Emulating Neville Chamberlain Is Never A Good Idea

Peace in our time is a wonderful idea. It would be nice if we could someday achieve it. However, I am not optimistic. There will always be bullies, people who sacrifice principles for power, the dishonest, the greedy, etc. These people cannot be dealt with peacefully. When people with these character traits are the leaders of countries, peace is not possible. Unfortunately, not all of our leaders understand that principle.

On Tuesday The Daily Caller posted an article about the deal reached between North Korea and former President Clinton that promised that North Korea would never develop nuclear weapons. We can see how well that deal worked out. President Obama negotiated a similar deal with Iran. That deal is following in the same direction as the deal with North Korea.

The article at The Daily Caller reports:

North Korea now has an intercontinental ballistic missile that can range most of the continental U.S., and a new Defense Intelligence Agency assessment suggests that North Korea has successfully miniaturized nuclear warheads for its missiles. The North is, according to a recent defense intelligence report, expected to be able to field a reliable, nuclear-armed ICBM as early as next year.

In the early 1990s, Clinton faced a growing nuclear threat from North Korea, but he ultimately chose diplomacy and deals over the application of military force.

“I was determined to prevent North Korea from developing a nuclear arsenal, even at the risk of war,” Clinton wrote in his memoirs. He decided to change course after receiving “a sobering estimate of the staggering losses both sides would suffer if war broke out.”

I agree that there would be staggering losses on both sides if war broke out, but did it occur to President Clinton that those losses would increase exponentially if North Korea went ahead with their nuclear program? As Ronald Reagan used to say, “Trust, but verify.” No one verified, and here we are.

I have no idea how this is going to turn out, but I am truly glad that Donald Trump is in the White House and not someone who is unwilling to confront a bully. This may well get ugly, but it is becoming obvious that in this situation, there is no diplomatic situation.

 

Beware Erroneous Campaign Ads

It is very obvious that integrity and political campaigns parted ways a long time ago. However, every now and then a whopper is told that is so big that even the mainstream media will correct it. Yesterday Hot Air posted a story about a fact check that CNN did on a Hillary Clinton campaign ad.

The article reports:

A new Clinton ad, which is airing in seven states this month, echoed the previous claim saying Hillary “got the treaty cutting Russia’s nuclear arms.”

But as Jake Tapper points out nearly all of this is false. It’s true that there is a treaty called New START which sets limits on the number of strategic nuclear weapons Russia can deploy. However that treaty doesn’t say anything about short range nukes or the number of total nuclear weapons Russia can have. It doesn’t require a single nuclear weapon be destroyed.

Even more striking, Tapper notes that Russia was already under the agreed limit when the treaty was signed in 2011. Russia has since increased the number of strategic nuclear arms by nearly 200, from 1,537 to 1,735. “Not only did it not cut the number of nuclear weapons,” Tapper says, “there’s actually been an increase.” Here’s a chart created by FactCheck.org back in April showing the number of strategic nuclear arms held by the U.S. and Russia. Note that the number of warheads held by Russia is up:

nukesTapper and FactCheck.org both grant that the treaty has value but the claims Clinton is making about the treaty reducing the number of Russian arms is false.

The campaign season will be over in about six weeks. Thank God.

The Real Cost Of War

I have a friend who was born in Japan in the late 1930’s. She is now an American citizen. A few years ago she shared her story with a local newspaper. I would like to share some highlights of her story here.

In March of 1945, she and one of her sisters were sent away from Tokyo to her grandparents’ home in Miyazaki on Kyushu to keep them safe. Her father remained behind. Her father was a high-ranking officer in the Japanese military.

She shares a story of a day at her grandparents’ home when she was pretending to go to school (her sisters went, but she was still too young) and heard the air raid warning siren. She laid down on the concrete road as flat as she could, then ran home as soon as the airplanes passed. Following that incident, she stayed close to her grandparents’ home where she could seek shelter in the bushes in the backyard.

During the time at her grandparents’ house, she traveled to Hiroshima with her mother and sisters to see cousins. While there, her mother received a call from her father to leave immediately. Her mother quickly left and returned to Miyazaki. The family later learned that their cousins had been killed in the bombing of Hiroshima.

She then traveled with her mother and sisters to visit friends in Nagasaki. Within two days of their arrival, her father called and told them to return to Miyazaki. They later found out that the friends they were visiting in Nagasaki were killed in the bombing.

She shares the story of spending a lot of time in an underground bunker at her grandparents’ home. They were in the bunker when they heard the news of the Japanese surrender. The day after the announcement, her father called and asked the family to return to Tokyo immediately. They boarded a train to Tokyo and were treated very well when some of the military officers on board recognized them and realized that they were related to their former superior officer (her father). They were escorted to the front of the train where there were soldiers carrying square wooden boxes wrapped in white scarves. Each soldier had an empty seat next to him reserved for his wooden box. Each box contained the ashes of a fallen soldier. In her story, she notes that as the train passed through Hiroshima, all the shutters were drawn so that the passengers could not see the devastation.

When the family arrived back in Tokyo, there were only a handful of houses left standing. Everything was flat and burnt.

There is more to the story. The lady telling this story was the daughter of a high-ranking Japanese officer who attempted to persuade the emperor to end the war in order to avoid the bombing of Japan that he knew was coming. Obviously the emperor ignored the advice. Her father was eventually relieved of his command just before the end of World War II.

I share this story for a number of reasons. The main reason is to illustrate that although war is sometimes necessary, it is a horrible thing. It has a great impact on the society and culture that is involved in the fighting. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a horrible first step into the atomic age, but without those bombs, many more lives would have been lost and the Japanese culture would have probably been destroyed as a result of an invasion of Japan.

The lesson here is that although war is a horrible thing, there are times when it must be fought. When it is fought, it must be fought hard in order to end quickly the death and destruction that it brings. That is the lesson we seem to have forgotten since the days of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I hope we never see another atomic bomb dropped, but I also hope we have the wisdom and courage to do what we need to do in order to end quickly any war that we must fight.

Can They Get Any More Blatant?

The Iranian nuclear deal has again made the news–only this time it’s not the deal–it’s breaking the deal before it is really official.

The New York Times is reporting today:

Iran tested a new guided long-range ballistic missile on Sunday, hours before Parliament, in a rowdy session, approved the generalities of the nuclear agreement reached in July between Iran and world powers, the state news agency IRNA reported.

