Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Patrick Buchanan: Is the Superpower Afraid Of Iran? OpEd
Albany Tribune ^ | November 26, 2013 | Patrick J Buchanan

Posted on 11/26/2013 7:23:47 PM PST by Colonel Kangaroo

“Iran’s Nuclear Triumph” roared the headline of the Wall Street Journal editorial. William Kristol is again quoting Churchill on Munich.

Since the news broke Saturday night that Iran had agreed to a six-month freeze on its nuclear program, we are back in the Sudetenland again.

Why? For not only was this modest deal agreed to by the United States, but also by our NATO allies Germany, Britain and France.

Russia and China are fine with it.

Iran’s rivals, Turkey and Egypt, are calling it a good deal. Saudi Arabia says it “could be a first step toward a comprehensive solution for Iran’s nuclear program.”

Qatar calls it “an important step toward safeguarding peace and stability in the region.” Bahrain, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates have issued similar statements.

Israeli President Shimon Peres calls the deal satisfactory. Former Military Intelligence Chief Amos Yadlin has remarked of the hysteria in some Israeli circles, “From the reactions this morning, I might have thought Iran had gotten permission to build a bomb.”

Predictably, “Bibi” Netanyahu is leading the stampede:

“Today the world has become a much more dangerous place because the most dangerous regime in the world has taken a significant step toward attaining the most dangerous weapon in the world.”

But this is not transparent nonsense?

In return for a modest lifting of sanctions, Tehran has agreed to halt work on the heavy water reactor it is building at Arak, to halt production of 20-percent uranium, to dilute half of its existing stockpile, and to allow more inspections.

Does this really make the world “a much more dangerous place”?

Consider the worst-case scenario we hear from our politicians and pundits — that Iran is cleverly scheming to get the U.S. and U.N. sanctions lifted, and, then, she will make a “mad dash” for the bomb.

But how exactly would Tehran go about this?

If Iran suddenly moved all its low-enriched uranium, to be further enriched in a crash effort to 90 percent, i.e., bomb grade, this would take months to accomplish.

Yet, we would be altered within hours that the uranium was being moved.

Any such Iranian action would expose Barack Obama and John Kerry as dupes. They would be discredited and the howls from Tel Aviv and Capitol Hill for air and missile strikes on Natanz, Fordo and Arak would become irresistible.

Obama and Kerry would be forced to act.

War with Iran, which would mean a shattered Iran, would be a real possibility. At the least, Iran, like North Korea, would be sanctioned anew, isolated and made a pariah state.

Should Iran test a nuclear device, Saudi Arabia would acquire bombs from Pakistan. Turkey and Egypt might start their own nuclear weapons programs. Israel would put its nuclear arsenal or high alert.

If, after a year or two building a bomb, in an act of insanity, Iran found a way to deliver it to Israel or a U.S. facility in the Middle East, Iran would be inviting the fate of Imperial Japan in 1945.

So, let us assume another scenario, that the Iranians are not crazed fanatics but rational actors looking out for what is best for their country.

If Iran has no atom bomb program, as the Ayatollah attests, President Hassan Rouhani says he is willing to demonstrate, and 16 U.S. intelligence agencies concluded six years ago and again two years ago, consider the future that might open to Iran — if the Iranians are simply willing and able to prove this to the world’s satisfaction.

First, a steady lifting of sanctions. Second, an end to Iran’s isolation and a return to the global economy. Third, a wave of Western investment for Iran’s oil and gas industry, producing prosperity and easing political pressure on the regime.

Fourth, eventual emergence of Iran, the most populous nation in the Gulf with 85 million citizens, as the dominant power in the Gulf, just as China, after dispensing with the world Communist revolution, became dominant in Asia

Why would an Iran, with this prospect before it, risk the wrath of the world and a war with the United States to acquire a bomb whose use would assure the country’s annihilation?

America’s goals: We do not want a nuclear Iran, and we do not want war with Iran. And Iran’s actions seem to indicate that building an atom bomb is not the animating goal of the Ayatollah, as some Americans insist.

Though she has the ability to build a bomb, Iran has neither conducted a nuclear test, nor produced bomb-grade uranium. She has kept her supply of 20-percent uranium below what is needed to be further enriched for even a single bomb test. Now, she has agreed to dilute half of that and produce no more.

