Stressed politicians, munitions makers and military contractors lobby for wars. They contribute a lot to politicians to encourage fulfillment of their desires. Citizens mostly only contribute their taxes and their chidren.
Iran’s obvious nuclear ambition makes it a good candidate to replace the vanishing Iraq and Afghanistan programs. Obama’s declining polls and the impact of military decline on President Eisenhower’s “military-industrial complex” reinforce that; peace threatens such.
But how about the rest of us? We can’t afford wars anymore and we’ve contributed enough childre. But we have no choice; we must prevent a nuclear Iran, right? Wrong!
Is a nuclear Iran worse than a nuclear North Korea or Pakistan? Israel is nuclear, so are India, China, Russia, France, and Great Britain. Japan, Taiwan and South Korea can’t afford to continue long without nukes; the U.S. shield is too expensive to remain much longer protecting them. As those join the club, will Brazil, Argentina, South Africa remain defenseless? The U.S. can’t attack them all to prevent it. And if Iran is attacked, will that prevent nuclear development or just delay it at a high cost in lives and treasure?
Nuclear proliferation is a highly dangerous process but it has been on the way since the first nuke was tested successfully; technology can’t be hidden for long. As the famous legal quote puts it: “The bell has rung…now, unring it!”
A new war will benefit Obama’s campaign, the profits of the war industry and the politicians who receive its largesse. It will accomplish no more than has been gained in Iraq and Afghanistan and its cost in lives and treasure will likely hurt the U.S. more than it hurts Iran in the long run…