continue to confuse the two, or as the former head of the U.S. Central Command retired Army General John Abizaid explained in 2007: "I believe the United States, with our great military power, can contain Iran ... Let's face it: We lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with nuclear powers as well."

Gen. Abizaid then put the notion of a potential nuclear Iran into even clearer context: "[The U.S.] can deliver clear messages to the Iranians that makes it clear to them that while they may develop one or two nuclear weapons, they'll never be able to compete with us in our true military might and power."

Abizaid makes an important and glaring point: No nation on earth can currently compete with America's military might. Iran is even near the bottom of the list. Foreign Policy's Stephen Walt explains: "One of the more remarkable features about the endless drumbeat of alarm about Iran is that it pays virtually no attention to Iran's actual capabilities and rests on all sorts of worst-case assumptions about Iranian behavior."

Walt then points out that the U.S. spends $692 billion on defense, while Iran spends only $9.6 billion, before noting that currently America has 2,702 nuclear weapons in deployment and 6,000 in reserve, while Iran has zero. "By any objective measure ... Iran isn't even on the same page with the United States in terms of latent power, deployed capabilities, or the willingness to use them," Walt says. "Iran has no powerful allies, scant power-projection capability, and little ideological appeal. Despite what some alarmists think, Iran is not the reincarnation of Nazi Germany and not about to unleash some new Holocaust against anyone."

Walt adds, "The more one thinks about it, the odder our obsession with Iran appears."

Odd indeed. There is a debate within the GOP right now between Tea Party members who recognize the need to cut government spending across the board and Republicans, like Sen. Lindsey Graham and Rep. Tim Scott, who are willing to cut everything but the military. The problem is that second only to entitlements, you can't even begin to substantively balance the budget or reduce the national debt without addressing the black hole that is Pentagon spending.

There is no reason America can't have the strongest military on earth while still being fiscally responsible. Part of this balance necessarily means favoring foreign policy sobriety over constant hyperbole. It also means recognizing practical security realities.

The reality is that Iran is not a threat to the United States. Not even close. To the degree that conservatives actually believe that Iran is some great "threat" takes the Right straight back to the Bush era, when a zeal for spending cuts took a backseat to war fever. That some in the Tea Party are occasionally the loudest in desiring U.S. action against Iran makes the prospects for smaller government even dimmer.

Wanting to limit government and police the world simultaneously is a maddening yet enduring contradiction conservatives simply can no longer afford. Neither — quite literally — can this country.

First published on www.charlestoncitypaper.com.

AUTHOR
Jack Hunter is the official campaign blogger for GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul, and he co-wrote Rand Paul's The Tea Party Goes to Washington.

Share/Save/Bookmark

 
bparhami

This is my last comment on this thread

by bparhami on

Please do not read anything extra in people’s comments and do not think that they are against you, just because they use different words to express their opinions. Nowhere in my comments did I say that the US is “justified” in taking military action or exert any other form of power (see the opening of my first comment). I said that the US is justified in being threatened (which is what the original poster disputed). No country is justified in using military might to achieve its economic goals, be it for oil or any other commodity. It is this type of jumping the gun and the associated name-calling that makes me regret my post each time I comment on Iranian.com.


Bavafa

one more vote for JJ commnet

by Bavafa on

And a few comment to comments:

Dear Mr. bparhami: I suppose "threat" here is used in the context of war and livelihood. No country should remain under the threat of a gun to keep the supply of oil or any other goods. Would Iran or any other nation be justified to aim gun at US for not providing them IPAD?

Dear hamsade Ghadimi:

"any idiot knows a military attack on iran would be detrimental to the opposition's effort to remove the mullahs from power in iran"

Apparently not as there are still some idiots that openly advocate such action.

