I was watching the MSNBC Republican debate a few nights ago, and Rudy and Ron Paul got into their usual tit-for-tat. Ron Paul said that we should not go to war against Iran without an official declaration by Congress, since the U.S. Constitution grants to Congress the power to wage war. He also characterized the idea that Iran poses an imminent threat to the United States as "absurd," and he remarked that no country has attacked us in the past 200 years. Rudy (as usual) brought up 9/11, to which Ron Paul responded that 9/11 was the work of a few thugs, not an entire country. Rudy then pointed out that other countries have sponsored Al Qaeda.
After the debate, Chris Matthews interviewed a writer from the Weekly Standard, a conservative (or maybe a neo-con) publication. The writer dismissed Ron Paul's arguments. He said that Iran very well could attack the United States, and he also expanded on Rudy's argument that other countries have supported and sponsored Al Qaeda. For the writer, Ron Paul wanted to place things in neat, rigid categories, which is not really possible.
Who is right? My reaction is mixed. Would Iran nuke the United States? One idea that made Americans feel somewhat safe during the Cold War was Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). The concept was that, if the Soviet Union nuked the U.S., then the U.S. would nuke the Soviet Union back, and vise versa. For proponents of MAD, that would serve as a deterrent to both sides not to use nuclear weapons. In terms of Iran, would Iran attack the United States, knowing full well that the U.S. could retaliate? MAD assumes that America's enemies have some form of self-interest. After all, they cannot achieve their nefarious ambitions if they're dead.
On the other hand, there have been Muslims who were perfectly willing to die. The hijackers on 9/11 did so. There are Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel. Would the President of Iran (whose name I cannot pronounce) be willing to take his entire country down just to inflict a blow on the United States and Israel? I've heard that he has apocalyptic expectations. What are those expectations? Does he believe that Iran will be living or dead at the end of the conflict? That is an important question, since the answer may demonstrate how far he will go in terms of his actions.
Regarding Al Qaeda and nations, was Rudy mixing apples and oranges, as Ron Paul contended? Or was Ron Paul oversimplifying the issue, as the Weekly Standard guy argued? On the one hand, MAD does not work as well with Al Qaeda as it might with a nation. If Iran attacked us, we know where Iran is, so we can attack back. But we do not know exactly where Al Qaeda is, so we cannot really retaliate. After all, we're still looking for Osama Bin Laden! On the other hand, we can retaliate against Al Qaeda's sponsors. Whether we are consistent on this or not is a question that is debated. We invaded Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11, yet we have not attacked Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, the Sudan, or the United Arab Emirates. I do not know why that is the case. Perhaps we still feel that we can cooperate with these nations, since they've done some pro-Western things. Maybe we don't want to jeopardize our oil supply. Or we may just feel that we cannot take on the entire Middle East (and Sudan). Look how much the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are costing us! Plus, we don't have enough troops to take over every country that dislikes us.
There are dangers that a nuclear Iran could pose. For one, Iran would be able to supply damaging technology to groups like Al Qaeda, who could then wreak havoc on the United States. Would something like MAD deter Iran from doing that? I don't know. I hope so. Second, the possession of nuclear weapons would make Iran even more of a player in the Middle East. Our actions in the Middle East would continually be influenced by the possibility that Iran could use the bomb. Do we want that kind of state to have even more power than it currently possesses?
So much depends on how we view the Muslim nations. Do they only want to be left alone? Do they hate the West because of our interference in their affairs over the past few centuries? Or do they feel that we are a "Great Satan" that deserves destruction, simply because we do not believe as they do? Do they want to reestablish a Muslim empire? Are they willing to experience destruction just to bring their enemies down? These questions are significant in debates about what America should do next.