To the Editor:
I wish to address some of the misconceptions that I read in Ms. Krishnamurthy’s editorial on Iranian nuclear proliferation. First, let me state where Ms. Krishnamurthy and I agree. It appears that we both agree that Iran seeks nuclear weapons. Despite adamant denials from the Iranian government, Iran’s desire to obtain extremely large quantities of highly-enriched uranium and plutonium belie the claim that this is for medical use.
The statement that “proliferation, especially in the context of Asia, is good” is a curious statement. In general, proliferation of weapons usually only benefits the arms-maker. The casual reader could ask: what about Asia in particular requires proliferation of nuclear weapons? I think that this statement is demeaning to Asians. A second statement of interest is “it is hypocritical of the U.S. to tell another country not to proliferate, considering no damage has been or will be done.” First, does that mean that since the U.S. once had slavery, it has no right to tell other countries not to have slavery? Second, how does Ms. Krishnamurthy know that no damage has been or will be done? Does she know Ayatollah Khamenei personally? Finally, she says that not acting in a rational manner (the doctrine of mutual assured destruction) is Islamophobic. I can easily cite an example of a non-Muslim country acting in a seemingly irrational manner – namely Germany invading the Soviet Union in 1941. Why did Hitler order the invasion of his ally Stalin in 1941, ignoring historical precedent? Because Hitler thought he could win.
I choose to follow history rather than the reassurances of Ms. Krishnamurthy. As a college freshman at Emory in 1979, I was part of a protest in front of Dobbs Hall protesting the seizure of our embassy in Iran. I have observed subsequent hostile actions, on the part of Iran, such as blowing up 241 U.S. Marines in Beirut in 1982, the murder of Navy diver Robert Stetham in an Iranian backed hijacking attempt and the killing of hundreds of servicemen by Iranian manufactured IEDS in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Obama reached out last week to Ayatollah Khamenei for direct talks, as suggested by Ms. Krishnamurthy, but was rebuffed by Khamenei. I don’t personally know how to solve the lack of diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Iran, but I don’t believe that nuclear proliferation is the solution. I prefer that we remain stronger than our adversaries.
Jack L. Arbiser, M.D., Ph.D
Professor
Department of Dermatology
Emory University School of Medicine
The Emory Wheel was founded in 1919 and is currently the only independent, student-run newspaper of Emory University. The Wheel publishes weekly on Wednesdays during the academic year, except during University holidays and scheduled publication intermissions.
The Wheel is financially and editorially independent from the University. All of its content is generated by the Wheel’s more than 100 student staff members and contributing writers, and its printing costs are covered by profits from self-generated advertising sales.
Yeah, let’s talk about history. And while we’re at it, let’s talk about both sides of history, not just the side that makes the U.S. look like the innocent victim. Let’s talk about the fact that the United States overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 and propped up an unpopular regime. If Iran had done that to us sixty years ago, I don’t think Americans would be particularly thrilled with Iran trying to tell us what we can and can’t do with our own country today. That’s the thrust of the argument: The U.S.–the only country in human history to have used nuclear weapons–ought not be the one to decide what other countries can and can’t do, purely based on “intelligence” from terrorist organizations (see the People’s Muhajideen of Iran) and an overwhelming propaganda campaign hellbent on villainizing Iran. (Arbiser’s analogy to slavery is a red herring; furthermore, there’s a difference between a human rights issue and an issue of national sovereignty.) The fact is that there is NO evidence to indicate Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon; even if it were, the doctrine of mutually-assured destruction ensures that no nuclear exchange would occur. I don’t see why people choose to ignore these critical points when discussing the possibility of Iranian nuclear weapons.
If Iran had done that to us sixty years ago, I don’t think Americans would be particularly thrilled with Iran trying to tell us what we can and can’t do…actually Iran did overthrow President Carter in 1980-the hostage crisis led to his downfall. While personally, I dont have a problem with this, when it comes to overthrowing presidents, the US and Iran are even
William – You’re a sucker for moral equivalence. Believe it or not, there is a difference between Pol Pot and Mother Teresa; and there is also a difference between Barrack Obama and Ahmadinejad.
America, as imperfect a country as it is, and as filled with brutal mistakes as its history has been part of, is like day is to night when compared to Iran.
In Iran, if you were to write what you did above but subsituted Iran where you wrote America you would be in jail now. But, I would guess, this distinction likely escapes you.
The world is a nuanced place. America IS different than Iran. Our values ARE different than those encouraged in a fascist theocracy; where individual freedoms are destroyed and supremacism is the end-all-be-all. If you cannot acknowledge this then your comments will continue to say more about you than they do about the facts and reality being discussed.
Herb, there’s a difference between popular political sentiment and a literal military coup led by a secret intelligence agency. Quite a significant difference, actually
“Arafat,” let’s break it down:
“difference between Pol Pot and Mother Teresa”
OK. This is a red herring and has nothing to do with my point.
“In Iran, if you were to write what you did… escapes you.”
Nowhere in any of my writings do I indicate the Iranian press is as free as the U.S. press. Not only is this a red herring, but it is an ad hominem attack. Once again, this has nothing to do with my point.
“America IS different than Iran.”
Clearly. This is no point of contention.
Also, it’s Barack, not “Barrack.”
Please, if you’re going to insult me, do it intelligently. If, on the other hand, you’re going to argue with me civilly, I hope that you refrain from peppering your response with logical fallacies, instead extracting the argument I make and responding to that directly and effectively. Maybe we can try this again some other time.
William writes, “The fact is that there is NO evidence to indicate Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon…”
This is ridiculous. There is ample evidence to suggest Iran’s goal is to develop nuclear weapons and your framing this statement as if it were beyond dispute goes a long way towards discrediting your objectivity and/or your sense of fair play.
Please understand I am not one to believe that Iran is definitely pursuing nuclear weapons – I believe they are – but I would never suggest this is beyond dispute as you have.