The missile launch may have violated the terms of the agreement, reached in Vienna with six world powers. According to some readings of the deal, it placed restrictions on Iran’s ambitious missile program.

Experts have been debating the interpretation of a United Nations Security Council resolution, adopted a few days after the accord was agreed upon, that bars Iran from developing missiles “designed to carry nuclear warheads.”

Hard-line Iranian officials had for months been demanding new missile tests, a common practice before the negotiations over the country’s nuclear program began in 2013.

Unfortunately we have more than a year left of a President who obviously does not have the respect of those who would do us harm. I am hoping that Congress has enough of a backbone not to lift the sanctions on Iran. The only reason Iran came to the negotiating table in the first place was that they were being negatively impacted by the sanctions against them. Once Iran came to the negotiating table, Secretary of State John Kerry‘s negotiating skills went home. The Iranian nuclear deal as it is currently written is a short path to war in the Middle East. It is ironic that as bad as the deal actually is, Iran is making no pretense of keeping it.

Unless The Republicans Develop A Backbone, America Is Poised To Become The Largest Sponsor Of Terrorism In The World

Yes, you read that right. If the economic sanctions on Iran are lifted, $100 billion will flow to Iran (according to npr). A large percentage of that money will go toward funding terrorism around the world. The Republicans had the power to stop this from happening, but got outmaneuvered by President Obama and his allies.

Andrew McCarthy posted an article at National Review today about the Iran deal.

The article details the mistakes those opposed to the deal have made which will make it very difficult to undo the damage the nuclear deal will do:

On Thursday, Senate Democrats successfully filibustered a Republican attempt to pass a futile “resolution of disapproval” against the Iran deal. Republicans had already forfeited their power to suspend the Corker review process. They would have been justified in suspending it because Obama failed to comply with the statute’s fundamental condition — the mandate that he disclose the whole agreement to Congress, including embarrassing “side deals” the administration has withheld. (These undeniably include understandings between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency on the critical issue of inspections; they probably also include commitments by Obama to protect several nations from “snapback” sanctions when, inevitably, Iran violates the agreement.)

Under Corker, which not only rigged the vote in Obama’s favor but also gave Democrats the option to prevent the vote by filibuster, the failed resolution authorized Obama to relieve sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program. The mullahs will get their cool $100 billion and double down — no, quintuple down — on their promotion of jihadist terrorism.

Here’s the “I told you so” part: No sooner had the Democratic filibuster succeeded than did two well-regarded legal scholars take to the pages of The Atlantic to pronounce that Obama’s Iran deal is the law of the land. Yale’s Bruce Ackerman and New York University’s David Golove contend that the agreement cannot be unilaterally repudiated by a future Republican president, no matter how much GOP congressional leaders and 2016 hopefuls bloviate to the contrary.

This conclusion will shape bipartisan conventional wisdom in Washington and the chattering class. And guess what? The progressive professors have a strong case because of the way the Corker law was written by GOP congressional leaders (in consultation with their Democratic counterparts and the White House). Corker’s law is quite plausibly interpreted as authorizing a full repeal of the sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program — meaning they could not be reinstated absent new legislation (which the Democrats and the “international community” would vigorously oppose). Certainly the odds are good that the federal courts would see it that way. (Did I mention that Senate Republicans have already confirmed over 300 Obama appointees to the bench?)

It is time for new Senate leadership. This Senate has allowed something to happen that is truly dangerous for America and for the rest of the world. I believe that what President Obama has agreed to in the Iran deal is treason and he should be impeached for it. Any Senator who voted in favor of the Iran deal should also be impeached for treason, and the Senators who allowed this to happen should be voted out of office for stupidity. The Iran lobby paid for this vote (rightwinggranny), and they will get their money’s worth (and more). The world will have to live with the consequences of lifting the sanctions–more terror, more refugees, more deaths, and eventually a nuclear Iran. Please remember this when you vote next November.

Showing My Cynicism

The Hill is reporting today that New York Senator Charles Schumer will not support President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. Sorry about my cynicism, but I suspect that decision was made after a careful calculation that the treaty would be approved without his vote. I also expect that if enough Democrats refuse to support the treaty and Senator Schumer‘s vote is needed, he will somehow have a change of heart. Nevertheless, The Hill is reporting that he will not support the treaty.

Meanwhile, Fox News reported yesterday:

The shadowy Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani recently visited Moscow to meet with senior Russian leaders, according to two Western intelligence sources, despite a travel ban and U.N. Security Council resolutions barring him from leaving Iran. 

On July 24, one week before Secretary of State John Kerry testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee and faced questions about the newly struck nuclear deal, Soleimani arrived in Moscow for meetings with Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and President Vladimir Putin. It was not immediately clear what the Iranian leader discussed, but the revelation comes as the United Nations and European Union arms embargo against Iran is slated to be lifted in five years as part of the comprehensive nuclear agreement announced July 14 from Vienna. 

No Senator who takes his Oath of Office seriously can honestly vote for the Iranian treaty. However, I suspect it will pass. Democrats tend to stick together, even when it involves jumping off a cliff.

Where Do We Go From Here?

The nuclear deal with Iran is awful. Just as the nuclear deal with North Korea paved the way for North Korea to get nuclear weapons, the nuclear deal with Iran will pave the way for Iran to get nuclear weapons. Because the agreement will go to the United Nations (where it will pass) before it goes to the United States Senate, there will be immense pressure on Senators to agree to the deal. That’s where we were yesterday, but this is today. The deal is getting even worse.

Breitbart.com, is reporting today that now that the deal is on its way to approval., Iran would like to rewrite it. This would be comical if it were not a serious matter.

The article reports:

On Saturday, the Fars News Agency reported that the Majlis threatened to reject the agreement’s provision on ballistic missiles, which call for an international embargo on missile technology to be extended for eight years–a significant, last-minute concession by the U.S.

Iran wants unrestricted ballsitic missile development and access to conventional arms dealers abroad.

“The parliament will reject any limitations on the country’s access to conventional weapons, specially ballistic missiles,” said Tehran MP Seyed Mehdi Hashemi.

In addition, the nuclear deal says that the Majlis will ratify the Additional Protocol (AP) to the Non-Proliferation Treaty–but it does not say when.

