Ron Paul On Iran

Is Iran as dangerous as some are saying?

In April 2006, on the floor of the US House of Representatives, Ron Paul made strong case for a policy of non-intervention and the many unintended consequences resulting from intervention, and argues that Iran is not the threat it's being made out to be.

There are some who may not agree strongly with any of my arguments, and instead believe the propaganda: Iran and her President, Mahmoud Almadinjad, are thoroughly irresponsible and have threatened to destroy Israel. So all measures must be taken to prevent Iran from getting nukes-- thus the campaign to intimidate and confront Iran.

First, Iran doesn’t have a nuke and is nowhere close to getting one, according to the CIA. If they did have one, using it would guarantee almost instantaneous annihilation by Israel and the United States. Hysterical fear of Iran is way out of proportion to reality. With a policy of containment, we stood down and won the Cold War against the Soviets and their 30,000 nuclear weapons and missiles. If you’re looking for a real kook with a bomb to worry about, North Korea would be high on the list. Yet we negotiate with Kim Jong Il. Pakistan has nukes and was a close ally of the Taliban up until 9/11. Pakistan was never inspected by the IAEA as to their military capability. Yet we not only talk to her, we provide economic assistance-- though someday Musharraf may well be overthrown and a pro-al Qaeda government put in place. We have been nearly obsessed with talking about regime change in Iran, while ignoring Pakistan and North Korea. It makes no sense and it’s a very costly and dangerous policy.

The conclusion we should derive from this is simple: It’s in our best interest to pursue a foreign policy of non-intervention. A strict interpretation of the Constitution mandates it. The moral imperative of not imposing our will on others, no matter how well intentioned, is a powerful argument for minding our own business. The principle of self-determination should be respected.

Well, I'm all for allowing self-determination, unless that self-determination is to point a gun at my head. So let's look at his argument point by point:

1. Iran doesn't have a nuke, and if they do have one, they wouldn't use it out of fear of retribution.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Almadinjad has an Apocalyptic mindset and an outlook that if it's the will of Allah they are annihilated, so be it. If it is not His will, they won't be.

2. We won the Cold War with a policy of containment.

Yes, but that containment was achieved using the very interventionist methods he decries, such as CIA and British assistance in putting the Shah in power in 1953. In the name of "containment" the US made deals with many despicable dictators. It may have helped win the Cold War, but in retrospect I think it was bad policy responsible for many of the problems we're having now. I don't want the US to bribe other nations to achieve "containment" of Iran.

3. We negotiate with North Korea and actually support Pakistan. Why are we so worried about Iran?

The difference is that North Korea and Pakistan already have nukes, which significantly complicates things. Still, treating them differently is a bad idea. The Iranians are learning the lesson that having a nuke means you can tell the US to kiss your ass, providing even more motivation to join the nuclear club.

If we do nothing, they will have nukes, but so do many other nations. To me, the question of Iran boils down to this: Will they use them offensively?

I don't think fear of retribution will disuade Iran from using nukes; I don't think "containment" will prevent their development; and I don't think regime change or involvement in their internal affairs is wise (in that I agree with Mr. Paul). Preemptive strikes would cause the least death and destruction but is unacceptable politically - the entire world would be against us.

The only way to know for sure if Iran plans to use nukes offensively is look for the mushroom cloud. There is nothing to do but wait - and retaliate.