American Dawdling Allowed the Mullahs to Get the Bomb
-Editorial
Iran has emerged as a nuclear state.
Iranian President Ahmadinejad announced that Tehran has the capability to produce weapons-grade uranium.
It is a measure of Western impotence that the U.S. went to war with Iraq in 2003 to prevent the very things Iran is announcing with pride in 2010. Had Saddam Hussein made the same claim, the question over weapons of mass destruction would have been settled at once.
Discussion swirls around various forms of sanctions: smart sanctions, focused sanctions, effective sanctions, sanctions that bite. However, there is no reason to think that any sanctions regime will dissuade Tehran.
-Editorial
Iran has emerged as a nuclear state.
Iranian President Ahmadinejad announced that Tehran has the capability to produce weapons-grade uranium.
It is a measure of Western impotence that the U.S. went to war with Iraq in 2003 to prevent the very things Iran is announcing with pride in 2010. Had Saddam Hussein made the same claim, the question over weapons of mass destruction would have been settled at once.
Discussion swirls around various forms of sanctions: smart sanctions, focused sanctions, effective sanctions, sanctions that bite. However, there is no reason to think that any sanctions regime will dissuade Tehran.
The limited courses of action being discussed in Washington are irrelevant. The Iranian nuclear issue will be decided by others. Tehran will pursue its revolutionary interests. Israel will act to guarantee its national survival. Other states in the region will do what they need to do as events unfold.
The United States should begin planning for the inevitable. Conflict is coming; it won't be managed away.
(Washington Times)
*
The United States should begin planning for the inevitable. Conflict is coming; it won't be managed away.
(Washington Times)
*
6 comments:
This is top news & none of it is being reported here in southern africa... Wow, thank you
There is nothing so startling here, no one ignored this, and it isn't finished yet. The Washington Times, if it wasn't mostly a hack conservative rag, could blame W. Bush for this, as eveerything mentioned here began with him, and was allowed to develop because of his botched handling of the Middle-East, his fabrications on Iraq and his ineptness in Afghanistan. Nevertheless, neither Israel nor the US have ruled out military actions, especially if weapons are actually produced. There is still time for the world to work together on this. There is more unity on this issue than on others throughout the years. Even the other Arab states agree that it is not just Israel that would be threatened by a nuclear Iran. I don't believe the world will look away and allow a nuclear weapon armed Iran much less for them to take a shot at Israel. But even if I am wrong about a world united, I believe the US will help israel to prevent sucha situation. The Obama administration has been hamstrung on Iran by the bad will created by the W. Bush administration; invading a country and killing tens of thousands of its people in order to stop a mad dictators supposed ambitions. The US was proved wrong in Iraq, and has not succeeded in effectively destroyuing Al-Qaeda either. To expect Obama, in this world climate, and with troops needed still in Iraq, and more in Afghanistan to actually accomplish our goals there, to act unilaterally, as his misguided predecessor did, is wishful thinking. Obama, America, and as I have maintained here all along---Israel--are, in this case---all paying for the mess that was created during the W. Bush administration. That does not mean we will not take action, if action is the only means left.
You have a bit more faith in President Obama's judgement than I do. One way to read the tea leaves is that his overarching goal is to avoid Israel striking at all costs.
I'm even fearful that he, like some of his "containment" obsessed policy advisors, have resigned themselves to a nuclear Iran.
But let's hope you're right and i'm not!
Sadly, it would be hard, because of the US's recent (last 8 years before Obama) missteps in the MidEast for us to attack or walk into Iran. We are limited by our actions, as are many nations over the decades. That is why action must be carefully thought out and used as a LAST RESORT. I hope, truly hope, that no one thinks a nuclear Iran is acceptaable. The defensive posture and vigilance necessary if that should occur, could no doubt lead to accidental engagements that could be catastrophic. I have many mixed feelings about how Obama has handled things, as might be evident from some of my posts on my main blog. I do have faith that he, and other countries, understand just how dangerous a nuclear Iran would be, however. Even then, I share your concern that effective actions won't be taken. If it were to occur, I do see this inaction to have different causes than you, but in the end, any inaction could be a terrible mistake.
Indeed.
Obama's biggest mistake now is in publically appearing to discount the military option [see post later today about H. Clinton's toothless statement]. Not to mention the other foolish posture: publically pressing Israel to hold back.
Obama should be using Israel's threats to strengthen his hand:
"look Mr. Mullahs, my well armed friend Israel is getting a bit hot under the collar about your nukes...now don't you want to talk to me instead."
I see your point but i see the situation differently. i do not know what Obama and Clinton are telling Iran or other nations in private. I see Clinton telling Arab television that this situation is not acceptable but acting like America is back to diplomacy and not cowboy tactics. I do not see that it is requisite or advisable to tip out hand in advance. Also, implying Israel is getting ready to attack opens the door for Arabs to unite---even though I don't think they really want to---in defense of Muslim Iran. It could be construed that threats might work to force their hand to negotiations, but I do not see much evidence of this. it did not even work for Saddam Hussein when he really had no weapons. The mentality, as you well know, is different over there. When the proof is clear, and the time is right, there may be an American assisted Israeli raid. There is little else for us to do? We expected them to lay roses at our feet in Iraq, and it did not quite work out that way. We certainly don;t want to go in to Iran, where the populace will no doubt take part in the fight. There are not a lot of options, but I do not believe the world will sit idly by, and I do not believe the US will either, and I am quite sure Israel won't. I just don;t see how it can be handled much differently, and what could be said much differently, out in the public, at this point.
Post a Comment