During an appearance on yesterday’s edition of “Washington Watch,” Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, told host Tony Perkins that “we need to encourage this administration to go take out Iran’s nuclear capability” instead of pursuing negotiations: “I think it’s time to bomb Iran.”
“We need to make clear to Iran: You can play these silly games with our president that buys into them and our secretary of state, but the American people aren’t buying it and you’re going to pay a price,” Gohmert said.
“I’m hoping and praying the president will realize, despite the agenda he has that has put Christians in jeopardy around the world, that he will not want to leave the Democratic Party so devastated that they won’t recover for many decades,” Gohmert continued, “that maybe he’ll start being more helpful to Israel instead of slapping them around as an unwelcomed visitor and start treating them like a friend. And maybe once he starts doing that he’ll realize we do need to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities that we know of and anything that they move to fix, we bomb that as well.”
By facilities, I guess he means the centrifuges that we know about that are being used to develop nuclear energy, as was the peaceful intent behind their acquiring that technology under the Atoms for Peace initiative started under Eisenhower. Here's the funny old thing about knowledge--you can bomb materials, but you can't bomb knowledge. Taking out facilities postpones a problem that might be also postponed by diplomatic means, but you will never excise the know-how of enriching uranium to weapons-grade once it has been achieved. A diplomatic agreement can be extended. A material set-back is not an issue--in fact, a violent material set-back looks like a pretty good incentive to get a major enrichment program under way. In other words--diplomacy is the best thing we could do. Bombing would be double-plus ungood. They might take it some kind of way, and if anyone thinks activity to strike back would only occur in the vicinity of Iran, they are dumb. It could be a multi-faceted conflict.
Now, Gohmert is a Bible-banging fruit loop and makes some kind of point about how happy he is that Netanyahu renounced the two-state solution (a short-lived renunciation) because of the Biblical judgment against nations that "divide Israel".
What does that even mean? Because Israel at this juncture is a creation circa 1948. The borders of Israel have to begin and end somewhere. Many agreements indicate a place for Arab Palestinians to live within Israeli borders. But they don't point to what has become of modern-day Gaza. And the borders discussed don't really cover all the West Bank settlements. What does "dividing" even mean, right now? It mostly sounds like he doesn't care about specifics, just--don't mess with Israel because...God.
Me, I think you don't bomb Iran because--this is a nation of young people, demographically, who haven't directly done anything to me. Folks can point out the hostage crisis--I had a teacher who read the newspaper to my 1st grade class while that was going on. That was then. The under-30 folks around now? Had nothing to do with it. They say "Marg bar Amrika" with no conviction, if they even say it. It's dumb, and it's murder to want to bomb them about imaginary nuclear missiles.
The thing that bothers me the most about a bogus narrative that war is necessary is that once engaged--it is.