The AP is the key to long-term monitoring of Iranian nuclear research and development by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Without approval of the AP, Iran may hide key information about its nuclear activity, and may accelerate advanced centrifuge research immediately when the nuclear deal expires, among other hazards. (Even then, its commitments under the AP will be somewhat voluntary.)

Meanwhile, the economic sanctions will be lifted on Iran so that they can resume supporting terrorism around the world. We have been snookered.

Sometimes The Logic Just Escapes Me

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article today about the nuclear deal with Iran. The article cites an interview on the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) were Secretary of State Kerry stated that Iran won’t use the money to support terrorism because it isn’t “allowed” to do so. He then clarified that there is nothing about this in the nuclear deal, but that existing U.N. resolutions prohibit Iran from supporting Hezbollah and other terrorists.

The article points out:

But wait! Existing U.N. resolutions also prohibit Iran from producing nuclear bombs. If all it takes to stop Iran is a U.N. resolution, why does the administration think we need the current agreement?

Please follow the link above to Power Line to watch the interview.

The article reports:

Kerry went on to add that Iran has significant domestic needs, including rebuilding its oil infrastructure. He suggested that the mullahs will put the money to such peaceful uses. I agree that some of the windfall will no doubt be spent domestically. But that is the other half of the problem: the billions in cash, plus the economic relief that will continue to flow from the removal of sanctions, will validate the mullahs’ policies and entrench their power. We should be trying to get the mullahs turned out, not helping them to perpetuate their rule.

The problem with Iran going nuclear is that the mullahs are in control of the country. They do not represent a government that is willing to live at peace with all of their neighbors. It is ironic that the Iranian government has done more to unite many of the Arab countries with Israel that diplomacy could ever do.

 

The Beginning Of A Middle Eastern Nuclear Arms Race

The signing of a nuclear agreement with Iran will mark the beginning of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Countries such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt understand Iran’s desire to build a world-wide caliphate under Sharia Law. The also understand that the possession of a nuclear weapon by Iran will help make that possible. Israel has had nuclear weapons for a long time, but has never been a threat to its neighbors–Israel has always made it clear that its nuclear weapons (which they only recently admitted having) are for defensive purposes only. Considering the neighborhood they live in, it is probably a really good thing for them to have nuclear weapons.

There will be two major changes in the Middle East as a result of this agreement. The first is that within a fairly short time, Saudi Arabia will become a nuclear power. I suspect Egypt will not be far behind. The second result is that Iran will now have the money to buy the delivery system for the nuclear bomb that they will build within the next few years (despite this agreement). We have seen this play before–it resulted in North Korea going nuclear. We have not learned the lessons of history.

Here are some quotes from various news sources on the treaty:

From PJMedia:

This deal is an historic disaster. Not only does it legitimize Iran’s nuclear program, but it goes far to confer legitimacy on Iran’s regime — the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. For the U.S., it’s a variation of running up massive U.S. government debt, and leaving the next American president — as well as America’s people, and our allies — to face the real cost. Which in this case involves nuclear weapons.

From Yahoo News:

President Hassan Rouhani told Iranians in a live televised address that “all our objectives” have been met by a nuclear deal agreed on Tuesday with world powers.

In doing so he said “God has accepted the nation’s prayers”, and the accord would lift “inhumane and tyrannical sanctions” that have caused years of economic distress to people and businesses.

From CBN News:

The agreement leaves Iran’s nuclear facilities intact and allows it to continue to enrich uranium, a deal that satisfied its leaders.

Iran also achieved its most sought-after reward: lifting economic sanctions. The economic benefits are potentially massive. It stands to receive more than $100 billion in assets frozen overseas and an end to a European oil embargo and various financial restrictions on Iranian banks.

 We will wait and see if Congress and the United Nations approve this deal, I hope they do not, but I am not optimistic. This is not a step toward peace–it is step toward war.

 

The Need For Sanity In The Negotiations With Iran

Scott Johnson posted an article at Power Line today about the ongoing negotiations with Iran. There is a June 30 deadline for some sort of agreement to be reached. It is a good idea to keep in mind that a nuclear treaty with Iran would be seen by President Obama as the crowning accomplishment of his second term of office. To put this in perspective, it might be a good idea to remember that President Obama considered Obamacare to be the crowning accomplishment of his first term of office. We have seen how that worked out.

President Obama is desperate for a deal with Iran. Unfortunately, Iran is well aware of that fact. The concessions made to Iran have passed ridiculous and are moving forward to dangerous.

The article at Power Line reports:

The Associated Press got ahold of one of the five secret annexes being worked on ahead of a final deal between the P5+1 global powers and Iran. This one – titled “Civil Nuclear Cooperation” – details a range of nuclear technology that various members of the P5+1 will be obligated to provide Iran, including “high-tech reactors and other state-of-the-art equipment.” The draft that the AP saw wasn’t finalized, and so some of the concessions are subject to change.

As the annex is written right now, however, this is no longer a deal to stop the Iranian nuclear program. It’s a deal to let the Iranians perfect their nuclear program with international assistance and under international protection.

Are we nuts? Someone needs to stop this runaway train before it puts the entire world at risk.

The article concludes:

Imagine that 15 years from now the Iranians have built a dozen LWRs (light-water reactors) with help from a P5+1 nation. One concern is indeed that they’ll kick out inspectors, keep the spent fuel, and start reprocessing on the way to creating a plutonium bomb. But a more subtle concern is that they will use the existence of the LWRs as a pretext for industrial-scale uranium enrichment – because they’ll say they need the uranium fuel for their plutonium plants – which can serve as a cover for breaking out with a uranium bomb. The P5+1 would be actively providing the Iranians with diplomatic leverage to use against the P5+1 in the future. The answer to this latter concern is that the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) sunset clause already allows the Iranians to have an industrial-scale uranium enrichment program that can serve as a cover for breaking out with a uranium bomb. I’m not sure the administration wants to overemphasize that point.

Please follow the above link to read the entire article. It is chilling to think of where these negotiations are headed.

Desperation Is Never A Good Thing In Negotiations

On Monday, the Center for Security Policy posted an article about the ongoing negotiations with Iran over Iran’s nuclear policy. The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) released a report on June 11 on the status of the negotiations.

