Recent Middle East History Shows Iran Would Be Safer (For Iranians) If It Had A Nuke

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – “The point that Buchanan is making [on Iran] that I’m trying to make, or that I’ll continue to make, is that if a country is participating in the League of Nations, as the Iranians are saying they wish to participate in, and they are engaging in commerce and there are tens of millions of those engaging in commerce, direct commerce, and they become at least partially reliant or enjoy the benefits of trade and commerce with other countries, and being basically or relatively peaceful and not on fulltime war footing and what have you, this brings benefits.”  Check out today’s transcript for the rest…

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  Patrick J. Buchanan writes today “Iran is Ready for a Deal.”

[reading]

“Iran’s Nuclear Triumph” roared the headline of the Wall Street Journal editorial. William Kristol is again quoting Churchill on Munich.

[end reading]

Mike:  “Iran’s Nuclear Triumph,” how is this a triumph?  And under what terms is it triumphant?  Let’s ask the question another way: Have we been experiencing a nuclear triumph?  After all, we have the world’s largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons, don’t we?  We also have harnessed the power of the atom in generating electricity, for instance, in pioneering and promoting uses of radioactive isotopes in medical treatments and medical therapies.  Radioactive material has all sorts of practical applications.  Of course, only if you’re an English-speaking country are you allowed to experience any of these things.

[reading]

Since the news broke Saturday night that Iran had agreed to a six-month freeze on its nuclear program, we are back in the Sudetenland again.

Why? For not only was this modest deal agreed to by the United States, but also by our NATO allies Germany, Britain, and France.

Russia and China are fine with it.

Iran’s rivals, Turkey and Egypt, are calling it a good deal. Saudi Arabia says it “could be a first step toward a comprehensive solution for Iran’s nuclear program.”

Qatar calls it “an important step toward safeguarding peace and stability in the region.” Bahrain, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates have issued similar statements.

Israeli President Shimon Peres calls the deal satisfactory. Former Military Intelligence Chief Amos Yadlin has remarked of the hysteria in some Israeli circles, “From the reactions this morning, I might have thought Iran had gotten permission to build a bomb.”

Predictably, “Bibi” Netanyahu is leading the stampede:

“Today the world has become a much more dangerous place because the most dangerous regime in the world has taken a significant step toward attaining the most dangerous weapon in the world.”

But this is not transparent nonsense?

In return for a modest lifting of sanctions, Tehran has agreed to halt work on the heavy water reactor it is building at Arak, to halt production of 20-percent uranium, to dilute half of its existing stockpile, and to allow more inspections.

Does this really make the world “a much more dangerous place”?

Consider the worst-case scenario we hear from our politicians and pundits—that Iran is cleverly scheming to get the U.S. and U.N. sanctions lifted, and, then, she will make a “mad dash” for the bomb.

But how exactly would Tehran go about this?

If Iran suddenly moved all its low-enriched uranium, to be further enriched in a crash effort to 90 percent, i.e., bomb grade, this would take months to accomplish.

Yet, we would be alerted within hours that the uranium was being moved.

Any such Iranian action would expose Barack Obama and John Kerry as dupes. They would be discredited and the howls from Tel Aviv and Capitol Hill for air and missile strikes on Natanz, Fordo, and Arak would become irresistible. Obama and Kerry would be forced to act.

War with Iran, which would mean a shattered Iran, would be a real possibility. At the least, Iran, like North Korea, would be sanctioned anew, isolated and made a pariah state.

Should Iran test a nuclear device, Saudi Arabia would acquire bombs from Pakistan. Turkey and Egypt might start their own nuclear weapons programs. Israel would put its nuclear arsenal on high alert.

If, after a year or two building a bomb, in an act of insanity, Iran found a way to deliver it to Israel or a U.S. facility in the Middle East, Iran would be inviting the fate of Imperial Japan in 1945.

So, let us assume another scenario, that the Iranians are not crazed fanatics but rational actors looking out for what is best for their country. [Mike: No, Pat, we’re not allowed to assume that. John McCain and Bill Kristol and the rest of the gang say no.]

If Iran has no atom bomb program, as the Ayatollah attests, President Hassan Rouhani says he is willing to demonstrate, and 16 U.S. intelligence agencies concluded six years ago and again two years ago, consider the future that might open to Iran—if the Iranians are simply willing and able to prove this to the world’s satisfaction.

First, a steady lifting of sanctions. Second, an end to Iran’s isolation and a return to the global economy. Third, a wave of Western investment for Iran’s oil and gas industry, producing prosperity and easing political pressure on the regime.

