Jack Hunter wrote a piece for the Daily Caller entitled “You Can’t be Pro-Life and Want to Nuke Iran.” At one time, I probably would have gotten angry by that headline for the same reason that I’d be irritated if a liberal said that it was hypocritical of me to claim to be pro-life but be in favor of the death penalty.
Being pro-life doesn’t mean standing up for the “rights” of murderers and rapists. Those criminals (after they’ve been given a fair trial and have been convicted based on evidence/eyewitness accounts) forfeited their rights to life and liberty by committing their crimes. A righteous and just judge would rule that those evil-doers be put to death. Doing so would be protecting the lives of innocent people.
Being pro-life is about defending those who are the most innocent and defenseless among us. Those who are still in their mother’s womb. Liberals would want to defend the murder of these innocent, unborn babies who have done nothing wrong, but would fight to keep murderers and rapists alive, at the victims’ and their families’ expense. Completely backwards.
The same goes for war. If we were ever in a situation where a war was called for, we should fight it, win it, and be done with it. War should be a last resort. And yes, war is going to kill people. Fighting a defensive war is completely just and unfortunately necessary at times.
However, I would argue that we haven’t really fought a truly defensive war in at least several decades. Most of our wars have had nothing to do with national defense, but have been about taking control of a region or natural resource. The U.S. destabilizes regions by arming, aiding and abetting Muslim terrorist groups and letting Islamic terrorists do what comes naturally to them.
Our military and CIA are stationed in the Middle East where they patrol streets, guard oil fields, assist in the trafficking of drugs, and risk their life doing so. The “national security” mantra is merely the government’s marketing slogan to convince Americans to be scared of those countries that pose no threat to the United States and justify our indefinite presence there. These days, people will believe anything if it’s on their TV news channel of choice.
So, we’ve established that sometimes we should execute certain criminals, namely murderers and rapists, and that sometimes we have to go to war that will inevitably kill people. We’ve also established that most (if not all) of our wars in the Middle East have been unjust wars. Fighting to secure “our” natural resources in a foreign region is not reason to spill blood and waste trillions of taxpayer dollars.
The question then is, is Iran the exception? Would nuking Iran, or even starting a ground war with Iran be justified? Would it be a just war even though Iran has never attacked the United States? Is the possibility that they acquire nuclear weapons a good reason to attack them preemptively? California Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter, Jr. thinks so. He stated on C-SPAN last week:
“I think if you have to hit Iran, you don’t put boots on the ground. You do it with tactical nuclear devices, and you set them back a decade or two or three. I think that’s the way to do it — with a massive aerial bombardment campaign.”
Why though? Because they might get a nuke? And if they get a nuke, they might attack Israel? They might attack the U.S.?
But see, isn’t this like the gun control issue, except on a much larger, international scale? Gun-grabbers are always saying they don’t want guns ending up in the wrong hands. They fear that if the “wrong people” end up with guns, they might do something bad with them. So, it’s just best to work toward banning guns altogether. (Unless you work for the government or the government’s friends.)
We don’t like the government deciding who can and can’t own a gun. “What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you not understand?” we retort. We object when the government labels us “potential domestic terrorists” or “mentally ill” just because of our conservative opinions. And it’s those empty labels that will allow officials to take our guns away and prevent us from ever owning them again. Kind of like the U.S. not wanting Iran to have nukes, so much that we’d fight a war over it in an effort to prevent them from obtaining them.
Fighting a defensive war is like self-defense. You shouldn’t preemptively kill another person just because you think he’s a bad person, and that he might kill you. Police do that sort of thing, and we object to it. Now, if that person breaks into your house, and he’s armed, it’s a different story. Then you have a duty to defend your family and yourself from harm.
I don’t see why it should be any different with international war. Iran is an easy target, because they’re largely a Muslim country. We don’t like Muslims. So, conservatives are quick to hop on the preemptive war bandwagon.
But there are lots of bad countries. Should we nuke all of them to show them who’s “boss?” And isn’t deciding who can have nukes and who can’t part of being the world’s policemen, something that we’re supposed to be against? Why not stay out of their business completely?
Many will bring up that Ahmadinejad said once that he wanted to “wipe Israel off the face of the map,” and that we should stand up for Israel and nuke Iran to prevent them from nuking Israel. According to Global Research, Ahmadinejad said no such thing. He merely called for “regime change.” He said, “The Imam [Khomeini] said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.” I’m not defending Ahmadinejad. He was always a paper tiger, and besides, he’s irrelevant now. But, the truth is bad enough. The media like to distort things to stir controversy. And their purposeful mistranslation of what he said has fueled all the war-with-Iran hysteria and propaganda in this country.
But even if he did call for the destruction of Israel, isn’t that between Israel and Iran? Israel has hundreds of nukes, and I imagine they wouldn’t hesitate to use them on Iran should Iran obtain one and use it on Israel. This is why we should stay out of entangling alliances with foreign nations. Let Israel take care of Israel.
So, I would argue that the answer to the question in the headline is no. Unless we are being attacked or about to be attacked, we shouldn’t spend money or spill blood in an international conflict that would unnecessarily leave many innocent people dead and hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars wasted. At this point, initiating war with Iran, let alone nuking them, would be completely unjustified and would go the way of all our other engagements in the Middle East, and therefore it would be inconsistent with pro-life principles. It is being sold to us under the guise of “national security,” something we’ve heard time and time again. We should heed James Madison’s warning: “If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”