Demonic Attacks on the Peacemakers

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.

The pact he mentions was an attempt made by two well-meaning people to outlaw war. Well, it did not stop World War II from happening. What DiBacco is suggesting, therefore, is that we give up on peace and welcome war. There is only one thing to say about that: the man is a mental case.