Trust vs. caution: Since when do we just say ‘OK’ with untrustworthy foes?
A new report out this week says that intelligence officials have determined that Iran no longer has an active program to develop and produce nuclear weapons.
The news came as a bit of a surprise. There have been several leaders around the world who have expressed concern over the potential this country has to become a nuclear-armed rogue nation.
So, as expected, the cacophony has begun of those calling the United States a vile, invading war-monger that has set its sights on poor, little innocent Iran.
Now, before the rest of us hop on that bandwagon, let’s think this through.
Iran is run by a man who gives the impression of being nothing but a loon, who has made ridiculous threats to almost every major superpower.
Does anyone really believe that he has no interest in developing weapons that would not only cement his position of leader of his country, but give him an edge internationally as well?
Lately, the United States seems to have forgotten that there is a reason that some nations are on our watch list — they cannot be trusted.
So, that means that we should take everything they say with a grain of salt — and keep a really close eye out for evidence that we might not actually have all the information. In other words, we cannot just dismiss threats because slow-to-catch-up intelligence information suggests there is nothing to worry about.
There is no direct evidence at this point that there is a reason to think seriously about curtailing Iran — either militarily or otherwise. But to let our guard down now as a nation is simply stupid.
You cannot negotiate rationally or trust the word of despots with a history of instability.
Iran has a leader who shows all the signs of being someone with whom we should proceed with caution.
Now is not the time for touchy, feely politics. It is the time for vigilance and continued caution. That is how you defuse a threat before it takes innocent lives.
Published in Editorials on December 5, 2007 10:56 AM