The article reports:

The deadlock stems from Tehran’s refusal to permit inspections of military facilities or answer questions about past nuclear-weapons-related work (known as “possible military dimensions” or PMD in U.N.-speak). With the clock ticking down on a June 30 deadline for a nuclear agreement, the refusal of Iranian leaders to budge on these issues has become a political problem for President Obama, who said in April that Iran has agreed to “the most robust and intrusive inspections and transparency regime ever negotiated for any nuclear program in history.” Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes has said the nuclear agreement will allow “anytime, anywhere inspections of any and every Iranian facility.”

Unfortunately, Iran has not been willing to agree to those inspections. In desperation, the Obama Administration has begun making concessions.

The article reports some of those concessions:

• The United States has proposed to close the International Atomic Energy Agency’s PMD dossier and forgo actual IAEA inspections of suspect Iranian nuclear facilities.

• Instead, the IAEA would conduct token inspections of a handful of nuclear sites — including two military sites — and question several senior Iranian military officials.

• Inspections of Iranian nuclear sites after the token inspections would be limited to declared facilities.

• Undeclared and suspect nuclear-weapons sites would be monitored through intelligence means.

MEMRI, a well-regarded think tank in Washington, D.C., sourced its report to statements cited in the Iranian press from Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister and head nuclear negotiator, and Hamid Baidinejad, another Iranian nuclear negotiator. Araghchi reportedly said the Iranian negotiating team agreed to the proposed U.S. concession, but the plan was subsequently rejected by Supreme Leader Khamenei and triggered harsh criticism of Iranian officials in the so-called pragmatic camp. Baidinejad claimed the Iranian negotiating team rejected the proposed U.S. concession but agreed to an American request to present it to Khamenei anyway, who rejected it outright.

Somewhere in this charade, we need to remember that Iran is neither our friend or an honest negotiator. Iranian weapons have been killing our soldiers in the Middle East since 2001. Why in the world should we believe that they are at all interested in bringing peace to the region? We need to increase the sanctions on Iran until they stop exporting terrorism around the world.

Making A Deal Is Not Always The Right Answer

John Podhoretz posted an article in Tuesday’s New York Post about the nuclear deal that some western countries are attempting to negotiate with Iran. Unfortunately, President Obama does not seem to be much of a negotiator.

The article reports:

As the June 30 deadline for the Iran nuclear deal approaches, President Obama is putting all his cards on the table — by announcing he is keeping no cards in his hand.

In an astonishing interview with Israel’s Channel 2, the president declared that “the best way to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon is a verifiable, tough, agreement.

“A military solution will not fix it, even if the United States participates. It would temporarily slow down an Iranian nuclear program, but it would not eliminate it.”

Why is this astonishing? Because Obama is publicly eliminating any American possibility that we will bomb Iran’s nuclear sites even if the deal in which he has invested so much collapses.

Last week at a Washington synagogue, the President stated, “Iran must not, under any circumstances, be allowed to get a nuclear weapon.” The most recent statement, posted above, contradicts the previous statement.

Unfortunately, the deal that is currently being negotiated will allow Iran to be a nuclear power by 2028. The only way that would not be a problem is if there were a regime change in Iran between now and then. Since the President refused to aid an attempted regime change a few years ago, it is a fairly safe bet that there will not be another attempt (most of the people involved in the previous attempt are either in prison or dead).

Unfortunately, the only way to stop Iran from going nuclear is to bomb its reactors. Since they are building more as we speak and putting them under mountains, that will be a difficult, although not impossible, task. Our best bet would be to give the Israelis the weapons they need and turn them loose. There are a number of other countries in the Middle East that would be grateful to Israel for bombing Iran’s reactors (although they might not be able to say so publicly). Meanwhile, we are faced with a President, desperate for an agreement, who is giving away the store.

Playing Politics With National Security

The topic of discussion right now is the nuclear deal reached with Iran. What is needed is an open, honest discussion about what the deal does and what it doesn’t do. What we are getting is political garbage.

Townhall.com posted an article today which perfectly illustrates what has happened to honest debate in America.

The article reports:

Regardless of bipartisan opposition, the White House is pinning opposition and criticism of the current deal and process on Republicans. The administration is painting Republican concerns as illegitimate while at the same time entertaining the same concerns of “principled” Democrats.

“My view is that there are a number of members of Congress that have considered this in a principled way. And those are members of Congress with whom we can have legitimate conversations about our efforts to try and prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” Earnest (Josh Earnest, White House Press Secretary). said Monday afternoon. “There are a substantial number of members of Congress, all of them Republicans as far as I can tell, who have engaged in an effort to just undermine the talks from the very beginning.” 

These are the sort of remarks that make cooperation between the political parties very difficult. Voters who are thoughtfully considering issues will view these statements as one more reason to tune out Washington.

This really is not the way to run a country.

This Seems To Be A Rather Unagreeable Agreement

Yesterday the Washington Free Beacon posted an article about the nuclear agreement reached with Iran.

The article reports:

Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif accused the Obama administration of misleading the American people and Congress in a fact sheet it released following the culmination of negotiations with the Islamic Republic.

Zarif bragged in an earlier press conference with reporters that the United States had tentatively agreed to let it continue the enrichment of uranium, the key component in a nuclear bomb, as well as key nuclear research.

Zarif additionally said Iran would have all nuclear-related sanctions lifted once a final deal is signed and that the country would not be forced to shut down any of its currently operating nuclear installations.

Following a subsequent press conference by Secretary of State John Kerry—and release of a administration fact sheet on Iranian concessions—Zarif lashed out on Twitter over what he dubbed lies.

Zarif has told reporters that the agreement allows Iran to continue its nuclear program.

It seems the only concession made in the negotiations was that the sanctions on Iran would be lifted. I don’t see any evidence that Iran gave up anything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Will Moving The Goalposts End Any Possibility Of A Deal?

Yesterday the Washington Free Beacon reported that negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program have bogged down over the issue of Iran’s stockpiles of enriched nuclear materials. Evidently at one point in the negotiations, Iran was willing to have those stockpiles shipped outside the country to Russia, but now Iran has changed its mind.

The article reports:

“The export of stocks of enriched uranium is not in our program, and we do not intend sending them abroad,” Abbas Araqchi, an Iranian negotiator and diplomat, was quoted as telling the country’s state-run press. “There is no question of sending the stocks abroad.”