[end reading]

Mike:  That’s what it’s all about there, folks.  In other words, there are interests that are being protected by the isolation of the Iranians.  If you think of it in the terms that Buchanan is describing, and I’ve heard others talk about this and I’ve been reading up a little on this, so the basic premise is this: If a country is participating — we use the term participation without trying to micromanage the use of it, just participating.  If a country is participating in the affairs of the world, if they’re engaging in free trade — don’t forget that Iran is uniquely situated in the Middle East.  It is extraordinarily rich in internal resources.  It has access to the high seas.  As I told you on Sunday night, young Eric, there’s a reason why a country such as that survives for three millennia.  It’s not because they’re a landlocked desert hell hole; it’s because they have resources and they have a rich tradition and a rich history of culture that their people enjoy.

Eric:  It’s the Strait of Vermouth, isn’t it, that we heard all about when they decided to stop letting people pass through there, or they were threatening to, a few years ago?

Mike:  Yes, this is correct, the Strait of Hormuz.

Eric:  Did I say Vermouth?

Mike:  Did you say Vermouth?

Eric:  I think I may have said Vermouth.

Mike:  Did you say the Strait of Vermouth?

Eric:  [laughing]

Mike:  The Strait of Vermouth, right next to the Sea of Gilbey, or the Sea of Beefeater.  It’s right there, the Sea of Finlandia.  [laughing]  That was a great slip, I must say.

Eric:  Not one of my better moments.

Mike:  Man, if I didn’t have to do two television news commentaries today, I’d be right there with you.  As soon as this program was concluded, I’d be straight down the street at the Camellia just pounding bloody marys with vermouth.  No, they’re not landlocked at all.  The Strait of Hormuz are part of one of the transportation systems that oil passes through from that region.  They have access to the Caspian Sea.  They’re bordered by the Caspian Sea on the north, by the Persian Gulf in the south, by the Gulf of Oman, which would lead directly into the Arabian Sea and into the Indian Ocean.  Their access to the high seas — they have a navy — is well known and well documented.

The point that Buchanan is making that I’m trying to make, or that I’ll continue to make, is that if a country is participating in the League of Nations, as the Iranians are saying they wish to participate in, and they are engaging in commerce and there are tens of millions of those engaging in commerce, direct commerce, and they become at least partially reliant or enjoy the benefits of trade and commerce with other countries, and being basically or relatively peaceful and not on fulltime war footing and what have you, this brings benefits.

This is one of the things that I try to talk about as often as I can here on the show, and that is: What exactly is the problem?  What exactly is the problem with experiencing and wanting to experience and living in a state of peace?  The modern American conservative, his or her brain has been so perverted with war fever and with the jingoism that goes along with it that all things military and all actions military are wholly sacred and must be honored and encouraged.  Not only that, they must be extended into the future.  We don’t ever want to be at peace.  We’re Americans for crying out loud.  This is at least part of the problem here.  The Senator McCains and Grahams of the world do an awful lot to promote this.  [mocking] “Mike, don’t you think you gotta always be on guard for nutjobs like this?”  I think that you must always be cautious, but cautious does not mean that you have to be belligerent in spite of the situation or the conditions that are on the ground.

By the way, I’m not the only one that thinks like this, just for personal edification.  Even if I was, I would still think this way.  This was discussed yesterday.  I watched it all day long on CSPAN2.  In the House of Commons, they had a debate on this that was very similar to the debate they had when David Cameron wanted the House of Commons to basically declare war against the Syrians back in August because of the alleged use of chemical weapons. Of course, the House of Commons voted no.  They told David Cameron: Dude, we’ve had enough of you and Bill Kristol and your buddies in the United States’ war.  We’re not giving you another blank check to send our boys to war.  We’re not getting involved in it.  That’s pretty much the message that came out of the House of Commons yesterday, we have that story, in another day-long debate that was worth watching.  If you happened to be sitting in front of a television that had CSPAN2 yesterday, you saw it for yourself.

Eric:  I love the House of Commons.  I could watch that all day.  It’s great.

Mike:  It seems like they have actual debate.

Eric:  I don’t know, maybe if you lived there you’d say [mocking] “Oh, he’s doing this,” just like we do here when we watch the Senate or House debate.  It’s always entertaining, that’s for sure.

Mike:  It is certainly entertaining.  It was wildly entertaining yesterday.  Back to Patrick J. Buchanan:

[reading]

First, a steady lifting of sanctions. Second, an end to Iran’s isolation and a return to the global economy. Third, a wave of Western investment for Iran’s oil and gas industry, producing prosperity and easing political pressure on the regime.

