Entry 2400, on 2025-06-23 at 15:02:39 (Rating 4, News)
Well, the American attack on Iran is the big news right now, so I think I need to make some comments on the subject. In many cases people take extreme positions on this: they are either totally against the bombings, or they see them as a legitimate and rational response to a genuine problem. As I'm sure you might have guessed by now: my view is more nuanced!
There is a lot of uncertainty on this situation, so anything I say now is going to be based on information that has been made public and on discussions by various interested groups, so don't be too surprised if I change my mind in the future - and maybe in only a few days or weeks - as more information becomes available. But let's look at my current thoughts.
Generally, I support the attacks. Only a psychopath would like the death and destruction caused, but we do need to look at the bigger picture. When I am asked if I think "the end justifies the means" I say sort of, I think the end *can* justify the means, but we need to be careful that the eventual outcome is sufficiently good to counter the bad aspects of any action.
So here are some points we need to consider, as I currently see them...
First, the Iranian government is not a safe, responsible, or rational one. We can trust some governments to act in a moderately reasonable way, even if they are far from perfect. For example, I would trust the Chinese or Russian regimes ahead of Iran, just because of their past actions, rhetoric, and stated aims.
Iran is a known funder of terrorism, and is particularly anti-Israel. In many ways I don't blame the US and Israel, who have undoubtedly worked together despite their denials, for their reaction, because sometimes military action is the best option.
I understand that my responsibility argument is debatable, but we need to look at it quantitatively. If we give a score of 100 to a government we totally trust and a zero to one we completely distrust, I would rate the US 70, China 50, Russia 40, and Iran 10. The numbers will differ from person to person, but hopefully no rational person would see things totally differently, and reverse those numbers, for example.
Second, Iran is a theocracy, which means it it likely to make bizarre and unreasonable decisions based on religious ideology rather than careful thought. If your religion values martyrdom, for example, then you are not likely to have much consideration for preserving individual human lives, except for the upper echelons of leadership, of course, if you can believe the stories of the Iranian leaders sheltering from attacks against them.
And not only is the Iranian leadership religious, but it follows what is arguably the worst major religion in the world right now. No doubt other religions, including Christianity, have been deeply problematic in the past, but currently I think Islam is the source of the biggest problems.
Third, nuclear weapons are not necessarily bad, but they can be. Many quite knowledgeable people think that nuclear deterrents have prevented a major conventional war between the West and the USSR (when it existed, but a lesser argument applies to Russia today).
Mutually assure destruction ("MAD") sounds like a, well, mad idea, but it does work, but only if both sides are fairly rational and want to avoid their own destruction. But for a death cult (which the Iranian regime is to some extent) that might not act as the same sort of deterrent.
Fourth, just because one country has nukes it doesn't follow that everyone has the right to have them. So even if you argue that we would be better off without nuclear weapons, the fact is we do have them and it seems like a good idea to reduce the number of new nations with weapons rather than allow them to proliferate.
I know that is sort of contrary to my deterrent argument above, but as I said, deterrents only work if the sides act in a fairly rational way, and I think we can list a few countries where that would not be the case, and Iran would be near the top of that list.
Fifth, there are conflicting reports about how close Iran was to producing a bomb, but there is enough credibility in the reports saying they are getting close, that action against that is justified.
Some people say that claims that Iran is close to creating a bomb have been around for decades and have lost any credibility, but they are ignoring two things. First, the project has been reset several times, both through destruction of facilities and agreements, so it is possible that they might have been close to success more than once; and second, even if it has been false in the past, one day it will be true and that day could be now.
So the nuclear weapon argument is a bit like driving. I'm allowed to drive, so why shouldn't everyone be allowed to, even a 5 year old kid, a blind person, or a psychologically disturbed homicidal maniac? We can see that certain things are a privilege that not everyone should have automatic access to. Iran hasn't earned its "drivers license" yet so when it acquires a car and threatens to drive it irresponsibly, we need to confiscate the keys!
In summary, I can make an argument both ways about whether nuclear weapons are good or bad, but I don't think there is any doubt that they need to be kept away from countries like Iran. That's why I support the American strike... in a cautious and interim way, of course!
Comment 1 by Anonymous on 2025-06-23 at 19:54:25:
OJB loves genocide, doesn't he. Reading too much MAGA propaganda recently.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE