OPINION & EDITORIAL
Iran’s policy on nukes flawed
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Gerald Cox:
- I'll take a female president, just not her (December 3, 2007)
- Religion aside, faith perseveres (November 26, 2007)
- Want Big Ten sports? Get a dish (November 19, 2007)
- Civil rights movement needs 'Black-In' (November 12, 2007)
Related Stories:
- U.S. has no right to regulate nukes (February 7, 2007)
- Iran invasion would bring fatal consequences (April 28, 2006)
- Diplomacy vs. hostility in Iran talks (November 11, 2004)
- War rhetoric comprises policy (November 2, 2007)
- Legitimizing peace (March 20, 2002)
by Gerald Cox
Monday, March 26, 2007
As if the Persian Gulf wasn't volatile enough. Iran, never known for its sagacity in diplomacy, has recently decided to test the turbulent waters of the Gulf. Iran's latest blunder — the seizure of 15 British sailors and marines on the northwestern extremity of the Persian Gulf at the mouth of the Shatt Al-Arab waterway — has the European Union and Britain up in arms. If Iran is still interested in sneaking a few nukes out of its nuclear energy program, it really is doing a rather lousy job of looking innocuous.
Iran is increasingly looking like the irresponsible teenager who wants the keys to the car for the night. Unfortunately, teenage Iran has evinced a determined tendency to purposefully run his bicycle, moped and jet skis into innocent bystanders, pedestrians and the occasional sea whale, all the while yelling obscenities and frequent anti-Semitic remarks. Wanton violence and aggressive behavior? Keep the keys out of this kid's hands.
Iran's seizure of British sailors is quickly turning into an international my-word versus your-word situation. Iran claims the British ships were in Iranian waters, while the British response has asserted that the seizure took place in Iraqi waters. According to MSNBC, a nearby Iraqi fisher even got into the fray, insisting the boats were anchored in Iraqi waters.
So, who to believe? Is it Iran, a nation known for its censorship and manipulative control of information? A nation whose president seems to deny the historicity of the Holocaust? Or do we believe Great Britain, a nation that somehow managed to get itself into a war based on misinformation — a war that very well may be the next Vietnam. Perhaps you'll side with the Iraqi fisherman. He seems like a nice guy.
This incident brings to light the rather large question that plagues the Iranian nuclear issue. Who should we believe?
Iran claims its nuclear program has been, is, and will always be for peaceful purposes. America and its allies insist the Islamic republic has much more hostile intentions in mind, and Iran is providing the West with myriad examples to point to Iran's violent disposition. If Iran truly desires to exercise its right to peaceful nuclear energy, it sure is acting funny.
Iran is often cited as a major supplier and contributor to the Hezbollah terrorist group in Palestine, and the United States and Great Britain have been insisting that Shiite insurgent groups in Iraq are reaping the benefits of doting neighbor Iran. Supplying terrorist groups like Hezbollah and the violent civilian slaughterers in Iraq is no way to instill confidence that, should you achieve nuclear capabilities, you're more than happy to leave nuclear warheads sitting around, unused for a few decades, Cold-War style.
Iran is not helping its peaceful intentions case by taking the provocative actions it took on Friday. It also isn't helping its image as a peaceful, mindful, responsible member of the international community by hosting the world's largest Holocaust-denier conference, boasting some of the world's foremost white supremacists and at least one former Ku Klux Klan leader. This conference, by the way, wasn't just a gathering of Iranian intellectuals and academics. It was attended by and enjoyed an address from President Ahmadinejad himself.
The veritable kidnapping of 15 British sailors in what the European Union and Britain believe to be international waters, is yet another example of Iran's bungling diplomacy in the wake of its nuclear ambitions. And with their refusal to comply with the United Nations' expectations concerning their nuclear program, Iran is working itself into a corner.
The world is losing faith in Iran. The United Nations Security Council unanimously passed additional sanctions against Iran aimed at curbing its arming of insurgencies in Iraq and at crippling its nuclear program. All 15 permanent and temporary members of the Security Council managed to come together to indicate to Iran that they don't trust them.
You can't fault Iran for trying, really. After all, we have nukes, Israel must have nukes, and India managed to make a few. For goodness' sake, Pakistan has them! So why shouldn't Iran? President Ahmadinejad, best known for his vitriolic and oft-mistranslated rants against Israel, the United States and the West must figure nuclear weapons are governed by the same rules that defined our preschool and grade-school experiences. If everyone else gets to have a snack and a nap, we should too, right?
Unfortunately for Mr. Ahmadinejad, the world doesn't operate on the kindergarten system for nuclear weapon distribution. It's not snack time or naptime for Iran. No, Iran's got this whole nuclear ambitions thing all wrong. If Iran wants nukes, it would be best served by behavior that is conducive to powers like the Great Britain, the United States, and the United Nations turning a blind eye to their actions. And its abrasive stance of aggression is just rubbing a few too many members of the United Nations the wrong way. Everybody is watching, and nobody is trusting.
Gerald Cox (gcox@badgerherald.com) is a junior majoring in economics and Middle Eastern Studies.
Anonymous (March 25, 2007 @ 11:27pm):
worthless stuff here... especially resembeling Iran to the teenager was very "teenagerish"
Anonymous (March 26, 2007 @ 12:40am):
It seems that Gerald could use help of a tutor in his Meddle Eastern Studies.
Anonymous (March 26, 2007 @ 1:32am):
Isn't saying that Iran's policy on nukes is flawed along the lines of saying "Farts smell?"
Anonymous (March 26, 2007 @ 3:09am):
Anonymous (March 25, 2007 @ 11:27pm):
Spelling ?
Syntax ?
Tutor yourself !
Anonymous (March 26, 2007 @ 7:13am):
PAKISTAN HAS NUKES! Your "snack time" for nukes began YEARS ago. Dammit, we say we're concerned about Iran getting nuclear weapons and distributing them to terrorists, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE FORMER SOVIET STATES? There is unsecured nuclear material everywhere.
Ahmadinejad is a camera monkey. Tell me what the real leader of Iran is saying, the Ayatollah.
Anonymous (March 26, 2007 @ 7:53am):
Anonymous 3:09 am...great come back. The way you make an argument is to say he can't spell, great job. It must be Cox trying to get a point in, because his articles always suck. Not to mention that since he's a liberal that the only come backs that they ever have online are "check your spelling, I hope you don't go to UW cause your spelling sucks"
Anonymous (March 26, 2007 @ 9:32am):
"Iran's policy on nukes flawed"
Uh, yes, Gerald, we're are certainly aware of that.
Anonymous (March 26, 2007 @ 10:56am):
"Iran is not helping its peaceful intentions case..."
Only an idiot would think that Iran has peaceful intentions.
Anonymous (March 26, 2007 @ 2:20pm):
historicity?
If this is a word...it shouldn't be.
Anonymous (March 26, 2007 @ 2:43pm):
"Iran is increasingly looking like the irresponsible teenager who wants the keys to the car for the night."
More like the teen-age gang member looking to get a MAC-10, so he could do some real damage in a drive-by shooting. He already steals a car if he needs one. Car-jacking is an old and honored tradition.
Anonymous (March 26, 2007 @ 5:41pm):
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/historicity
http://www.answers.com/topic/historicity
Anonymous (March 28, 2007 @ 2:25pm):
All I have to say is that I loved the article. If you all didn't like it, why don't you: go hit up the Badger Herald offce, apply for a spot, and then write your own pointless articles. Thanks Gerald for a great read!
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