Fourth, eventual emergence of Iran, the most populous nation in the Gulf with 85 million citizens . . .

[end reading]

Mike:  That’s the other thing, you nutjobs out there that want to be at war so desperately with these people, you do realize that they have the population to field a sizeable army.  If you really want to go to war with them, they’re not just going to lay down and take it.  It’s not going to be an airstrike cakewalk like they told us it was going to be in Iraq either.  Of course, that doesn’t really matter.  [mocking] “We’ve got freighters.  We’ve got bombs.  We’ve got missiles.”  What many of you really want is to turn Persia — that’s what Iran is basically — into a parking lot.  I’ve heard many of you say it many, many times.  I just thought I’d throw that in.

[reading]

Why would an Iran, with this prospect before it, risk the wrath of the world and a war with the United States to acquire a bomb whose use would assure the country’s annihilation?

[end reading]

Mike:  Pat, stop using logic.  These people, these decepticons are smart.  They’re going to throw up Neville Chamberlain in your face.  [mocking] “Can you go and negotiate a deal with Hitler?”  Buchanan has also written about that, by the bye.

[reading]

America’s goals: We do not want a nuclear Iran, and we do not want war with Iran. [Mike: Speak for yourself, Pat. There are many out there that do.] And Iran’s actions seem to indicate that building an atom bomb is not the animating goal of the Ayatollah, as some Americans insist.

Though she has the ability to build a bomb, Iran has neither conducted a nuclear test, nor produced bomb-grade uranium . . .

If Iran were hell-bent on a bomb, why has she not produced a bomb?

Just possibly, because Iran doesn’t want the bomb. And if that is so, why not a deal to end these decades of sterile hostility?

[end reading]

Mike:  That’s a good question, Pat.  I’m going to ask another one that is as relevant to the — “If Iran were hell-bent on a bomb, why has she not produced a bomb?  Just possibly, because Iran doesn’t want the bomb. And if that is so, why not a deal to end these decades of sterile hostility?”  what about the idea here — you’re taking about 85 million people.  Just look at Iran on a map, where it is situated.  It is in between Iraq and Afghanistan.  It sits right in the middle there.  It is in between Iraq and Pakistan, where we know they have nukes, don’t they?  Its northwestern border borders with Turkey, which is becoming more bellicose and is becoming more radicalized after decades of relative peace that has come to an end in the last decade.  If you have an opportunity, just surveying the map, if you have an opportunity to hopefully have trade and diplomatic relations with a country that large in that simmering caldron of a region in the world, why in dude’s holy name wouldn’t you do it?  Why wouldn’t it be the principal goal and the principal objective?

Let me back up here.  This is all predicated that we, the United States, have to do that.  I am not of that opinion.  However, dealing with the conditions on the ground today we’ll at least have to, in the short term, pretend as though we have to do it because we’re involved and we’ve inserted ourselves into this.  There’s something else about all this that is, I think, worthy of consideration.  View this through the lens of Muammar Gaddafi.  [mocking] “Mike, why would you do that?  He’s dead.”  Bingo!  View this through the lens of Hosni Mubarak.  [mocking] “Mike, why would you do that?  He’s deposed.”  Bingo!  View this through the lens of Saddam Hussein.  [mocking] “Mike, why in dude’s holy name would you do that?  He’s dead.  We hanged him.”  Well, they hanged him but we helped.  Bingo!  As long as we are a presence there, there really is nothing or little to be gained without attempting to have open and fruitful diplomatic relations.  Any bellicosity whatsoever, any controversy whatsoever is always an entry point to increased hostilities.  See discussion of Hussein, Gaddafi, Mubarak, et al.

If you’re the Iranians, if you want to look at this through their lens, they actually would be nuts not to build a bomb.  One of the chief reasons why we probably haven’t fully invaded Pakistan just yet is we know they have nukes somewhere in there.  We may not be 100 percent sure on who has them and who has access to them.  The Pakis may have prevented their leaders from suffering the fate of Gaddafi and Hussein because they have a weapon of mass destruction.  In any event, it is an exciting time in world affairs.  It doesn’t mean that it’s going to end peacefully or that it’s going to end wonderfully, and I would not suggest such, but the prospect is there.  Indeed, as long as we have hope, as long as there’s hope for that sort of thing, I think we should always gravitate towards that as a resolution as opposed to the unthinkable, violent alternative.

End Mike Church Show Transcript

AbbyMcGinnis

See Full Bio