If Iran were hell-bent on a bomb, why has she not produced a bomb?

Just possibly, because Iran doesn’t want the bomb. And if that is so, why not a deal to end these decades of sterile hostility?


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: agitprop; ibtz; iran; patbuchanan; pitchforkpat; propalestinianpat; putinsbuttboys
"If Iran were hell-bent on a bomb, why has she not produced a bomb?"

Buchanan obviously is not a fan of Netanyahu's two decades of telling the world that Iran is on the verge of getting the bomb.

1 posted on 11/26/2013 7:23:47 PM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo

2 posted on 11/26/2013 7:31:18 PM PST by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo
Buchanan obviously is not a fan of Netanyahu's two decades of telling the world that Iran is on the verge of getting the bomb.

LOL. I never thought of it that way.

3 posted on 11/26/2013 7:34:24 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("I've never seen such a conclave of minstrels in my life.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Israel stopped Iraq, they stopped Syria. What’s stopping them from stopping Iran?


4 posted on 11/26/2013 7:41:50 PM PST by FreedomStar3028 (Evil must be punished.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FreedomStar3028

They don’t have the political will to do it, so I guess that means they want the U.S. to have the political will to do it.


5 posted on 11/26/2013 7:49:48 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("I've never seen such a conclave of minstrels in my life.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
They don’t have the political will to do it...

I'm no expert on Israeli politics. My guess is that Israel does have the will to attack Iran. But they are hesitating because they know that they no longer have any support from the USA.

It's tough to go it alone when no major power will stand with you.

6 posted on 11/26/2013 7:56:24 PM PST by Leaning Right (Why am I holding this lantern? I am looking for the next Reagan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Ugh. Sorry for the all-italics post to you, Alberta’s Child.


7 posted on 11/26/2013 7:58:00 PM PST by Leaning Right (Why am I holding this lantern? I am looking for the next Reagan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Leaning Right
That's OK -- I used to do that all the time. LOL.

Israel doesn't have the political will because they recognize that the direct threat from Iran is very much exaggerated. As Colonel Kangaroo suggested earlier, it's kind of hard to maintain credibility when you spend two decades yelling that Iran is "just about to develop a nuclear weapon."

8 posted on 11/26/2013 8:01:35 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("I've never seen such a conclave of minstrels in my life.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
... As Colonel Kangaroo suggested earlier, it's kind of hard to maintain credibility when you spend two decades yelling that Iran is "just about to develop a nuclear weapon

Nice to see that other FReepers have noticed this. Of course, we are all Neville Chamberlains! /sarc ;)

9 posted on 11/26/2013 8:32:37 PM PST by Forgotten Amendments (I remember when a President having an "enemies list" was a scandal. Now, they have a kill list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo
Why would an Iran, with this prospect before it, risk the wrath of the world and a war with the United States to acquire a bomb whose use would assure the country’s annihilation?

Why would Iran be the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world? Why would Iran provide arms and IEDs to kill US troops in Iraq? Why would Iran blow up Kobar Towers in Saudi Arabia?

Pat is all wet on this one. He doesn't understand the Iranian mentality. He thinks the Iranian leadership is rational. These are the same people who sent their children walking thru minefields during the Iran-Iraq war.

10 posted on 11/26/2013 8:33:57 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kabar

Islam, in its more rabid manifestations. Relatively few Muslims really believe the Koran from cover to cover — thankfully.


11 posted on 11/26/2013 8:35:22 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (The Lion of Judah will roar again if you give him a big hug and a cheer and mean it. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: kabar

The 12th imam. Death and destruction, in their world, means their “savior” comes sooner and everything becomes heaven on earth for them.


12 posted on 11/26/2013 8:36:22 PM PST by MarMema ("If Americans really wanted Obamacare, you wouldn't need a law to make them buy it." Ted Cruz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Forgotten Amendments

The big shot opinion makers in Washington love the Neville Chamberlain analogy. They seem to all fancy themselves as Winston Churchill. But Churchill was a soldier from his youth who even served in the front lines when he lost his cabinet position in World War I while most of today’s prominent warhawks have avoided military service like the plague


13 posted on 11/26/2013 8:40:37 PM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kabar
all true
14 posted on 11/26/2013 8:40:54 PM PST by MarMema ("If Americans really wanted Obamacare, you wouldn't need a law to make them buy it." Ted Cruz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: kabar

They’re a mean and vicious bunch as the war with Iraq showed. But even in Khomeini’s day they were rational enough to call off the fight when Saddam Hussein gained the upper hand.


