4.12.11
The week begins on Sunday evening. Already Sunday afternoon, as the sun is setting, I can feel the stress of the coming week. Strange, I don't think I enjoy the second half of Sunday as I do the second half of Thursday, when I know there's just one more day before the current leg of this marathon comes to an end, and there will be a day and a half to realx and walk around the capital city.
This past week I corresponded with a friend about the conflict between Israel and Iran. I was playing the devil's advocate, trying to argue against Israel's right to preemptive war, if not taking the side of Iran outright. Of course, I don't think Iran, or anyone else, has the right to use a nuclear weapon against another country or people, but I'm confused about who has the right to have nuclear weapons in the first place. The west gladly exports everything it produces, from Hollywood blockbusters, to Apple technology and fast food, and even miniskirts - if you allow your wives to dress a little lightly. We'll also give you our weapons, just not our best ones. In fact, if you try to reproduce our most powerful weapons, then we'll sanction you to kingdom come, and even, as has been the case before with Iraq, and now with Iran, we may wage war on you.
Why are some countries allowed to have very powerful weapons, but not others? It's simple psychology again. Weapons give people power over others. For some reason people like power, so to retain it they ensure that their weapons don't end up in the hands of others. The latter are driven to spite their superiors by obtaining the power at whatever cost, just like a toddler goes after his bigger brother who's playing with a new toy. If the bigger brother comes upon an even better toy, then the toddler gets what he originally wanted, but alas, big brother is already playing with something more attractive. Maybe in this global case, the better toy might be a missile defense system. Even if Iran gets its weapon, and is crazy enough to try to use it, as my friend is convinced is the case, maybe missile defense will come through and save the day as it has been so expensively designed to do.
In any case, I don't think a preemptive attack is justified, even if we could be sure that Iran would use a weapon against Isreal, should they succeed in building one. I think attacking first would play right into the hands of President Ahmadinejad. Judging from his aggressive language, he wants to go to war with Israel. At the same time, it's clear that if he initiates the attack, he'll have no international support, and will be finished. I understand that Iran isn't very popular even among members of the League of Arab nations. If, on the other hand, a military superpower from the west engages Iran preemptively, Iran might be able to count on support from other countries, Russia among others.
Russia doesn't like what's been happening militarily over the past decade. Iraq is a joke, Afghanistan a more justified joke (I'm projecting my own views, but Russians would agree with me), and, regarding more recent military history, it seems that very many Russians sympathise with the fallen regime in Libya. They understand that Libyans were formerly the best-off citizens of Africa. They had a good educational and medical system. It's a mystery why some people in that country would have wanted a revolt. The ellicited conclusion: it must be part of the West's grand evil scheme. Of course, not all Russians believe what they see on Russian T.V., but that such views are shown here is a reflection of what the government believes.
And now there's been a little muscle flexing from Russia in answer to the NATO deployment of its missle defense system throughout Europe. I heard President Medvedev say this past week, in what I found a rather threatening tone, that he has ordered the deployment of nuclear warheads in Kaliningrad. Maybe I missunderstood him. I still don't understand everything in this country. Maybe he was warning that he would feel forced to order their deployment, but hasn't gone so far yet.
I was at the museum of the Gulag today, and there I came across a Pravda newspaper article from the week of the Nazi invasion in 1941. I've understood recently that there is some discrepency among historians regarding the extent of the roles each side played in defeating Htiler, but noone disputes that the Nazi's invaded the Soviet Union after promising Stalin that they wouldn't. Jumping forward seventy years, here comes America tromping throughout Europe with their state-of-the-art missle defense system, allegedly breaking a previous agreement with Russia regarding the extent of such deployment, but at the same time promising Russia that the U.S. would never dream of attacking Russian soil, and that the defense system is directed towards Iran, yes, even the missile defense base being deployed in Poland ... I think everyone should understand if Russian reactions to NATO's missle defense deployment in Europe come across as a little high-strung. They've heard these promises before, and judging from Washington's past decade of international policy, there are not many reasons why Russia should be any more trusting now then they were in 1941.
As a matter of fact, the west should be happy that Russians don't think like Americans, a country that attacks first and asks questions later. If preemptive military action were the accepted policy among other countries with huge military forces, Russia among others, I don't know how long the world would last.