OP-ED Iran is not a sovereign state

[Tuvia Bielski]

I would like to parse the word sovereign because it is used frequently to legitimize the Iranian (and other) government's right to possess nuclear weapons.

From Merriam Webster:

Sovereign:
1obsolete : supreme excellence or an example of it
2a : supreme power especially over a body politic b : freedom from external control : autonomy c : controlling influence
3: one that is sovereign; especially : an autonomous state

Sovereign:
a : one possessing or held to possess supreme political power or sovereignty
b : one that exercises supreme authority within a limited sphere

In the context of this discussion the term "sovereign" or "sovereignty" means to hold power over a state. Clearly the Iranian government holds power over the geography of Iran and its people. That does make them a "sovereign" state. However, when people use the term "sovereign state" they are usually using that term to imply certain rights that a state holds. Possessing power does not imply a right to that power and the term "sovereignty" grants no such rights.

A government only has a legitimate right to hold power when its respects and protects human rights and when it acts by the consent of its people. Iran is not such a government. Iran is run by tyrannical mad men who are members of a death cult. They execute their own people, not for trespasses against fellow citizens but for what they believe and for sins such as "being raped". They fund proxy wars against other countries which are legitimately sovereign (Israel) and make threats to destroy other such countries.

Here is a great excerpt on the subject from one of Ayn Rand's books.

The right of a nation to determine its own form of government does not include the right to establish a slave society (that is, to legalize the enslavement of some men by others). There is no such thing as “the right to enslave.” A nation can do it, just as a man can become a criminal—but neither can do it by right.

It does not matter, in this context, whether a nation was enslaved by force, like Soviet Russia, or by vote, like Nazi Germany. Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual). Whether a slave society was conquered or chose to be enslaved, it can claim no national rights and no recognition of such “rights” by civilized countries . . . .

Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, not of respect for the non-existent “rights” of gang rulers. It is not a free nation’s duty to liberate other nations at the price of self-sacrifice, but a free nation has the right to do it, when and if it so chooses.

This right, however, is conditional. Just as the suppression of crimes does not give a policeman the right to engage in criminal activities, so the invasion and destruction of a dictatorship does not give the invader the right to establish another variant of a slave society in the conquered country.

Iran has no more right to possess nuclear weapons than one of your neighbors has the right to build pipe bombs in his basement after threatening to kill your whole family.

The U.S. and Israel would be well within its rights to prevent Iran from developing and/or possessing nuclear weapons by any means at its disposal, even preemptively. Whether such actions would be in our best interest is another matter.

 

[night driver]

LOVE the premise but it doesn't wash in int'l law.....

 

[Tuvia Bielski]

LOVE the premise but it doesn't wash in int'l law.....

The fact that is does not agree with International law or the UN probably means its on the right track.

 

[jed turtle]

The fact that is does not agree with International law or the UN probably means its on the right track.

precisely. the United Nations is modeled on the Constitution of the Soviet Union i am told.

individual "rights"? what the heck are those?

and what is "international law"? it is what unelected diplomats attending international conferences "say" it is.

it is certainly not "natural law" which is what our Founding Fathers were particularly cognizant of.

on top of which, since "we" invented the nuclear bomb, all those who have copied it without our permission have done so illegally are are violating our "right of intellectual ownership". i like that premise best...