15 posted on 11/26/2013 8:48:45 PM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
Relatively few Muslims really believe the Koran from cover to cover — thankfully.

I lived a total of nine years in three Muslim countries and traveled to many more. You are wrong. Islam is a very demanding religion that requires a great deal of personal involvement. And it permeates every facet of their daily lives. There is no separation between the state and religion.

16 posted on 11/26/2013 9:08:33 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: kabar

To be deep into that religion doesn’t mean the same thing as literally embracing all that’s in the Koran. Embracing all of it WILL result in rabid Muslims. Please do not equate the two states of affairs.


17 posted on 11/26/2013 9:11:36 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (The Lion of Judah will roar again if you give him a big hug and a cheer and mean it. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo
But even in Khomeini’s day they were rational enough to call off the fight when Saddam Hussein gained the upper hand.

Saddam never really gained the upper hand. It was a stalemate with the end brokered by the UN. The Iran–Iraq War, lasted from September 1980 to August 1988. The Iran–Iraq War began when Iraq invaded Iran via air and land on 22 September 1980.

Although Iraq hoped to take advantage of Iran's revolutionary chaos and attacked without formal warning, they made only limited progress into Iran and were quickly repelled; Iran regained virtually all lost territory by June 1982. For the next six years, Iran was on the offensive.

Despite calls for a ceasefire by the United Nations Security Council, hostilities continued until 20 August 1988. The war finally ended with Resolution 598, a U.N.-brokered ceasefire which was accepted by both sides. At the war's conclusion, it took several weeks for Iranian armed forces to evacuate Iraqi territory to honour pre-war international borders set by the 1975 Algiers Agreement. The last prisoners of war were exchanged in 2003

18 posted on 11/26/2013 9:17:01 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
To be deep into that religion doesn’t mean the same thing as literally embracing all that’s in the Koran. Embracing all of it WILL result in rabid Muslims. Please do not equate the two states of affairs.

Most do embrace all that is in the Koran. It doesn't make them "rabid." You are the one who is confused.

19 posted on 11/26/2013 9:19:23 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: kabar

(And analogous situations exist in, e.g., Christianity. Consider how Catholics and fundamentalist Christians differ, for instance. One can be a very devout Catholic and still be getting essentially all your bible through whatever the clerical culture at hand is. You won’t be literally embracing it cover to cover like we crazy fundies do.)


20 posted on 11/26/2013 9:19:25 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (The Lion of Judah will roar again if you give him a big hug and a cheer and mean it. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: kabar

No, you are confusing the two. Their CLAIMING that they do, and actually objectively doing so, are two states of affairs. Have you audited every verse of the Koran against the practice there? No, I do not think you have. Also you probably haven’t visited the more enraged Al Qaeda sects.


21 posted on 11/26/2013 9:20:49 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (The Lion of Judah will roar again if you give him a big hug and a cheer and mean it. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo
I don't believe that the Iranians or the Israelis really want to destroy one another or to send the Middle East back to a radioactive form of Biblical Times. But, if they do want to, they can do it and we can't stop them.

Personally, I believe that the whole bunch of them are bluffing. I don't believe Israel is going to send troops into Iran and I don't believe Iran is going to send troops into Israel. Nor do I believe that they will agree to just nuke one another just so that the rest of us can move on with life.

But, in the final analysis, their future is in their hands and not ours.

22 posted on 11/26/2013 9:21:31 PM PST by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo
According to journalist Robin Wright,

During the Fateh offensive [in February 1987], I toured the southwest front on the Iranian side and saw scores of boys, aged anywhere from nine to sixteen, who said with staggering and seemingly genuine enthusiasm that they had volunteered to become martyrs. Regular army troops, the paramilitary Revolutionary Guards and mullahs all lauded these youths, known as baseeji [Basij], for having played the most dangerous role in breaking through Iraqi lines. They had led the way, running over fields of mines to clear the ground for the Iranian ground assault. Wearing white headbands to signify the embracing of death, and shouting "Shaheed, shaheed" (Martyr, martyr) they literally blew their way into heaven. Their numbers were never disclosed. But a walk through the residential suburbs of Iranian cities provided a clue. Window after window, block after block, displayed black-bordered photographs of teenage or preteen youths.

