Just a quick word about Iran getting the bomb: aside from the fact that we don’t have evidence of a weapons program and aside from the fact that the Supreme Leader of Iran issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons and aside from the fact that the Bush Administration is pledging support for Saudi Arabia’s nuclear program and aside from the fact that 30 years ago we supported Iran’s nuclear power ambitions, what’s our argument against Iran actually getting the bomb?
Is it that they might use it? Seeing that we’re the only nation on the planet to ever use atomic weaponry, we may not exactly be the moral authority on the subject. Furthermore, the leaders of Iran are neither stupid nor suicidal. They understand that deployment of a nuclear weapon would be an instant death sentence for their entire country. There’s no reason to believe that the bomb would be anything more than a defensive measure, which would make perfect sense considering that the United States is constantly threatening Iran with the very same weapons we are telling them they are forbidden to acquire.
This is where the argument shifts to the ever so convenient “war on terror.” If Iran got the bomb, they could give it to their friends, “the terrorists,” who would then smuggle the bomb into America under their turbans and kill us all. Once again, such an argument is foolish unless you believe that the leaders of Iran wish there to be no more Iran. Moreover, proponents of such double standards might want to rethink how such an argument might play out in domestic policy.
If this argument were valid, couldn’t it be used to outlaw guns in the United States? If guns could possibly find their way into the hands of criminals, doesn’t it make sense to outlaw guns? Of course, the United States doesn’t want to outlaw nuclear guns. They just want to choose who can get them.
I’m quite certain, however, that no self-respecting firearm advocate would condone the same form of domestic gun control. Not only would it be unconstitutional, it would be downright silly. Who in their right mind would give our government the right to decide who is a “bad person” and then say that anyone who is friends with that “bad person” can’t have a gun?
Depending upon who is making the decisions, such a litmus test could disqualify anyone from owning a gun. Applied globally, it would most certainly disqualify the United States from owning one as well.
Who knows? Maybe this policy isn’t such a bad idea after all. If the implication is one that nuclear weapons are so dangerous that the very possibility of their misuse threatens all of humanity, maybe Iran shouldn’t be able to possess the bomb. And maybe we shouldn’t either.
Lonnie Ray Atkinson is the author of “What You Are Reading I Am Screaming: A Panic In The Absence Of Question” and runs the blog projectquestion.org.