A subsequent New York Times article claiming that discussions over the issue have hit a wall in the last day prompted the State Department to reveal that negotiations over the export of uranium have been stuck for quite some time.

“Contrary to the report in the New York Times, the issue of how Iran’s stockpile would be disposed of had not yet been decided in the negotiating room, even tentatively,” a senior State Department official told the Free Beacon on Monday. “There is no question that disposition of their stockpile is essential to ensuring the program is exclusively peaceful.”

The article also reports that the current roadblock represents a change in what Iran was willing to negotiate:

One source familiar with the talks told the Free Beacon that the Obama administration had been promising members of Congress that Iran would consent to export its uranium.

“Administration officials told lawmakers they’d get the Iranians to make a concession, then the Iranians refused to make that concession, and now the State Department is pretending they never expected anything anyway,” said the source.

“The White House briefed lawmakers and told them the Iranians were willing to ship out their stockpile,” the source said. “That was the whole justification for jacking up centrifuge numbers to 6,000. State Department spokespeople are basically gaslighting reporters by pretending otherwise.”

A second source in Europe familiar with the breakdown in discussions over the issue told the Free Beacon that Iran had previously expressed a willingness to export its uranium.

It is quite possible that Iran has concluded that President Obama is so desperate for an agreement that he will agree to anything. It is also quite possible that Iran figures that it will have enough time to complete its construction of at least one nuclear weapon before any sort of sanctions are placed on its economy. Neither option is particularly good. We need to remember that when Iran builds a nuclear weapon, peace in the Middle East will become highly unlikely. Iran without nuclear weapons has constantly taken actions to destabilize the region (and unfortunately to kill Americans in the region). We also need to remember that during these negotiations an American citizen, Pastor Saeed Abedini, has been kept in an Iranian prison because of his Christian faith. It is really unfortunate that the current leadership of America does not even have enough power to get one citizen out of a foreign prison.

 

An Insider Speaks About The Iranian Negotiations

Scott Johnson at Power Line posted an article yesterday about the Iranian nuclear negotiations. Basically, the article says that the talks are going forward and there will be some sort of accord before April Fool’s Day (it would be more appropriate for the agreement to arrive on April Fool’s Day).

The article has a few interesting observations:

So far as we can tell, the Obama administration has capitulated to every significant demand made by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Negotiations that were premised on the objective of foreclosing Iran’s path to nuclear weapons will produce an agreement that finances and facilitates them. As Winston Churchill said of the Munich Agreement, “we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road.”

Unlike the British in 1938, however, most of us have our eyes open. We are not fooled by Hassan Rouhani or the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran. We do not share the vision of the Supreme Leader of the United States

One surprise in the negotiations was the defection of Amir Hossein Mottaghi, a close media aide to Iranian President Rouahani. He traveled to Switzerland to cover the nuclear talks and is now seeking political asylum there.

The article article reports:

Mottaghi appeared on an Iranian opposition television channel based in London. In his television interview, Mottaghi nicely summed up the negotiations: “The US negotiating team are mainly there to speak on Iran’s behalf with other members of the 5+1 countries and convince them of a deal.”

Sometimes truth comes from very unusual places.

This Does Nothing To Make The World Safer

President Obama’s dislike for Prime Minister Netanyahu is no secret, but some of the actions taken by the Obama Administration toward Israel are petty and dangerous to the world.

Yesterday IsraelNationalNews reported the following:

In a development that has largely been missed by mainstream media, the Pentagon early last month quietly declassified a Department of Defense top-secret document detailing Israel’s nuclear program, a highly covert topic that Israel has never formally announced to avoid a regional nuclear arms race, and which the US until now has respected by remaining silent.

But by publishing the declassified document from 1987, the US reportedly breached the silent agreement to keep quiet on Israel’s nuclear powers for the first time ever, detailing the nuclear program in great depth.

America is supposed to be an ally of Israel. This is not something you do to a friend.

The article concludes:

Aside from nuclear capabilities, the report revealed Israel at the time had “a totally integrated effort in systems development throughout the nation,” with electronic combat all in one “integrated system, not separated systems for the Army, Navy and Air Force.” It even acknowledged that in some cases, Israeli military technology “is more advanced than in the U.S.”

Declassifying the report comes at a sensitive timing as noted above, and given that the process to have it published was started three years ago, that timing is seen as having been the choice of the American government.

US journalist Grant Smith petitioned to have the report published based on the Freedom of Information Act. Initially the Pentagon took its time answering, leading Smith to sue, and a District Court judge to order the Pentagon to respond to the request.

Smith, who heads the Institute for Research: Middle East Policy, reportedly said he thinks this is the first time the US government has officially confirmed that Israel is a nuclear power, a status that Israel has long been widely known to have despite being undeclared.

Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. It is the only place where women have equal rights with men. It is one of the few places where all religions are free to practice their faith. It is the country in the Middle East most closely aligned with America in terms of values and form of government. Israel is an ally America needs, not the other way around. If President Obama continues down the road he is currently on, Israel will form alliances with other Middle Eastern countries and America will be shut out of the region. President Obama is building an alliance with Iran as the other countries in the area are feeling seriously threatened by Iran’s nuclear program. Diplomatically this will be a disaster for America.

The Importance Of Preventing A Nuclear Iran

The 47 Republican Senators who signed the open letter stating that the Senate needs to ratify any treaties that will be binding on the next administration are not the only people worried about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. On Wednesday The Wall Street Journal reported that Saudi Arabia has signed a nuclear cooperation agreement with South Korea.

The article explains the consequences of Iran going nuclear:

That agreement, along with recent comments from Saudi officials and royals, is raising concerns on Capitol Hill and among U.S. allies that a deal with Iran, rather than stanching the spread of nuclear technologies, risks fueling it.

Saudi Arabia’s former intelligence chief, Prince Turki al-Faisal, a member of the royal family, has publicly warned in recent months that Riyadh will seek to match the nuclear capabilities Iran is allowed to maintain as part of any final agreement reached with world powers. This could include the ability to enrich uranium and to harvest the weapons-grade plutonium discharged in a nuclear reactor’s spent fuel.

Several U.S. and Arab officials have voiced concerns about a possible nuclear-arms race erupting in the Middle East, spurred on by Saudi Arabia’s regional rivalry with Iran, which has been playing out in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen in recent months.

