On Soleimani's Death
I thought of starting this "daily post" thing lightly, with some uncontroversial illustrations of a nice abstract concept. I decided to go with integrity instead, so let's talk about Iran.
This entire situation with Iran is being framed in a way that is altruistic to the core, and therefore wrong. From what I've seen so far, the core of the discussion is whether or not the US government has a right to interfere with the politics of Iran - of ignoring the sovereignty of their government and the "will of their people".
That is nonsense. The government of Iran has no right to exist, even if the majority of its people wished so. A government - or a society - that does not recognize individual rights does not have a right to exist, regardless of how many people born in a stretch of land support it. If it violates the right of a single individual - by outlawing homosexuality, for example - one is justified in ending it.
A more reasonable question is "Should the US go to war with Iran?". The answer is: it always was. A country that follows the Sharia, or adopts any other type of expansionist theocratic regime, is a constant threat to a free country. A truce is a cease-fire in the middle of a war. The real issue is what, exactly, is the best way to defeat Iran, so that it ceases to be a threat.
The relevant question, when one takes the selfish interest of American citizens in protecting their individual rights as the proper standard is: "Did the President have the right to do what he did?”.
The value of bringing down the Iranian government is the protection of the free world. The free world will not remain free if any president can commit an act of war without going through the proper channels. Trump did not go through the proper legal channels to officially declare war on Iran.
We will know if the president's actions where legitimate only when we know exactly what was the bit of intelligence that resulted in Soleimani being deemed "an imminent threat".
What do you guys think?
- January 6th, 2020