Site icon The Libertarian Republic

8 Reasons That America’s Deal With Iran Won’t Defend Liberty

Defend Bill of Rights

by Kyle Perkins

US Talks With Iran Will Not Defend the Bill of Rights

The State Department paid Iran $400 million for the release of four American prisoners a few days ago. And only one year ago the same department has conducted nuclear talks with Iran that ignore almost everything about it. This article is both an assessment of the histories leading to these recent events, and a proposal for us as libertarians to judge foreign nations on an individualist basis. This is also my thoughts on how to defend the Bill of Rights.

1. Iran’s History

Allow us to begin with exploring when Iran became the Iran it is today. A medieval regime called the Rashidun Empire made Iran a religious tyranny by annexing it in the 7th Century. Until 1979, Iran was a monarchy of this nature, then a man named Ruhollah Khomeini sparked a Revolution to make his nation a republic. The only time in Middle East history Iran was mentally different from how it is now was the Abbasid era. And even so. this was about a golden age that went between the 8th and 13th centuries.

Currently, Iran aspires to make the whole planet a religiously tyrannical republic. This is why it sponsors such giant amounts of terror so prolifically. It has nothing to do with American freedoms, but also has nothing to do with American actions overseas. Iran has always been an initial aggressor, and frankly any nation that is not them is a target to them.

2. America’s Deal Motives

Based on this news, I say our current State Department and to some degree also Defense Department base their policies on this feel-good idea that if free societies are generous to tyrannies and also benevolent to them, they will change themselves into newer, free societies.

Civilizational History is empty of examples of human biology working that way, but overflowing with samples of a totally different human biology. As a species of animal, we humans have a much easier time going with barbarism than we have being civil. The result is that our planet is full of bad countries who want to purge the world of their neighbors, and free societies need to defend against these bad countries.

We are currently governed by folks who eagerly deny this reality because it is abysmal. This is why America’s federal government completed the nuclear deal and the ransom payment. The deal and payment happened because the reality of what Iran fundamentally is as a country is not by any means a pleasant one.

3. How To Judge Foreign Countries

Countries should judge foreign regimes on an individual basis as one judges human beings on an individual basis. This goes for every free society, the US being not the only one. If a foreign country is one whose behavior proves promotion and defense of the idea of liberty-filled coexistence, then that’s a nation that free and permissive maritime trade is quite possible with. But lots of countries are barbaric bullies. If a foreign regime rules over its population like sacrificial livestock, then how can it ensure peaceful coexistence?

No country of that nature can, as is revealed by scientific testing of a theory that Rudolph Rummel did. The theory Dr. Rummel was testing was invented by Thomas Paine. This theory says classically liberal regimes are always drastically less prone to war of aggression, and always drastically more into world peace, than tyrannies are. Paine gave birth to this theory when he wrote the book Common Sense in 1776. Thomas Paine argued that Tyrants will go to war and/or kill citizens of their own out of pride while Libertarian Republics will not.

Then in the late 20th century Rummel’s testing of Paine’s theory revealed Paine to be absolutely correct. His research exposed Paine as being purely on the money about how Minarchism is the form of government least likely to take innocent lives and also that minarchist regimes are the regimes who are the least likely to wage war on each other.

Basically, one must judge nations on an individual basis while also factoring in that the freer the society, the less prone to crimes of aggression they are. Rummel basically found that it is the Minarchist regimes who only wage war to Defend their constitutions and their populations.

4. To Defend The US Bill of Rights

Defending the Bill of Rights requires all 16 American intel agencies judging foreign nations on an individual basis as noted above, and leaving the question of “How do we Defend the Bill of Rights?” for the Legislative Branch and the US Military to answer. This is because only the Legislative can declare war, and a Libertarian Republic only wages war to defend its own from a Critical threat.

But something else is very clear, at least to me, from American Self-Defense history. The common theme throughout three different phases of US history in defending the liberty and the freedoms of the American People is the eagerness to do severe devastation to the initial aggressor. Defending “We the People” at all of these times needed total destruction of every Legitimate Military Target (LMT) under enemy control.

5. Historic Samples One & Two

The very first of these was easily the American Revolutionary War. George Washington and his lesser generals knew how to defend through force and strategy. His “Hybrid Warfare” tactics combined the use of guerrilla style militias with use of an actual military. These militias would launch ruthless, “do-what-is-needed” surprise attacks against the British troops, and these British would retreat to cities like Yorktown. Then the US spent 22 days as needed collapsing 7 of every 9 British LMTs in the Siege of Yorktown. British citizens were so worried for their soldier kin that the UK ended up letting the U.S. become its own country.

Under both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the Ottoman Empire was kidnapping and slaving American civilians visiting south Europe. The result of the Turkish Empire doing this was The Barbary Wars, when the military sailed over for coastal raids on three Turkish lands: Libya, Tunisia and Algeria. The U.S. won both of these wars by acting on a passionate loyalty to the goal of victory and demolishing every LMT the Turks controlled. None of the exact numbers are known by any modern scholar.

6. Historic Sample Three

In 1864, the American Civil War was carrying on in greatly crazed conflict. It began as two ways to defend the Bill of Rights in one used by the American North.

But after three years of this, General William Sherman carried out the Savannah Campaign which was out to burn every military building, steal every military item, and rip up every train-track & road in Georgia at the time. The rationale was that if the ability and will of the aggressor to wage war was fully broken, then they would be forced to both begin releasing slaves and normalizing relations with the defender. And so Sherman and his troops spent a month marching through Georgia, purging Georgian cities of Legitimate Military Targets with full certainty. This made Southern generals like Robert E. Lee gravely unable to fight the North, as well as gravely unwilling to.

7. The Means of these Historic Samples

Reverting back to the topic of this article, how are the history lessons I gave about American Self-Defense relevant? What they teach us is what is commonly, though not inherently, needed by a Minarchist regime for it to succeed at the goal to Defend its people. How these lessons relate is that they highlight the fact of life that Defensive Force is frequently the only answer to Initial Aggression. And that means for the titular topic of this article that Iran’s belligerence will keep going. Our government lacks the loyalty the Founders had to the goal of Defending The American People. It also trains our troops to lack the will to do whatever is required, the will that characterized the Savannah Campaign.

No, this is not a call to ignore all Laws of War. It is just a suggestion that to Defend the American People is to defeat a foreign aggressor at its source. To do what it takes to totally destroy every Legitimate Military Target the aggressor controls. To earn its unconditional surrender after it reaches its mental break point.

So in short, if We The People are to defend ourselves against Iran, then as the American Revolution, Barbary Wars and Civil War prove, we are going to need to use colossal retaliation against Iran for them having initiated aggression against us every way they did. Iran proves to us every time they act that no softer route will defend the Bill of Rights, or defend the American People.

8. Right of Self-Defense: A Libertarian Ideal

This whole article on Iran focuses on something many fellow libertarians support for individual humans but oppose for free societies. The reasons given are confusing to me, but I am consistently Pro-Self-Defense. But let us define what this right is legally.

As a libertarian the angle, I analyze the American talks with Iran from is a Right of Self-Defense angle. This means I maintain the use of defensive force is justifiable against tyrannies who rule their peoples as sacrificial livestock. I also maintain if a tyranny threatens a free society, then that society must use all it has got for victory.

In closing, I will say that if a core instinct of libertarianism is to defend liberty, then as a libertarian I advise my fellow liberty movement members to reflect on that, and on constitutionalism when thinking defense policy. But also, there are marvelous questions to ask oneself about Defending Liberty:

Exit mobile version