A response to Cenk Uygur: How ‘bout we don’t use any weapon against Iran?

Cenk's a good guy, so when I say that I must respectfully disagree with his post from yesterday, I mean it.

Cenk makes the point that we don't need to bomb Iran, and suggests we learn from past experience that the spread of capitalism is our best "weapon" for getting recalcitrant countries to see things our way.

I find five problems with his argument. It assumes that we need a weapon of some sort to use against Iran; it rests heavily on the oft-cited but problematic "democratic peace theory"; it misrepresents that theory and conflates democracy with capitalism; it draws a faulty historical analogue between Iran and Vietnam and it assumes that "our" model of capitalism has proven its capacity to bring about stability.

One at a time…

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. AlterNet’s journalists work tirelessly to counter the traditional corporate media narrative. We’re here seven days a week, 365 days a year. And we’re proud to say that we’ve been bringing you the real, unfiltered news for 20 years—longer than any other progressive news site on the Internet.

It’s through the generosity of our supporters that we’re able to share with you all the underreported news you need to know. Independent journalism is increasingly imperiled; ads alone can’t pay our bills. AlterNet counts on readers like you to support our coverage. Did you enjoy content from David Cay Johnston, Common Dreams, Raw Story and Robert Reich? Opinion from Salon and Jim Hightower? Analysis by The Conversation? Then join the hundreds of readers who have supported AlterNet this year.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

Close