Essentially, if the Shiite Muslims have a bomb, the Sunni Muslims also want a bomb.

The article further reports:

A U.S. diplomatic cable from December 2007, published by WikiLeaks, quoted Pakistan officials saying it was “logical for the Saudis to step in as the physical ‘protector’ ” of Sunni countries in response to the threat posed by Iran, a Shiite-majority nation. Saudi Arabia, unlike Egypt, another Arab power, has the finances to develop a nuclear-weapons arsenal, the Pakistanis argue.

Evidently the Saudis have no more confidence in the Obama Administration’s ability to negotiate a treaty with Iran that will actually stop their nuclear program than the 47 Senators who signed the letter. I think the fact that the Saudis are pursuing an atomic bomb of their own tells us all we need to know about the treaty President Obama is negotiating.

Common Sense On Iran

Charles Krauthammer posted an article at the National Review on Friday about some of the information that has been leaked out about the upcoming nuclear treaty with Iran.

The article reminds us of the relationship between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA):

Yet so thoroughly was Iran stonewalling International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors that just last Thursday the IAEA reported its concern “about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed . . . development of a nuclear payload for a missile.”

 Iran is not negotiating in good faith–Iran is stalling for enough time to complete their work on an atomic bomb–at that point the negotiations will be moot.

Joel C. Rosenberg posted an article on his blog yesterday entitled, “The biggest threat now is not Radical Islam. It is “Apocalyptic Islam.”” The article includes excerpts from his speech to the National Religious Broadcasters Convention.

Mr. Rosenberg states:

The most serious threat we face in the Middle East and North Africa is what I call “Apocalyptic Islam.”

This term — “Apocalyptic Islam” — is one that each of needs to become familiar with and begin to teach others. Why? Because for the first time in all of human history, we have not just one but two nation states whose rulers are driven not by political ideology — or even mere religious theology — but by apocalyptic, genocidal End Times eschatology.

The Islamic Republic of Iran today is ruled by an apocalyptic, genocidal death cult. (see also here, here and here)

So is the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL. (see here and here)

The former are Shia. The latter are Sunni. Both believe the End of days has come. Both believe their messiah – known as the “Mahdi” — is coming at any moment. Both are trying to hasten the coming of the Mahdi. Yet each has entirely different strategies to hasten his arrival or appearance on earth.

ISIS wants to build a caliphate. Iran wants to build The Bomb. ISIS is committing genocide now. Iran is preparing to commit genocide later.

Part of the doctrine of this form of Islam is that the coming of the Mahdi can be hastened by causing chaos around the world. Therefore there is no reluctance to cause harm to innocent people.

Mr. Rosenberg concludes:

These facts have real-world implications. Our President and many policy-makers are ignoring both the facts and their implications. But we must be clear: we face a threat from Radical Islam which seeks to attack us. We face an even greater threat from Apocalyptic Islam which seeks to annihilate us.

 The article at the National Review looks at President Obama’s history in dealing with Iran:

Wasn’t Obama’s great international cause a nuclear-free world? Within months of his swearing-in, he went to Prague to so declare. He then led a 50-party Nuclear Security Summit, one of whose proclaimed achievements was having Canada give up some enriched uranium.

 Having disarmed the Canadian threat, Obama turned to Iran. The deal now on offer to the ayatollah would confer legitimacy on the nuclearization of the most rogue of rogue regimes: radically anti-American, deeply jihadist, purveyor of terrorism from Argentina to Bulgaria, puppeteer of a Syrian regime that specializes in dropping barrel bombs on civilians. In fact, the Iranian regime just this week, at the apex of these nuclear talks, staged a spectacular attack on a replica U.S. carrier near the Strait of Hormuz.

Well, say the administration apologists, what’s your alternative? Do you want war?

It’s Obama’s usual, subtle false-choice maneuver: It’s either appeasement or war.

The article at National Review reminds us that Congress has the power to put in place economic sanctions on Iran. He also suggests that the United States make it clear that we will not stand in the way of any country willing to take the problem of Iran’s nuclear program into its own hands.

The article at the National Review concludes:

Consider where we began: six U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding an end to Iranian enrichment. Consider what we are now offering: an interim arrangement ending with a sunset clause that allows the mullahs a robust, industrial-strength, internationally sanctioned nuclear program.

Such a deal makes the Cuba normalization look good and the Ukrainian cease-fires positively brilliant. We are on the cusp of an epic capitulation. History will not be kind.

 This is one of those times in American History where the survival of our nation depends on Congress having a backbone. I don’t find that encouraging.

 

Something To Ponder As The Cry For War Gets Louder

ISIS is a horrible organization. They kill innocent people, and they are barbarians. I don’t think too many people will argue that. However, the American public is being manipulated, and we need to look past the obvious.

If America begins to fight ISIS, we will be (intentionally or otherwise) aligning ourselves with Iran. Remember them. They are the people who routinely take Americans prisoner (Pastor Saeed Abedini is an American citizen). Iran kills homosexuals, imprisons Christians, and has been responsible for much of the unrest in the Middle East. Iran’s goal is to set up a Shiite caliphate in the Middle East under their control. The goal of ISIS is to set up a Sunni caliphate in the Middle East under their control.

President Obama is becoming concerned about his legacy (that usually does happen in the last two years of any president’s term). ObamaCare is looking a little shaky, and the rest of the world doesn’t look too stable either. A treaty with Iran would at least be something he could point to as an achievement (it wouldn’t be, but he could point to it). There are some obstacles–how do you get said treaty past Congress (the Senate is supposed to approve treaties, and even Democrats don’t like some of the things already revealed about this one), and how do you sell a treaty that allows Iran to go nuclear to the American public (who are not total idiots)? This is the way you do this. The media begins to play up the atrocities of ISIS and how horrible they are (they are, but that is not the point right now). The media conveniently overlooks the atrocities committed by Iran and convinces the American people that Iran is not the same country that took over the American Embassy in 1978. It’s a stretch, but the media is good at creating and rehabilitating images.

You need to prevent Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu from coming to America and telling Congress the truth about Iran. If you can’t prevent that from happening, you at least need to get enough Democrats out of the Capitol at the time so that they will not know what he said (and will vote for a treaty allowing Iran to go nuclear).

