David J. Rusin is a very strong persuasive writer, but I still disagree with him. Are we really a nation “…of heightened peril”? Can Iran really be a major threat when they have yet to make the bomb and are moving so slowly? Technology does enhance the terrorist operations, but it doesn’t seem to be enhancing Iran ’s. I agree that the Islamic Republic probably shouldn’t get a bomb because of its unstable nature, but I don’t see the need for a preemptive strike.Rusin uses Machiavellian principles to support his argument and, while it is a classic novel, the same methods and rules may not be as relevant in today’s world. We have a more complicated global world that has more consequences for impulsive actions such as preemptive strikes.
His piece also argues that the United States is the last chance for the world and that, if we don’t act, no one will. I think that the belief that the U.S. is the only nation that can ever solve anything is misguided and egotistical. Rusin again tries to use Machiavelli for proof that we should strike first by saying that the U.S. shouldn’t be afraid to be feared because being loved isn’t safe. I disagree because the U.S. is bordering on being hated which Machiavelli says should be avoided. A country can be feared and not hated according to Machiavelli but the U.S. has not achieved this with Iran .
Another argument Rusin makes is that to delay war with Iran is immoral (if it would cause peril down the line). But I think that war in general is immoral. Rusin is using the typical do-or-die approach to his argument. He plays with readers’ emotions and tries to convince them that they have to attack Iran first or face destruction. I don’t think the situation is so “black and white”; it’s in the shade of grey.
