What Do the Peacemongers Propose We Do Now that Talks with Iran Have Failed?

Chadd De Las Casas
The common mantra of, "Diplomacy first," has plagued our ability to deal with Iran's obsession with killing American soldiers and create nuclear weapons, because most people who advocate the idea of "talking" to Iran have no real idea what talking involves. Indeed, many of them think that a dialog between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran is the greatest thing we could ever have, but they seem to forget what exactly this diplomatic effort is aimed at achieving.

When entering in diplomacy with Iran, the end result needs to be exhausting all non-military options to convince them to cease their nuclear program while maintaining the maximum number of our benefits. With the constant Democratic wail of "take the weapons option off the table," we fundamentally castrate ourselves, limping into an arena with one foot in a kick-boxing match. We exhort how much we want them to stop their nuclear program, they say no. We tell them we'll give them incentives and help them build a nuclear program. They say no. We ask them again very very very nicely, they say no. We impose sanctions. They say no.

At this point, rather than risk being bored to death by future attempts by our diplomats to impotently request that they stop their nuclear program, Iran has headed us off at the pass and warned us that it's not going to stop, period. We can throw as many sanctions as we want on Iran, nothing is going to stop the nuclear program.

So effectively, it can be declared that talks have failed. Not just marginally either, we've effectively made it clear that any thug that wants nuclear weapons can just bite their thumb at us, throw a few rockets into an ally's backyard, and promise to literally hinder any peace found in Annapolis can do so, what's America going to do about it? Some people may march in the streets, but who am I kidding, we only march in the streets when we're fighting to preserve thousands, maybe even millions of lives, or when we can exact a political edge, no one would march in the street to defend Israel or protest the brutal murders carried out by the Iranian powers that be every single day.

So the only real question is: what now?

Talks are done, they've failed, they're not going anywhere. Meanwhile every single day, we sit here and watch the clock as President Imajihad crafts more centrifuges and gets closer and closer to their end goal, which they've told the entire world rather clearly: they plan to destroy Israel. This isn't just a political border issue either, as the Iranians and their thugs in Hezbollah controlled Lebanon have absolutely no qualms whatsoever in chasing Jews to Argentina and murdering them there.

This goes part and parcel to Nasrallah's promise that, ""if [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."
Therefore I ask once more. What do you propose we do now? Iran's going to continue making its nuclear weapon, undeterred by any of our resolutions, any of our sanctions, any of our bickerings, any of our expressions of absolute dismay, they've said they're simply not going to cooperate. Perhaps to accentuate this point of course, they're going to take the occasional international hostage - as seen with the kidnapping of the British sailors that the West let go unchallenged.

There are other things at stake for our impotence in dealing with this issue too though. So we're letting Iran build a bomb, big deal, right? Well, I don't really need to explain how stupid that is when high ranking military officials promise that such items can be handed off in martyrdom operations. For those not up to date on their Middle Eastern jargon, that's a reference to a nuclear suicide bomb.

But worse yet, there are reports that Syria is now, with the assistance of North Korea who invited Iranian officials over to see the test of their long range, potentially nuclear tipped missile, quickly covering up bombed sites that appear to be nuclear assembly storages.

But the obvious answer is to just sit down, and talk a little more. Right?

Sources:

http://iris.org.il/blog/archives/2509-Speculation-Intensifies-that-Israel-Bombed-Syrian-Nuclear-Site.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0CEEDB1F3CF930A15756C0A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/356312/iranian_president_claims_nation_will.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071130/ts_nm/nuclear_iran_dc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran's_nuclear_program

Published by Chadd De Las Casas

I was born in Valencia, California in 1987. It's ironic that I turned out to be a writer, since my first exposure to it was an essay about why I hate writing. I am also the owner of the Content Producers Wiki.  View profile

28 Comments

Post a Comment
  • Canderous10/20/2010

    Hey Chadd. I solely support your stance. I am not a christian or a member of the republican party, but I do not believe in peace, it is a lie. There is only passion. The Iranians must be killed because they are weak. They hide behind the cowarding shield of islam and use it to fuel their xenophobic insurgencies. There is nothing free about their lifestyle, tradition, or culture. I speak on behalf of all the warriors out there in the world, that a place like Iran deserves to be bombed into a smoking crater because they are not honorable opponents even in the battlefield. Cowards, weaklings, their soldiers are like ants, and they use sheer numbers and hostile civilians to overwhelm our soldiers. There our other factors at work in the world that will see to the disposal of such pathetic places if the U.S. does not. Do not worry about that, my friend.

  • Chadd De Las Casas12/27/2007

    Yes, peace at any cost is a terrible, terrible thing Jeff. Someone who would make incredible concessions that a society should never endure for the sake of peace, is wrong.

  • Jeff Musall12/27/2007

    "Rallos" You sir, are a dumbass. Nowhere do I support Ahmneninijad. What is possibly most telling about the mindset of those who would support the drumbeats for war is in the title of this article, which calls those who seek peace "peacemongers" as if it is a bad thing to pursue.

  • Farmer Refuted12/27/2007

    Great article! I fear that our complacent society will not see the warning signs of danger until it is too late. We miss the days when we didn't think that people around the world wanted us dead. And we think that if we just pull out of Iraq that all our troubles will be over and everything will go back to normal. Wishful thinking. They would love to destroy the "great Satan" regardless of whether or not we ever went into Iraq. And they'll be happy to nuke us and/or Israel when they have the capability. We can either close our eyes and pretend that's not what's really happening or we can do something about it.

  • TopCap12/26/2007

    Excellent article. You bring up strong points why we need to commit to action instead of negotiations or impotent UN resolutions. No one says we have to declare a full-out war on Iran. Precision air strikes and "bunker busters" are all that's needed. Many people fail to realize just how non-negotiable the Iranian leader is. There are no negotiations that will work with him other than complete aquiescence -- which is something I'm sure canidates like Obama would have no problem doing.

  • Chadd De Las Casas12/26/2007

    To answer a previous question April, since the rest are laced with a mixture between venom and poor attempts at sarcastic humor, no, I don't expect them to be "too afraid" to attack us - I expect them to be too bereft of nuclear material to do so.

  • April12/8/2007

    Waging war on every country that we think might 'someday' try to attack us is brillant! Surely America will bomb the hell out of these countries until everyone agrees with us again and no one hates us anymore. Infact, why don't we just nuke them... with that kind of blood shed and violence, they won't just agree with us... they'll love us. War IS the answer to peace. ...Ok, back to reality now. Sorry about that. For a second I thought I was an irrational, unintelligent, arrogent asshole.

  • April12/8/2007

    Yes Rallos, sometimes reality is quite amusing.

  • Rallos Zek12/7/2007

    Sorry I just had to look one more time at that miracle of stupidity, that was the most classically Orwellian post ever written on Associated Content, it deserves some kind of award.

  • Rallos Zek12/7/2007

    In the most whacked out, unbelievably ironic misunderstanding of motives, Musall seriously is defending Mahmoud Ahmendinijad, against those who he feels "are trying to usher in the end of the world".
    I have never laughed so hard at a computer screen

Displaying Comments
Next »

To comment, please sign in to your Yahoo! account, or sign up for a new account.