On Iran: President Bush Gets It Right

Israel & Aliya (blog) ^ | 14 January 2006 | Caitlyn Martin

[anotherview]

Saturday, January 14, 2006
On Iran: President Bush Gets It Right

Yesterday, after a meeting with new German Chancellor Angela Merkel, President Bush made some comments on Iran that clearly demonstrates that on this one issue he clearly understands what the stakes are:

Iran armed with a nuclear weapon poses a grave threat to the security of the world [...] The current president of Iran has announced that the destruction of Israel is an important part of their agenda, and that's unacceptable, and the development of a nuclear weapon, it seems to me, would make him a step closer to achieving that objective.

The United States, United Kingdom, France, and Germany now all agree that Iran should be referred to the United Nations Security Council. What is not clear is if a resolution with any teeth at all, especially one calling for sanctions in the event of Iranian noncompliance, can be drafted and passed without drawing a veto from Russia or China.

As I reported in my post on January 1 Israeli intelligence believes it will be impossible to stop Iran's nuclear program if concrete action is not taken by March. I think it is unlikely that the Security Council will agree on any sort of military action if Iran ignores a resolution, something Iranian President Ahmadinejad has made clear his country would do:

I tell those superpowers that, with strength and prudence, Iran will pave the way to achieving peaceful nuclear energy. The Iranian nation is not frightened by the powers and their noise.

Clearly President Bush doesn't believe Iran's intentions are peaceful. Neither do I.

The main question is whether or not the Europeans will go along with an American-led action this time despite what has happened on Iraq. I can only hope that Prime Minister Blair, President Chirac, and Chancellor Merkel all understand that Iran is not Iraq and there is no doubt about the threat posed in this case. The more unified the action, the broader the coalition, the less the likelihood of serious retaliation or an escalation into a larger regional war.

[anotherview]

ping

[stm]

Again with the UN. The UN has no teeth. And as a collective unit has no concept of reality or the long term. If this issue is going to be handled with certainty the UN is about the last place it should go.

[filbert]

If Iran gets nukes, it will be the final failure of the U.N. and it will collapse into historical obscurity like the impotent League of Nations before it.

We need to make sure the U.N. gets that message loud and clear.

John Bolton is the right man in the right place at the right time.

[anotherview]

Oh, I agree. However, Israeli intelligence gives us until March to act. Trying to get others on board this month and next isn't a bad idea. It may be doomed to failure but at least President Bush will be able to say he tried. Good for domestic political consumption, if nothing else.

In the end a military strike is the only solution.

[stm]

Israel took out Iraq's reactor under construction in 1981. Were they to do that to Iran today it would most likely be a suicidal move. Nearly every Arab in the Middle East would come a gunnin' fer 'em I am betting.

[voletti]

True. Even better than trying to get others aboard is pretending to try while preparing a surgical airstrike. Can't forget how the last time our extended hand of friendship and sincere call for cooperation in the Iraq coalition was rebuffed by farters in France and barters in Beijing. The real icing would be striking while an emergency session discussing "last chance for peace" is in progress in Beijing somewhere. But sadly, knowing president Bush, if he says we'll try to get others aboard, he will sincerely try.

[SJackson]

If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.
Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking the keyword Israel.

---------------------------

[anotherview]

I don't think it would be suicidal. Quite the contrary. For us not to act would be suicidal. I really don't want to die in a nuclear holocaust.

The Arabs and Iranians (Persians) never have been on the best of terms. Further, unlike Ahmadinjad, most of the Arab leaders are sane and know that if Israel was facing destruction we would use all the weapons in our arsenal, including nuclear weapons, to prevent it. This knowledge is what has held the Arabs (other than the Palestinians) at bay for the past two and a half decades.

[Salem]

---

 for anotherview.





If you'd like to be on or off this
Christian Supporters of Israel ping list,
please FR mail me ~
    
MikeFromFR ~
There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had
spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass. (Joshua 21:45)
Letter To The President In Support Of Israel ~
'Final Solution,' Phase 2 ~
Warnings ~

"Palestine is the wrong name for their State. It should be called Anarchy."—FReeper sgtbono2002
"Then let's wait and see what the Arabs do after they take Gaza. There's nothing like Arab reality to break up a Jewish fantasy."—FReeper Noachian
A student told his professor he was going to "Palestine" to "fight for freedom, peace and justice,"—Orwellian leftist code words that mean "murder Jews."
The Nature Of Bruce ~

[Hill of Tara]

its good to see that the Europeans are finally starting to step up to the plate.