Imagine you walk into a shop and ask the clerk if he sells
socks. He says, yes he does; and you say you wish to see them. He takes you to
a section in the store where ties are displayed and he starts telling you how
nice these ties are. You say, yes but you came to buy socks not ties. He says,
of course, and then explains that he sells socks by discussing the beautiful
ties he carries. You say no more, and walk out the store.
Well, my friend, now that the point has been made to the
effect that the nuclear deal with Iran is a good thing because it
will lead to the peace we all yearn for; those who lost the argument about the
proverbial shoes are coming back with arguments about the proverbial ties. Here
is an example to oppose the nuclear deal: “Advocates of the nuclear deal with Iran argue that the deal will work because arms
control worked to contain the nuclear threat from the Soviet
Union . In fact, the USSR violated most of the
arms-control agreements.”
The deception here is that, containing the threat coming
from the Soviet Union is one thing, whereas the USSR having possibly violated the
arms-control agreement is another thing. Containing the threat meant avoiding a
serious confrontation if not war; violating the agreement meant doing minor
adjustments not mentioned in the agreement. In reality, violating the agreement
is a charge that each side leveled against the other. The most that came of
such exchanges is that the parties did more jaw-jaw and no war-war.
Another positive factor resulting from that agreement is
that France
stopped testing nuclear weapons altogether. Later – after China , India ,
Pakistan and North Korea had
gone nuclear – they refrained from carrying out tests above ground. They also
drastically cut down on the number of tests they carried out underground. Now,
given that those who oppose the deal with Iran
complain that a nuclear Iran
will lead to proliferation in the Middle East
– they should welcome containing that country. That's because the move should
have a restraining effect on the neighboring countries similar to what happened
with France and the other
nuclear powers in Asia .
By the way, the example mentioned earlier concerning the
people who oppose the deal with Iran ,
was a quote taken from an article written by R. James Woolsey and Peter Vincent
Pry under the title: “Obama's Arms-Control Delusion,” published on August 26,
2015 in National Review Online. The authors make two main points in that
article (1) No nuclear agreement such as the deal with Iran , has ever
succeeded in persuading any state to abandon nuclear weapons. (2) Sanctions and
military force have worked to stop nuclear proliferation,
To begin with, there have only been two deals similar to but
not exactly the same as the one negotiated with Iran . And the result has been
mixed. The first deal was with South
Africa , and it turned out to be a success
story. The second was with North
Korea , and it turned out to be a failure.
The reasons for that are many, having nothing to do with the deal itself. This
can be discussed some other time, some other place.
As to the use of military force to stop nuclear
proliferation, the two authors have engaged in fantasy. They basically say that
World War II was about stopping Germany
from acquiring nuclear weapons. They basically say that Israel 's attack on Iraq 's
civilian power station was about stopping Iraq from acquiring nuclear
weapons. They basically say that the second Persian Gulf War was about stopping
Qaddafi of Libya from acquiring nuclear weapons. They basically say that Israel 's attack on a food irradiation station in
Syria was about stopping Syria from
acquiring nuclear weapons. These are idiocies that deserve no response, and
will be getting none.
But they are idiocies formulated – more so now than ever
before – because their authors have one thing in mind: war, war, war. Seeing
that the chances for getting what they want are slipping away, they are
summoning all their resources to attack the concept of peace. That's what the
James Woolsey and Vincent Pry article is about. Unfortunately, it’s not even
the only article that appeared on that day, August 26, 2015.
Another article came under the title: “A treaty as hollow as
the Iranian nuclear deal” and the subtitle: “The Kellogg-Briand pact was
supposed to outlaw war.” It was written by Thomas V. DiBacco, and was published
in The Washington Times.