'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory 

Mehrdad


Delavar1

Jahanshah Javid

by Delavar1 on

IRR is a theocracy. These religious monsters occupying Iran and oppressing/raping Iranians in the name of religion can be much more dangerous than Soviets under Stalin or China under Mao because they believe they are doing things for God.


bparhami

Clarification of my previous comment

by bparhami on

I did not mean that Iran would be a threat to the flow of oil, but a threat to the availability of relatively cheap oil, which is a real possibility if it controls anything more than its current 5% share of the world supply (about 12% of OPEC’s production). I will update my comment to clarify this point.

Oops: It seems that I cannot edit my earlier comment.


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

bparhami

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on

 

Why do you think IRI would be a threat to oil supplies? Are they so stupid to cut off their own source of income. I mean when is the last time any nation in the region did that.

I remember it was in the war between Iran and Iraq. That was a very particular situation and I hope never happens again. Barring another war like that there is no reason to be a threat to oil supplies: Why should they?


bparhami

Treats to oil supply are threats to the US

by bparhami on

I am against war, no matter who starts it or where. But to say that Iran is a threat to its neighbors and not to the US is simple-minded.  Quoting from the article:

"To say that Iran may get a nuclear weapon and become a potential threat to its neighbors is one thing; to say that it is a threat to the United States is another."

Any threat to the oil supply from the Middle East is a threat to the US and Europe, which depend on this oil. So, I don't see how the US should not be threatened by Iran's hostility toward its neighbors.


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

The best bet

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on

 

is the riase of another Reza Shah from within Iran. Now that is something the west oppose. They will do all in their power to discredit or even assassinate that person. The last thing West wants is a Reza Shah in Iran.

What? An Iranian patriot who is actually going to stand up for Iran? One who is not corrupt or rotten. My God! The West does not want anything like that; it would be bad for their plans. How do they push their Islamization agenda! 

A new Reza Shah may even manage to reunify parts of Iran. Bring about stability and prosperity. West wants misery and backwardness in Iran. Reza Shah better be really on the watch for the real power who put the Mollahs there.


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

hamsade ghadimi

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on

 

Interesting points and very informative specially regarding Paul. Being a Democrat I don't believe in a "small government". I also mistrust Ron Paul but Paul has no chance of being president; don't worry!

However I don't think IRI is any danger to anyone except to Iranians. Just watch who is bombing whom. Who is shooting at whom and outside Iran IRI is not even in the top 10! What bothers me is when people worry more about IRI being a danger to non Iranians than Iranians. When in reality IRI is not a major danger outside of Iran. Just compare it with Pakistan housing OBL. Or China occupying Tibet. How about Saudi in Bahrain. Iran is pretty tame outside is borders.

One question: if as you say "any idiot knows a military attack on iran would be detrimental to the opposition's effort to remove the mullahs from power in iran" then why the jab at NIAC? 


Maryam Hojjat

Hamsadeh Ghadimi, Well interpration of article

by Maryam Hojjat on

I agree with all of commentators on attacking IRAN.  I liked JJ's comment in particular.  I also like the suggestion of APFSM for RP.  RP is currently only secular personality we have unless there arise another REza SHAH from within IRAN which I hope for it.


hamsade ghadimi

this article is more about

by hamsade ghadimi on

this article is more about republican philosophy of "reducing the size of government."  examples of cold war in the 80s, or iraq, or afghanistan just shows the hypocrisy of republicans when it comes to resolving their philosohphical ideals (reducing government) and their actions (increasing government).  the author is being pragmatic and indicating that iran is not a threat within the context of expensive military action.  iran is a threat to many countries' interests including the u.s. (e.g., their actions in iraq, lebanon,...) but not worthy of military confrontation.

the author is a 2012 campaign advisor to ron paul and is trying to set paul from the rest of the pack with these kind of articles. basically, he's saying that you can't be a war hawk and a traditional republican.  don't read too much about whether iran is a threat or not.  any idiot knows a military attack on iran would be detrimental to the opposition's effort to remove the mullahs from power in iran.  not to mention niac has already single-handedly changed the minds of politicians in this country from attacking iran (refer to niac's fact book which is passed to its internet response team.:)


Reality-Bites

Another vote for JJ's spot on comment

by Reality-Bites on

Military attack on Iran will be just the tonic the Islamic Republic needs to prolong its rule. 

