Well, sanctions against Iran would be an act of war – but the assumption is that if the sanctions come from ‘everyone’ then Iran would rather not declare war back on ‘everyone’ and so it’s not war, but administrative punishment by the global regime – and some want that to be the UN, others want it to be Arlington, VA. Ron Paul says: not a good idea to have one of these global regimes.
Look, if you favor sanctions and a hardline approach on Iran it’s because you view Iran’s violation of the proliferation treaty as a de facto declaration of war against the West. A point of opinion, possibly accurate as well. Still, sanctions are an act of war.
The question is not: whether there is a moral equivalency between the US and Iran, but rather: whether our long term foreign policy has objectively provoked their behavior, and whether or not this country can get along if we decided to just leave these guys alone (in the long run). The first step would be saying: yeah, they’re killing our troops because, well, we’ve threatened them and invaded all of their neighbors, and capriciously killed more than a few Middle Eastern dictators (and have overthrown their government, and sent Saddam to invade them only to then invade Saddam). If we admit that their response has been rational – if not moral, given the regime itself – than maybe there are rational incentives for them to leave us alone if we leave them alone.
That is the issue, much more so than it being as simple as: “crazy old uncle Paul”.
And I totally agree with the Rock Center comment. Holy cow, I’ve been thinking about this all night.