23 posted on 11/26/2013 9:30:33 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kabar

They’re mean all right. I Just think even then they were sacrificing others and exploiting their fanaticism while staying safe themselves.


24 posted on 11/26/2013 9:56:16 PM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food
But, in the final analysis, their future is in their hands and not ours.

I wish the people in Washington would realize that.

25 posted on 11/26/2013 10:00:20 PM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

You can’t compare current day Christians with Muslims.


26 posted on 11/26/2013 10:04:30 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo

But there is a level of fanaticism that most in the West don’t understand. Buchanan is trying to use western logic on a culture that has a much different world view.


27 posted on 11/26/2013 10:07:08 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
No, you are confusing the two. Their CLAIMING that they do, and actually objectively doing so, are two states of affairs. Have you audited every verse of the Koran against the practice there? No, I do not think you have. Also you probably haven’t visited the more enraged Al Qaeda sects.

I have lived five years in Saudi Arabia, two in Iran, and two in Indonesia. There are variations in how countries and people practice Islam, but the Koran is still central to the daily lives of the individual. When you pray five times a day, fast for a month, and make a pilgrimage to Mecca, you are far more involved with your religion than most Christians or Jews. In many ways Islam is more akin to a cult than a religion. Apostates are treated harshly.

28 posted on 11/26/2013 10:14:39 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo

I’m not a fan of people assuming Iran has good intentions.


29 posted on 11/26/2013 11:02:57 PM PST by RichInOC (Palin 2016: The Perfect Storm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo
Evidently, Pat wants Iran and Saudi Arabia to have nukes.
We'll be much safer then.
30 posted on 11/26/2013 11:11:35 PM PST by rmlew ("Mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kabar
As one who invariably supports Pat Buchanan on these threads, I nevertheless agree with you on this one.

Perhaps it is Buchanan's reflexive anti-Zionism (I deliberately did not say anti-Semitism) or his isolationist proclivities, but he seems to have got this wrong. I take seriously your observations concerning the mindset of Islam because it is confirmatory of what we have heard from other sources. I do not believe that Netanyahu is so exercised about the situation for no reason.

But it does not take a fanatical Muslim to be self-destructive. Consider the fanaticism of the Japanese in World War II, consider the degree of self-sacrifice and destruction they were willing to endure. Consider the degree of suffering borne by the Germans under Nazi administration in World War II. When you have tens of thousands of people dying every night in Japan and in Germany and those administrations nevertheless carrying on the war when it was utterly hopeless, we have a mindset that is not far from inviting Armageddon.

We must understand that this situation is not put to a plebiscite in Iran, rather it is the policy of a theocracy. Consider the fanaticism of those who ruled Japan, we consider them to be militarists but it was also in a sense a theocracy in that the Emperor was considered divine and the "militarists" were in a sense his apostles. No one can deny that Nazi-ism was a kind of secular religion and that Hitler himself enjoyed a super human charismatic reputation among the Germans.

It does not take the whole of Iran to make a conscious decision to invite Armageddon to gain the gates of Allah's paradise, it requires only the fixed determination of a few fanatical mullahs in custody of the bomb.


31 posted on 11/27/2013 1:53:34 AM PST by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

Once again, Pat Buchanan shows his associations.

Iran’s Rouhani: Nuke Plan ‘Continues Today and Will Continue Tomorrow’
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3095914/posts


32 posted on 11/27/2013 3:52:33 AM PST by SunkenCiv (http://www.freerepublic.com/~mestamachine/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RichInOC

I don’t think anybody is arguing that Iran is a model nation. But if we fought every nation with a less than ideal regime, we’d be in perpetual war. We don’t have unlimited manpower or unlimited money, so sometimes we have to chose the lesser of evils.


33 posted on 11/27/2013 4:52:30 AM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson