Fareed Zakaria Dreaming of a Nuclear Iran?

July 6, 2012

I watched these videos of Fareed Zakaria in February and March argue that Soviet and Maoist rhetoric was much more hostile toward the West than Iran is today. He alluded to McCarthyism, and how the U.S. public was afraid that the Soviet Union was an irrational force bent on global domination. He reminded us that “we” (the U.S. public) were in a similar position in 1962 during the Cuban missile crisis. He explained that our fears were unfounded then because the Soviet Union was rational, and that our fears today are also unfounded because Iran to is rational. Zakaria cited an interview with Martin Dempsey where Dempsey agreed that Iran had a history of rational behavior and he considered them a rational actor.This would place them in the same rational category as the Soviet Union based on the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction.

What Zakaria ignores is the rationality of the ideology. Zakaria puts a spin on the issue from the perspective of an uninformed U.S. public. Yes, McCarthyism did use hostile rhetoric and fear to excite the U.S. public, and this fear was unfounded. This does not mean that the leaders at the time didn’t know better. Has Zakaria forgotten about George Kennan’s “Long Telegram”? This set the tone for checking Soviet aggression throughout the Cold War and was based on the idea that the Soviet Union was indeed rational. Lets go beyond that however, anyone who has ever read Marx, Engels, Luxemberg, Kautsky or any Communist ideology will find it hard to describe as anything but rational. One might not agree with the ideology, but this does not mean they find it irrational. McCarthyism was propaganda, there was similar propaganda in the Soviet Union. When it came down to the Cuban Missile Crisis rationality prevailed because both parties were operating under rational ideologies.

What Dempsey said does not change the ideology of Iran. Dempsey could have had any number or reasons for saying what he did. He could have been appealing to Iranian leaders to come to terms on an agreement. He may have been attempting to mitigate Israeli hostility to try to allow sanctions to take effect. He could have been trying to town down the war rhetoric to keep gas prices stable. Zakaria however, took the statement to mean that U.S. leaders believed that a Nuclear Iran was not a threat, and tried to portray this perspective to the American public. He tried to lump the Soviets and Iranians into the same rational category to create some kind of reassurance to the U.S. public that they would behave rationally if they got the bomb. This is pure conjecture intended to pacify the American public toward an unpredictable, and hostile nation in the middle of the largest oil reserve in the world.

First of all, the Soviet Union was a collective socialist state which made decisions for the benefit of the collective. It formulated its policies for the benefit of the collective. Iran is a theocracy that takes its direction from god… No theocracy can legitimately claim it is rational. This is because it derives its authority from the unknown, or from some person who claims to interpret the unknown. Countless people died unnecessarily in Europe due to an absolute monarch claiming his authority from god. Ironically, this is also what caused the Bolshevik revolution…

Mr. Zakaria, I know you want me to go to sleep while Iran gradually acquires a nuclear weapon to exert its influence in one of the most unstable and influential places in the world, but I wont. I will not fart and roll over while gas prices explode and the U.S. economy plummets. I will not snore while Iran’s government encourages violence and terrorism against the U.S. and its allies. I can not accept even the possibility of a theocracy threatening nuclear war in the name of god. I am an enlightened man, and this is unacceptable to me.




2 Responses to “Fareed Zakaria Dreaming of a Nuclear Iran?”

  1. John Says:

    You have no idea what you are talking about do you? You falsely believe that the Iranian regime actually thinks it is an extension of god. Like all theocratical regimes in the region, the use of religion the same way we say “god bless america” is just a form of indoctrination. It gives the general population a greater sense of belonging. The Iranian regime is simply a bunch of greedy goons who are plundering the country’s natural resources. Nuclear posturing is simply a barganing chip and a way it can distract its population from the strife and theft occuring at home. The Israelis and Americans are playing into this hand, inventing a non-existent threat and exciting domestic populations. The US, to distract Americans from the economy and Israel to distract the world from its oppressive tactics. Please grow up, you are a talented writer but you get too emtional and sensational.

    • First off it’s not “theocratical” it is theocratic. Second, indoctrination into a theocracy means that people listen, and believe other people who claim to interpret God. In other words, if I get a bunch of children to believe that God talks to me, and what I tell them comes not from me, but from God, then technically I could get them to do what I want thinking that they are doing it for God. Jim Jones ring a bell? Catholics and Protestants also went through this a long time ago.

      The U.S. government mentions “God” only in the general sense, and only as a reminder of a higher power. If you ignore this notion you could potentially lose your sense of humanity…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s