Listening to many official and many times as many unofficial propaganda outlets of the IRR, the Islamist Rapist republic, one is left with the impression that during the latest nuke meeting in Vienna, the IRR camp read the riot act and dictated its agenda to the agreeable five plus one. It is argued that rather than trying in vain to alter the reality it is best to learn to live with nuke status of the IRR as fait accompli, after all the regime has survived for thirty years and now fortified with nuke, seeing the back of it is a childish wishful dream.
It is further argued that should the IRR not be at the advanced stage as it pretends to be, that its illegal full cycle dual purpose nuke program is an indigenous endeavor and as such unstoppable, short of the highly undesired military option, diplomacy is the only other available route.
When it is put in those terms and within that constraint, only an idiot or as the overused term nowadays, warmonger, would opt for military option. But in reality this logic of either/or contains a concise compilation of almost every single formal fallacy, and since the list is long and typical blog reader’s patience justifiably short, just some of the most glaring ones are offered below.
The proviso being this is from the point of view of someone who given the track record of IRR does not believe in its reformability and advocates its overthrow lock stock and barrel which includes “reformist” as well as “pragmatist” version of the Islamist rapist regime.
It is also further opined that such overthrow given the chance can come about by the fed up enslaved Iranians who have demonstrated their bravery, civility and unquestionable desire to live as free people in a democratic Iran. Now what a typical counter argument to the overthrow via helping enslaved Iranians contains:
1-Bare assertion fallacy, the diplomacy or war argument is true simply because it is true.
2-False dilemma also known as false dichotomy, the diplomacy or war is the only option, therefore no other option is applicable, and those who advocate anything but the two options are delusional or have ulterior motives.
3-Ad hominem, since you don’t want diplomacy that means you want war, ergo you are a warmonger who wants to starve and weaken Iranians by sanctions to prepare the ground for war which is the logical outcome of sanction. Never mind they include your parents, brothers and sisters, hundreds and hundreds of blood relatives, friends and acquaintances, being a warmonger you have no heart. And never mind that out of two hundred fifty or so sanction cases in the modern times less than a handful have been prelude to war or that S. Africa is a example of its utility.
4-Nirvana fallacy, as though it is all fun and games as is the proposed sanction route entails undesirable suffering, it is therefore not desired.
5-False compromise, once the West and IRR work it out, then the IRR has no excuse to continue its three decade long barbaric treatment of its Iranian captives which will give the enslaved Iranian people the chance to moderate and eventually turn the Islamist rapists and their system into some sort of indigenous democracy.
And there are many more fallacies to the war or diplomacy being the only option.
Before it is too late and the IRR imposes a devastating war on Iran which will quickly spread far and wide, the sane world has to impose airtight sanctions and at the same time openly support the enslaved Iranians with moral and material support to overthrow this world threatening Islamist menace.