The Mullahs would love to see an attack on Iran to use as a pretext to portray themselves as the defenders of the country against the war mongering imperialists/zionists. They would also use this to intensify their oppression of the people and declare any opposition as traitors to the country while it is at war.

Most importantly, it is likely most of the victims of any military attack on Iran will be innocent civilian Iranians. As if life isn't already miserable enough for the people under the IR. So, I'm totally against any military action on Iran.

The only scenario under which I could conceive supporting an external military intervention on Iran is in the hypothetical case of a wholesale genocide, ala Rwanda, where the only hope of saving people is through external intervention and the people inside Iran are asking for this themselves. But, as awful as the IR is, thankfully we are not in that situation.


Cost-of-Progress

So, Jack, are you a liberaterian like Ron?

by Cost-of-Progress on

I bet you are. Then no need to argue against military action; it won't work too good, we know.

The argument is not that Iran is a threat to the US, it is not. The argument is that military action against Iran has been, and remains the last hope that the tyrannical mullahs have to stay in power. It will galvenize all people - for or agianst the regime - to defend Iran and her soil as they have for thousands of years.

We are an ancient culture that has been stepped on way too many times, most recenetly by people with Iranian ID cards, but dark thoughts and narrow vision.

Instead of beating the drums of war, US and other western countries should assist the people materially to rid themselves of the cancer of the islamist thugs.  

If you guys are REALLY for freedom and democracy, then help people help themselves.

____________

IRAN FIRST

____________


vildemose

RP is a great guy but he

by vildemose on

RP is a great guy but he needs a few gallons of Espresso coffee a day! Why is he so mellow and does not step up to the challenge. We got a problem so get on with it and take charge man! 

MAK (mordam az khandeh)!

Reform requires the consent of the corrupt


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

amirparvizforsecularmonarchy

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on

 

Yes; I agree so much with you. I wish more people had the sense you have. JJ is also right; IRI is a threat to Iranian people; not any other. Reza Pahlavi is our best hope. But I do find him disappointing as he lacks vitality.

RP is a great guy but he needs a few gallons of Espresso coffee a day! Why is he so mellow and does not step up to the challenge. We got a problem so get on with it and take charge man!  

Amirparviz is also right (unity thread) that West has no good intentions for Iran. We might as well give up expecting help from USA or even sillier Israel! After all Jimmy Carter the "Nobel Prize" winning "Humanitarian" brought Khomeini. I used to have hope for Obama but after Libya I see him being no better than JC. One more Islamic Republic thanks to him. We are on our own and neither begging America nor praising Mossadegh will help.


amirparvizforsecularmonarchy

JJ well said,

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

To talk of military option is the worst option for Iranians.

That said, Reza Pahlavi should be encouraged and assisted in organizing his supporters and helping Iranians choose whats next by the ballot box.

That APPROACH is worthy of assistance.


Jahanshah Javid

Sanity check

by Jahanshah Javid on

Is Iran a threat beyond its borders to the extent that war-mongers want us to believe? Is the threat so significant or imminent to justify war or a bombing campaign? IF Iran develops nuclear weapons, will it become as dangerous as the Soviet Union under Stalin or Mao's China?

Going to war has become so easy. Getting out of them so difficult. And then we wonder why the free world is going bankrupt. The enormous sums spent on war and the military cannot be justified in a sane and sober environment. But sanity is hard to find these days, anywhere.

The Islamic republic is a real, existing threat to its own people. Military intervention will give this dying vampire the rivers of blood it needs to stay alive.


amirparvizforsecularmonarchy

So what's your point Jack, that we should allow the Mullahs

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

to stay in power and not lift a finger to help the people of Iran remove the mullahs who the USA under Carter brought to power.

Is that your defiition of minding your own business?