This is where we are. To fight ISIS is to support Iran. To support Iran is to ignore our relationship with Israel, our strongest and most reliable ally in the Middle East. It will be interesting to see if the media campaign around this war on ISIS works.

Extending Nuclear Talks With Iran Was A Mistake

Reza Kahlili is a pseudonym for a former CIA operative in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and author of the award winning book “A Time to Betray” (Simon & Schuster, 2010). He serves on the Task Force on National and Homeland Security and the advisory board of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran (FDI).

He posted an article at the Daily Caller yesterday about the ongoing nuclear talks with Iran that have been taking place in Geneva since 2006. The talks reached an interim agreement when the sanctions placed on Iran began to take a toll on the Iranian economy. Many of those sanctions have been loosened, and Iran has been allowed to continue on its merry way of developing nuclear weapons capable of reaching all of the Middle East, Europe, and America.

The article reports:

Instead, the regime has adopted a policy of “elongation” with the 5+1 nations in which it strings along the United States, France, Britain, Russia, China and Germany as it develops nuclear weapons, wrote Alireza Forghani.

Forghani is a senior analyst and strategy specialist in the supreme leader’s camp and closely aligned with Mehdi Taeb, who heads the regime’s Ammar Strategic Base, a radical think thank, and thus speaks with the blessing of the Islamic regime.

“Elongation” is Iran’s sole doctrine, Forghani wrote, in which the Geneva negotiations between the P5+1 and Iran were “never supposed to be brought to a successful conclusion … whether positive or negative.” Those talks began in 2006 and have been extended several times as one deadline after another failed to produce a comprehensive agreement. The two sides agreed on Nov. 24 to yet another deadline extension, this time to June 30, 2015.

Forghani warned that soon he will promote the slogan “Nuclear weapon is our definite right,” and that there will be people in the streets demanding a nuclear-armed Iran. He also promised the destruction of Israel, which he claimed “is exactly what Almighty God wants.”

So far, Iran has gotten all of the concessions it has wanted from the western powers. It is following the path that North Korea followed in order to become a nuclear power. Frankly, I don’t think the fact that either of those two countries have nuclear weapons makes anyone safer.

I believe that one of the reasons Iran has been so bold about keeping its centrifuges is that it does not fear an attack by Israel. The conventional wisdom is that American pressure is preventing that attack. However, I also believe that if America turns its back on Israel in any way, Israel will deal with Iran’s nuclear program. I also believe that America is already in the process of turning its back on Israel.

The nuclear talks have been extended until June 2015. It is a reasonably safe assumption that Iran agreed to that deadline because they expect their nuclear program to be up and running before that deadline. At that point, Iran will be a nuclear nation and the talks will be moot.

The article further reports:

As reported in April 2012, an analysis by Mohammad Mohammadi, an Iranian international affairs and nuclear program analyst, concluded that the country no longer needs to compromise with the U.S.

“It is quite clear that when we watch the current arguments between America and Israel over Iran, the Obama administration is quite confused,” Mohammadi said in the Keyhan newspaper, an outlet under Khamenei’s direct supervision.

In his article, titled “The Lessons from the Past for the Negotiations in April,” Mohammadi wrote: “Looking back at the past decade, all the red lines by America and the West over Iran’s nuclear issue have now been transformed into acceptance. America has always adopted radical actions at first that have changed to symbolic measures later. Iran has always known that America and the West needed a way to solve the nuclear issue with some honor, and today it is quite visible that with the defeat of America’s policies toward Iran, the talk about a need to solve the Iranian nuclear issue diplomatically is a way to obtain that honor.”

Another diplomatic victory for the Obama Administration.

Preventing Iran From Going Nuclear

The Debka File released a report today that there had been an explosion at Iran‘s Arak heavy water reactor last week. The government of Iran had attempted to keep the news of the explosion quiet.

The article reports that the Iranian Atomic Council is investigating four possible causes of the explosion:

1. Sabotage.
2. A virus planted in the computers that control the systems administering the test.
3. An error in engineering calculations in the design of the coolant containers which underestimated their strength for standing up to the required level of pressure.
4.  The deliberate sale to Iran of inferior steel materials that were not strong enough to withstand such pressure.

The article concludes:

Last August, Iran informed the nuclear watchdog that the test with real fuel would be the final one before the reactor entered its running-in stage. The damage caused by the explosion will have postponed that stage indefinitely.
The Arak reactor, known as IR-40 and designed for a capacity of 40 megawatt, is the cause of deep concern in Israel because it is capable of producing plutonium for use in nuclear bombs as an alternative to enriched uranium

Obviously I have no idea what caused this explosion. What I do know is that explosions at reactor sites are a much better way to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons that an actual attack on Iran.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why Do We Continue This Dance ?

Front Page Magazine posted an article today about the latest round of talks on the Iranian nuclear program.

The article quotes a recent New York Times article:

 [a] successful meeting could prolong the diplomatic dance with Tehran, delaying any possible military confrontation…until after the presidential election. It could also keep a lid on oil prices…. Lower gasoline prices would aid the economic recovery in the United States, and Mr. Obama’s electoral prospects.

Wow. Has it occurred to anyone that we have done this dance before? All Iran needs is time to complete its research and obtain nuclear weapons–we are giving them the time.

The article at Front Page Magazine quoted Amos Yadlin, formerly Israel’s chief of Military Intelligence. Speaking earlier this month at a conference of the Washington Institute in Virginia, he stated:

 nuclear Iran is more dangerous than attacking Iran.

If they can’t be contained when they don’t have nuclear weapon[s], how can they be contained when they do?…

I am sure they won’t launch a nuclear bomb the moment they get it, but the possibility [that] as a result of miscalculations and lack of stability, they will launch [a] nuclear missile—it’s not a possibility you can ignore. The flying time of a missile from Tehran to Tel Aviv is seven minutes and the temptation for a first strike is huge.

If you really want all options on the table, you need to be very credible with the military option.

Israel needs to be able to defend herself regardless of the price of oil or the coming elections. To block Israel from defending herself is extremely short-sighted. Has anyone considered what the world would look like after Iran went nuclear?

Israeli leaders understand the price of attacking Iran. On March 15, I had the privilege of hearing Marc Kahlberg speak at the Ahavath Torah Congregation in Stoughton, Massachusetts. Please see rightwinggranny.com for details.

