Posted on 10/06/2004 9:11:36 AM PDT by dennisw
New York Sun Staff Editorial October 6, 2004
The warning issued by Prime Minister Sharon on Monday - that Israel is taking measures to protect itself from Iran - is the best news to come over the wires in weeks. This followed a statement, quoted last month in Maariv, from the prime minister's national security adviser, Giora Eiland, who said that Iran will reach the "point of no return" in its nuclear program by November. Zev Chafets, a former aide to another prime minister, Menachem Begin, noted in a recent column that "point of no return" was the same phrase that Begin used when he decided to launch, in 1981, a pre-emptive strike that destroyed the reactor at the center of Saddam's a-bomb program, Osirak. Begin's daring defense minister then was the same Ariel Sharon who is premier today.
This all comes in the context of an American presidential election in which neither the incumbent nor the challenger is offering a practical strategy for confronting Iran's ambitions to own an Abomb. It is true that both President Bush and Senator Kerry agreed at last week's presidential debate that the biggest threat America faces is the potential of terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction. Neither dealt in any convincing way with the fact that the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, Iran, is bent on building nuclear weapons. While both Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry say they oppose allowing Iran to get nuclear weapons, neither has been exactly forthright about their plan to prevent it.
Mr. Kerry's plan, such as he was able to articulate it, involves relying on the French and Germans, of all people, and then giving the Iranians some nuclear fuel. He takes Americans for fools. It's a wonder the senator didn't simply offer to make the mullahs a bomb. The mullahs themselves promptly reacted by mocking the senator, saying they don't want to have to rely on foreigners for their nuclear fuel. Mr. Bush's plan, as he was able to articulate it in an interview with Bill O'Reilly, involves saying, "All options are on the table, of course, in any situation. But diplomacy is the first option." The best that can be said about Mr. Bush is that he hasn't bought into the formal advice of appeasement being promulgated by the Council on Foreign Relations.
The fact that Mr. Bush is being pressured so publicly by the foreign policy establishment to warn Israel off its own defense may be why Mr. Sharon has begun to send the signals he's sending. He knows that the people will understand. The New York Times may have, back in 1981, reacted to Begin's heroism by issuing an editorial that began, "Israel's sneak attack on a French-built nuclear reactor near Baghdad was an act of inexcusable and shortsighted aggression." But Mr. Sharon knows that the Times's own editor, Max Frankel, eventually admitted that the editorial was a mistake. American public opinion, across a wide spectrum, always understood Begin's wisdom.
Today Senator Biden's rival for the job of secretary of state in the Kerry administration, Richard Holbrooke, is quoted by Mr. Chafets as saying, "In 1981, the Israelis attacked the Iraqi nuclear plant at Osirak. President Reagan personally criticized Israel. Today, we all recognize that Israel was 100% right to do it." Vice President Cheney famously sent a handwritten thank-you note to the Israeli commander of the raid, noting that the Israeli action had made the job easier for America in the 1991 Gulf War, during which Mr. Cheney served as secretary of defense.
These columns have long argued that the best outcome in Iran - and the one American policy would most wisely bend every effort to promote - would be a democratic revolution that would bring a government in Tehran that is free, peaceful, and friendly. Israel's warning time is running out. It would not be surprising to see, between now and November 2, Mr. Bush come under growing pressure to warn Israel against taking action. Whoever ends up as president, the question to consider is which is worse politically, that tumult might erupt after an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites - or Iran getting the nuclear bomb on your watch?
The best way to defy the mullahs their nuke ambitions would be to help the Iranian people kick them to the curb. What are we doing in that regard?
The Mullahs have all the guns and controlls the army. The population is at their mercy. Where do you think we should start ?
What else is there to say but this?
"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
Winston Churchill
Would Kerry pre-emptively attack Iran? How can we KNOW FOR SURE that Iran has nukes? What does the UN say? France and Germany are dealing (very closely!) with Iran -- will they support a pre-emptive strike? If not, should we hold back?
In short, when would Kerry act? And when would he talk? I suspect the answers are "never" and "forever".
Just look at John Kerry's vote during first Gulf War, against military action. This was when we had all the allies assembled that Kerry takes a shine to, such as France and Germany.
In a crisis John Kerry would spaz out a la Bill Clinton, firing cruise missiles into tents in Afghanistan and aspirin factories in Sudan.
Let's say that all agreed that Iran was and is more of a danger that Iraq. Militarily, how could one possibly do anything about Iran when we had Saddam tying down a good portion of our Air Force? Imagine what kinds of interference would take place. Saddam could ratchet up his provocations just as things were getting hot and heavy had we acted first in Iran.
It should be clear to almost anyone that dealing with Iraq was a necessary prelude to anything further, agreeing that Afghanistan was the very first step in direct response to 9-11. I like to look at it that Afghanistan was the response to avenge 9-11 and Iraq was the response to prevent the next 9-11.
While dealing with Iraq, we would had the time to pursue the hopeful (but likely futile) diplomatic efforts that are necessary before committing troops. There was stated hope that the example of Iraq would change some minds in the region (picture Libya), build up the student opposition in Iran, and put our forces on the borders of Iran in friendly bases to act as the big stick while we spoke softly to the mullahs.
I don't think Kerry would ever take action either. Listening to Breck Boy last night I thought some of the things he said about Iraq were borderline treasonous. And where did they get this mantra that 'OBL was trapped in Tora Bora and the President outsourced the action to Afghan warlords'? I tell ya, these two are extremely dangerous to the nation (sKerry / Edwards I mean). I hope the sheeple are on to their games.
dennisw,
Truly, the Iranians are prepared for Israel to strike.
I thought it foolish that we're not really doing anything to support any insurgency movement within Iran....kinda stupid on our part. Kerry makes me sick with all his wanting to kow tow to the Frogs and Krauts. We know that the UN is the only place where the French can feel relevant. Their supporters in the State Dept. are unwilling to embarrass the crap out of them by showing the proof that they violated the Oil for Food program by giving Hussein material to make weapons. Europe has a different agenda than we do...we should face up to it.
This man would have called for a summit with Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Disgusting.
I don't think the sheeple are onto skerry's games. skerry is counting on the sheeple's ignorance. Who said that eventually voters would vote in whoever gave them the most? Was it Madison, Jefferson could you email me?
TooDamTall1@yahoo.com
I'm depressed.
I know the quote you are referring to but do not recall the author. Fear not, the Day of Reckoning is coming: November 2nd!
"I thought it foolish that we're not really doing anything to support any insurgency movement within Iran....kinda stupid on our part. "
see #13
I think that pro-American sentiment is strong in the Iranian resistance. They are not your typical anti-Western Islamists... in fact, the population is weary of enforced Islamic life and wants to liberalize.
My point about Israel is that surprise would be much more difficult to acheive against the Iranians. You may believe they are invulnerable, but I promise you that the guys making the flight know that the odds get a lot worse when the enemy is expecting you.
The Israelis see this as an act of national survival, an act for the survival of the Jewish people. They will throw everything they have at the mullahs, even nukes, if they have to. I think the administration has green lighted this, because, essentially, I think that Bush sees the problem in the same way.
I hope Israel seeks UN approval first
I think the Israelies will fly to high to hit and will then drop a nice equalizer on the "Religion of Peace" nuclear plant.
Kerry said he would give them the radiated stuff they need to make the bomb in the interst of peace anyway, so we need to vote Bush.
ping
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.