Who Cares if Iran Has Nookyaler Weapons?

Tehran is 6,339 miles from Washington D.C. So why do we care if they have nookyaler weapons? Because we have no national plan to encourage alternative energy sources and energy independence. Because we're tilting at Middle Eastern windmills. Because we can't drill for oil in our own coastal waters or in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). It's almost like, together, the Democrats and the Republicans love having a bogeyman. And--tag!--Iran is currently it.

The most recent National Intelligence Estimate claims that, although Iran is still enriching uranium, their intent to create weapons-grade material has been stopped since 2003. I'm not comfortable believing that, especially because the Iranians are working with the Russians, and the Russians (read nouveau Soviets) have not told the truth (unless it gave them a distinct advantage over their enemies) in over 90 years. For example, this paragraph, buried deep in the dungeons of the publicly released portion of the NIE:
Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so. For example, Iran's civilian uranium enrichment program is continuing.
That's got me wondering a bit. But what does it really matter? Does anyone, including the former Soviet Union, currently have a missile to propel a warhead that can hit our east coast, let alone the rest of America?

George W. Bush got us into Iraq because he was worried that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. I still think he did to a small extent, but what did it really matter? Oh, that's right. It matters because that same George W. Bush refuses to implement the border security that was enacted by congressional legislation, the only way that we can effectively prevent attacks on American soil by such weapons.

Why is he asleep at the border switch? Because he's an Establishment man, and the establishment loves a bogeyman. It makes for good propaganda, and it often works to point at the imaginary monster's flaring nostrils so that the people won't notice your own genuine warts. Such as lack of (1) a secure border, and (2) a national, independent energy policy.

It's interesting that both the Establishment Democrats and the Establishment Republicans are involved in the same shell game. The Republicans have no alternative energy policy; rather they keep fighting foreign wars so that we can continue to feed our Middle East oil addiction. The Democrats have an alternative energy policy, but they refuse to recognize that the first phase of that policy has to be energy independence--to wit, that we must first (1) increase refinery capacity in the United States and (2) drill for more oil in US territory, such as in ANWR and off our coasts--before we can effectively encourage the switch to clean energy. And thus we have an impasse. But it makes for good theater!

Clean energy will be much better: (1) It will help us clean up our air and water, and (2) it will convince all those sky-is-falling liberals that the sun is much more powerful than man when it comes to global warming. It will be much easier to foster clean energy if we didn't think we had to mind the rest of the world's business--in other words, if we first become energy independent instead.

However, until we stop electing (in most cases) the same tired Establishmentarians to national political office, we aren't going to get either energy independence or clean energy. We'll still be flummoxed by the same, stupid charade.

Both major political parties are largely committed to the same shell game. The Chuck Shumers and the Harry Reids in the Democratic party, as well as the Chuck Hagels and Trent Lotts of the Republican party, love the same thing.

Any bogeyman that helps them perpetuate their power. And right now--tag!--Iran, you're it!


  1. Well, we could vote for Bill Richardson. He has a plan to cut domestic oil demand 50% by 2020. He also has the best plan to get us out of Iraq ASAP.

  2. I think the motivation for Iran wanting such weapons and our motivation for wanting to stop the productions of weapons are the same. Israel has weapons and a nuclear middleeast, where at least two people can destroy the region is to much to bear.

    I imagine we would be more successful in Iran of we'd address Israel's weapons as well. But do not see America standing up to Israel is such a way for a while.

  3. Frank, and Jason, I agree.

    As for our energy policies, we can start at the local level. I personally do not understand why people are allowed to drive giant SUVs in New York City where I live.

  4. Richard,

    Bill Richardson is one that I haven't looked into enough. I'm glad he's looking at things in a way similar to Ron Paul.


    Thank you for bringing up a very good point. Israel is in a way like America's spoiled golden child that can do no wrong. It shows little integrity when we accuse Iran of things it's not doing and then give Israel a pass because it is somehow always right.

    But then again, I heard this morning on the radio that the NIE stated that Iran was sponsoring weapons buildup in Syria.

  5. Elizabeth,

    I just saw your comment after I finished responding to Richard and Jason. First of all, I'm glad to read on MoreFromElizabeth that your health is doing well and that you had a good Thanksgiving.

    I appreciate your point as well. A lot of local decisions--to save energy and improve our environment--add up to major improvements as well. I know you have some bones to pick with NY Times' Thomas Friedman, but one thing I like about him is his proposal to raise the gasoline tax by a dollar. I know it would be painful, but it would incentivize a lot of people to cut back and private entrepreneurs to scale up their research and production of cleaner energy vehicles, etc.

  6. An interesting quote I heard on the news last week...

    This may not be word for word, but it was a quote from Bush that said... "Even if Iran has stopped working towards Newcular weapons, that doesn't change my opinion on them"

    If you, unlike me, felt that Bush still had a little integrity, statements like this pretty much destroy anything he may have left.

    The chancellor in V for Vendetta has a similar quote, although more honest about his intentions. We need to make these people understand why they need us. The only reason we need Bush and his cronies right now, is to protect us from the Bogeyman they have created, and quite frankly, they're dropping the ball.

  7. Gee, raising taxes sounds like a great idea! I'm sure that the government will follow its fantastic track record of wisely and frugally spending taxpayer dollars in the most effective and politically untainted way.

    Oh, yes, and while we're at it, let's have the government create a marvelous comprehensive energy policy that both saves the environment and limits people's freedoms. They sure do a great job of managing the health of our national forests. Surely they'll do a great job of managing energy as well!

    Wake up folks. It's not more government intervention we need; it's less. Democratic republics are not designed to do things well or efficiently. You need a dictatorship to accomplish that. Democratic republics are designed to do a very few things well and to effect individual freedom. When governments of democratic republics involve themselves where they are ill designed to function well, they only create messes -- messes that are difficult to resolve because of political disincentives to do so.

    Railing on Israel is all the rage these days. Never mind that they are the only democratic society in the Middle East. Never mind that we can trust them not to nuke us or turn their weapons on us. Never mind that their peace-loving neighbors would annihilate them without their extreme security measures.

    A bigger question is why we continue to subsidize the Saudi kleptocracy, which sponsors and breeds terrorism like no other nation. Yeah, I know, we need the oil. Maybe if we stopped federal oil subsidies ....

  8. "Railing on Israel is all the rage these days. Never mind that they are the only democratic society in the Middle East."

    I just read something interesting Op-Ed on this in the SL Trib. It suggest that their democracy might be put to the test if their is not a two state system created and Israel is left with Arab citizens, you can't keep them refugees for ever. (http://www.sltrib.com//ci_7635416)

    "Never mind that we can trust them not to nuke us or turn their weapons on us. Never mind that their peace-loving neighbors would annihilate them without their extreme security measures."

    I'm not worried about America being nuked I'm worried about the Middle East being nuked by Israel. I would say that a nuclear weapon is far beyond anything any other country in the region can muster and their desire to acquire one is not reaction to Israel.

    "A bigger question is why we continue to subsidize the Saudi kleptocracy, which sponsors and breeds terrorism like no other nation."

    That is a very important question for sure. I'd also throw in Pakistan as a regime we subsidize without considering the hypocrisy.


Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog