E-mail
Print
McCain’s Iranian Policies
Why voting by agenda matters
By Jeff Flashinski
Even if Iran did have nuclear weapons, America’s chief ally in the world is Israel which receives over $3 billion in military aid each year
With the presidential elections coming up in November it’s time for people to decide who they wish to lead this country. Unfortunately when voters were polled after the 2004 elections and, asked why they voted for who they did, only about 10 percent said they voted based on the candidates’ “agendas, ideas, platforms, or goals.” The rest voted on “qualities” such as the candidates’ personalities, looks, image, etc. This is disappointing because U.S. policy affects so many billions of people around the world and voters in this country should be informed of what the candidates’ actual positions are in order to vote their concerns. The U.S. military has over 730 military bases in over 130 countries. With the immense power of this country, even a slight policy shift here can have a huge effect on millions of people around the world
While I believe that the Democrats and Republicans are quite similar on most issues, the Democrats do deviate from the Republican agenda at least slightly, and at this stage in history that deviation is critical for avoiding global disaster. It is important to look at what the Republican agenda has been and specifically what McCain’s policies will be. What I think is most important in the next U.S. presidency is their policies towards the Middle East.
John McCain starting singing in a speech in 2007 the words, “bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.” Along with other such statements made by McCain, it is clear that he will not negotiate with Iran and that he plans to deal with Iran’s leadership by aggressive militarism. He has even attacked Obama because he said that he will try the diplomatic option with Iran. Furthermore, McCain agrees with most of the Bush Administration’s policies, and the Bush administration has been threatening and physically attacking Iran already. I find no reason to doubt that McCain will attack Iran if elected president.
So, what would an attack on Iran mean? First of all, with regards to nuclear power, Iran has not done anything illegal under international law. Iran has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and it is following the guidelines which the IAEA has set out. Iran even allows International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors to monitor its programs throughout the country. The head of the IAEA, ElBaradei, has stated quite definitively that Iran has no nuclear weapons program. Even if Iran did have nuclear weapons, America’s chief ally in the world is Israel which receives over $3 billion in military aid each year. Israel is believed to have 200 nuclear weapons, and they have not signed the NPT.
Furthermore, if the U.S. were to attack Iran it would lead to the deaths of many Iranian civilians on a magnitude that no moral person could support. It would also be a violation of international law, and if the U.S. were to invade Iran it would be an unprovoked attack that would qualify as the supreme international crime: aggression. Iran is a country that has a population of more than 70 million, three times the population of Iraq. It also has a powerful military and a stable infrastructure, unlike Iraq before the U.S. invasion. Seeing how difficult it has been for the U.S. to control Iraq, it will be much more difficult to establish a new regime in Iran.
To continue, attacking Iran would strategically be pure stupidity and could as well threaten the entire global population. Such an attack could easily spread to the entire region, as Hezbollah, a Lebanese militant group, has said that it will defend Iran if it is attacked. While Americans may remain indifferent to the slaughter of civilians in Iraq, those living in close proximity are not so indifferent and may not tolerate another U.S. act of aggression in the region. For all the above reasons, John McCain’s policies could have apocalyptic consequences.
> Comments
HK on Oct 13, 2008 at 09:57 AM:
Everyone knows you can bomb Iran's nuclear facilities without bombing their whole country. And this agression 'supreme international crime' business is bunk. By that definition nations have been committing supreme international crimes against each other since the dawn of time.
Biff Tannen on Oct 14, 2008 at 01:27 AM:
HK has a good point, but raises a better question. If "everyone knows" how to bomb specific targets and not kill civilians, then why does the U.S. continue to kill more civilians than insurgents? HK says it must be deliberate. That's interesting.
jay on Oct 14, 2008 at 11:53 PM:
I think maybe the point was missed that the U.S. does not have the right to determine who should or should not have nuclear weapons. The U.S. has helped both Israel and Pakistan develop nuclear weapons and neither has signed the NPT. Furthermore, the U.S. has 10,000 nuclear weapons, and it is the only country which has ever used them, so what right does the U.S. have to determine nuclear policy. It should be decided by an international body, not the U.S. As to your other point, invading another country which has not attacked qualifies as aggression according to the principles established by the Nuremberg Tribunals. The Tribunals also said that "aggression" was the "supreme international crime, differing from all other war crimes in that it contains within it all of the evil of the whole." Therefore, all the violence that occurs as a result of the aggression is contained in that crime. Unfortunately, every post-World War 2 administration in the U.S. has committed the crime of aggression. There is too much jingoism, people need to read about suffering.