Skip to comments.The Stealth Nuclear Threat
Posted on 08/08/2004 4:58:29 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
Who could have imagined that alliance management would be a hot election issue in America? But it is. John Kerry's repeated pledge to restore relations with America's allies has struck a chord. The trouble is, if he is elected president, Kerry is going to find that promise hard to keepat least with America's allies in Europe. Most of them would be delighted to see Kerry win, but that doesn't mean they will be more cooperative on policy issues. Terror is understandably on everyone's mind, but there is yet another growing danger over the horizon. Early into a Kerry administration, we could see a familiar sighta transatlantic crisisexcept this time it wouldn't be over Iraq but Iran.
The threat to America from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, if they ever existed, is in the past. Iran, on the other hand, is the problem of the future. Over the last two years, thanks to tips from Iranian opposition groups and investigations by the International Atomic Energy Agency, it has become clear that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons. In the words of the agency, Iran has "a practically complete front end of a nuclear fuel cycle," which leads most experts to believe it is two to three years away from having a nuclear bomb.
Write the author at email@example.com
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Chirac will play Kerry like a well used violin. It's all a con game, or rope-a-dope, if you will. But hey, the two trial lawyers and their band of lawyers will conquer all.
I disagree, John Kerry will make our "allies" in Europe change their policies and help us.
How naive are the lefties in our country think we are !! Kerry is such a phoney it is pathetic !!
The first observation is to note the author's insufferable tacit assumption that the President who will have to do with Iran will be named Kerry. On the surface he seems to be rendering his analysis of the Iran threat in the event of a hypothetical Kerry victory but one suspects a hidden agenda to bank excuses for his champion when the cornerstone of Kerry's foreign policy, internationalism, confronts the real world after the campaign and crumbles before European obstructionism:
... a senior Clinton official ... said that he was "deeply frustrated by European attitudes." Madeleine Albright...[said] "Europeans say they understand the threat but then act as if the real problem is not Iran but the United States."
Let us be forgiven if we savor a moment of schadenfruede as we consider how much better it would be for America if Mr. Zakaria would used one of his precious minutes of air time with George Stephanapolous to point out the transparent artificiality of Kerry's internationalist position which the author, along with the Clinton administration, will admit to only sotto voce or in theoretical settings. While I do not deceive myself that Mr Zakaria would ever do anything during the campaign to frustrate Kerry's chances, it is clear that he is worried:
But for any of this to happen, Europe must be willing to play an active, assertive role. It must stop viewing itself merely as a critic of American policy, but rather see itself as a partner, jointly acting to reduce the dangers of nuclear proliferation. And it should do this not as a favor to John Kerry but as a responsibility to its own citizens and those of the world.
The author knows that, in the world of international power realities as distinguished from the world of the our American election, it is not enough for Kerry merely to be "Not Bush." The author is grappling with the probability that America will be compelled to deal with the second leg of the axis of evil and "not Bush" will have to prevent Iranian armed terrorists from destroying Pittsburgh while at the same time contending with European obstructionism. The author senses that his man will inevitably fall victim to Europe just as did the real Bush. Not surprisingly given his politics, the author fails to consider that Kerry will inevitably preside over the destruction of his own party if he attempts to deal with Iran with force or the threat of force.
So, no help from Europe, no party at home to sustain him, what is a "not Bush" to do when his CIA chief tells him we have specific and credible evidence that Iran is scheming in concert with al Quaida to blow up Cleveland? If he is a man of character, if he is a hero worthy of a Silver Star, he will act unilaterally, if necessary in the teeth of opposition from the loonies in his own party, to destroy every vestige of atomic power possessed by Iran. But if he is a poser, a self promoter who has no higher power apart from his own ambition, who has gamed the system to pry loose a Silver Star, he will dither about whether he should first call Chirac or Annin.
So the election comes down to character. This proposition can be stated with confidence because we are already happily acquainted with the character of the Real Bush. More, we are also unhappily acquainted over eight years with the consequences of a man of feckless character inhabiting the White House. This is why the author and the Democrats he cites including the former Secretary of State are so damned hypocritical in their tacit support of a campaign based on a lie. The lie is that Not Bush will have success in enlisting Europe to act to save Detroit. It is a lie to present to the world the notion that acting unilaterally is not viable. It is a lie that America cannot defend itself without the imprimatur of Europe. It is a lie to pretend that the Democrat party has not hamstrung the Real Bush in dealing with the axis of evil. It is a lie to pretend to the electorate that Not Bush will have to have more character than Harry Truman on a bad hair day to stand up to his own party to protect our children in Spokane.
It is a lie to pretend that an examination of Not Bush's character should not go beyond the Silver Star which he threw away.
After the election, all bets are off--and my guess is that Israel will strike soon after the dust settles.
Very well stated Mr Buckley ;) [That's a compliment sir]
What do I know but behind the real scene are our British allies and their ancient direct connection with Shiites. If we had any question on the weakness of Kerry towards any European allies? Like France and Germany, I would hate to see the concessions made by Kerry with England to sweep the Iran thing under the rug. The people forming his foreign policy would more than likely be as aggressive as Clintons and Carters and just as idealistic. If all the assumptions of the article? Materialize, we will have to wait 4 to 8 years to deal again with then, a nuclear hard-line fanatic Iran.
I spoke to a friend whom I didn't realize is working for the Kerry campaign (she lives in Raleigh). She repeated this very talking point about Kerry bringing in international cooperation. I suggested Chirac will play Kerry (or any other American President) like a violin. No response. Oh yes, and he's going to raise taxes only for the very wealthy. To which I pointed out that these are the folks who have the legal eagles/accoutants who divert monies to avoid paying taxes.
Which reminds me, there was a thread earlier which indicated how much in dollars Bush and Kerry paid last year. Anyone remember that thread? I'd love to send it to this person.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.