Mr. Kahlberg spoke of the consequences of an Israeli attack on Iran and reminded his audience of Iran’s past behavior:

What are the dangers of Israel attacking Iran in order to end its nuclear program? In a war with Iran, Israel will probably have 20,000 fatalities, 100,000 injured, and one and a half to two million people suffering from trauma. If Iran has nukes, it will probably totally destroy Israel. Great choice. The other thing that was pointed out was that in dealing with the leaders of Iran, we are not dealing with people we can depend on to act rationally. There is a martyrdom aspect of the Iranian regime that does not make them rational when it comes to dealing with nuclear weapons. A regime that sends twelve-year old boys with keys around their necks to march into minefields to clear the mines (keys that were supposed to assure them the instant entrance to paradise when they were killed by the mines) should not be considered rational.

Sometimes negotiations are not the answer. An attack on Iran would create a lot of turmoil. It would make much more sense to undermine the current government to the point where it collapsed. The problem is not Iran going nuclear as much as it is the current government of Iran going nuclear. A few dozen targeted assassinations would probably also solve the problem.

UPDATE:

Since posting this, I have stumbled upon some interesting historic information. Israel has just formed a new coalition government–designed to bring more people together. Those were the actions Israel took just before the 1967 war,

The timeline for 1967 goes as follows:

In May 1967, Egypt evicted the UN observers from the Sinai Peninsula and began amassing forces there. On May 22, Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. On May 30, Jordan and Egypt signed a mutual defense pact as Iran began moving troops to the Israeli border. On June 1, Israel formed a national unity government. enlarging the cabinet and forming a united front. On June 5, Israel attacked the amassing Arab forces.

Stay tuned.

 

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Undefending America

The MIRV U.S. Peacekeeper missile, with the re...

Image via Wikipedia

Bill Gertz is well known for his books and articles on national defense. He posted an article yesterday at the Washington Free Beacon yesterday about the impact of President Obama’s policies on national security.

The article states:

President Obama has ordered the Pentagon to consider cutting U.S. strategic nuclear forces to as low as 300 deployed warheads—below the number believed to be in China’s arsenal and far fewer than current Russian strategic warhead stocks.

Pentagon and military planners were asked to develop three force levels for the U.S. arsenal of deployed strategic nuclear warheads: a force of 1,100 to 1,000 warheads; a second scenario of between 700 and 800 warheads; and the lowest level of between 300 and 400 warheads.

A congressional official said no president in the past ever told the Pentagon to conduct a review based on specific numbers of warheads.

This review is not based on world conditions, as in the past, but simply on numbers. According the the article, the drastic cuts have come under fire from senior military leaders, but there have been no public comments.

One retired Air Force General commented:

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney said even considering such deep strategic cuts is irrational.

“No sane military leader would condone 300 to 400 warheads for an effective nuclear deterrent strategy,” McInerney (Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney) told the Washington Free Beacon.

“Going down to 1000 to 1,100 is risky enough and frankly in today’s world, very risky. The purpose of our nuclear force structure is to deter any adversary from even thinking that they could minimize our attack options. Such thinking is very dangerous and will only encourage our adversaries to make bold decisions.”

A congressional official and former administration official familiar with the ongoing review said the bottom level warhead levels raise serious questions about whether a nuclear force that size would deter adversaries. It also would raise questions about so-called “extended deterrence,” the threat to use nuclear weapons against states like North Korea on behalf of allies like Japan.

The new strategic review reflects the president’s 2009 speech in Prague when he said the United States would pursue peace and security in a world “without nuclear weapons.”

I too would like to see a world without nuclear weapons, but I would also like to see a world where America is ready and able to defend herself and her friends.

The article concludes with the following comment:

Kenneth deGraffenreid, a former Reagan administration National Security Council official, said in an interview that the plans for sharp nuclear cuts are “part of the administration’s purposeful decline of American military power.”

The damage to nuclear forces is compounded by “massive reductions across the board in defense spending on conventional forces,” he said.

“Defense is the only part of government this administration is reducing,” he said. “There wasn’t a single dollar of stimulus money spent on defense.”

It’s time to elect a President who will defend America–both verbally and physically.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Common Sense From The Wall Street Journal

IAEA headquarters in Vienna, Austria. Photogra...

Image via Wikipedia

Today’s Wall Street Journal posted an article entitled, “If Iran Gets the Bomb.” The article reviews some of the history of Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons.

The article reminds us of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report released this week which stated that Iran seems to be on a structured path to building a nuclear weapon. The article reminds us of the December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate which claimed that Iran had ended its work on nuclear weapons on 2003, thus assuring that the Bush administration would take no action against Iran. I suspect that when historians review that report, they will wonder why Americans let party politics interfere with their national security.

The article points out:

The serious choice now before the Administration is between military strikes and more of the same. As the IAEA report makes painfully clear, more of the same means a nuclear Iran, possibly within a year.

The article then examines the consequences of various possible decisions. The writers point out that  “no war ever goes precisely as planned.” That applies to both boots-on-the-ground wars and aerial wars.

Iran’s going nuclear would trigger an arms race in the Middle East–the Saudis would want an atomic bomb, as would other countries. It is also a safe bet that a nuclear Iran would not hesitate to bully its neighbors. A nuclear Iran could seriously alter any stability in the Middle East that currently exists.

The article concludes:

Opponents of a pre-emptive strike say it would do no more than delay Iran’s programs by a few years. But something similar was said after Israel’s strike on Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981, without which the U.S. could never have stood up to Saddam after his invasion of Kuwait. In life as in politics, nothing is forever. But a strike that sets Iran’s nuclear programs back by several years at least offers the opportunity for Iran’s democratic forces to topple the regime without risking a wider conflagration.

No U.S. President could undertake a strike on Iran except as a last resort, and Mr. Obama can fairly say that he has given every resort short of war an honest try. At the same time, no U.S. President should leave his successor with the catastrophe that would be a nuclear Iran. A nuclear Iran on Mr. Obama’s watch would be fatal to more than his legacy.

Israel will not sit quietly and let Iran go nuclear. That fact needs to be considered as our government decides what America should do. There are only two rational solutions I have heard to Iran going nuclear–the first is to overthrow the current government and replace it with a secular democracy, the second is an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack by either America or Israel. Neither solution is guaranteed, but a solution is necessary.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta