Iran is a threat to the middle east, Israel, the world economy and to its own (mostly) innocent people. The Iran government has been rushing to build a nuclear weapon for the last few years and is finally within sight of their prize. In response, the Obama administration is "getting tough". On the list of possibilities are more sanctions and, as a last resort, military engagement.
If your reaction to this is "yea, right", then this article will make sense to you.
As was discussed in an earlier blog, the left gave away any chance to be taken seriously on this topic during the Iraq war. They gave up and headed for the safe ground of opposing anything Bush did or said. The Iraq war was costlier (in terms of lives, money and good will) than anyone predicted, so the left could look smart in opposition (and their constituents did them the favor of not noticing that most of them had voted for the war in the first place). And oppose, they did. At every turn and opportunity, without hesitation.
(As an aside, isn't it nice not to have Iraq to worry about? If things continue on this trajectory, within a generation Iraq could be a shining example of peace and prosperity in a troubled region. It could take the path of Japan after WWII and again contribute to the greater good.)
But the true cost of the left's immature and short sighted behavior is just becoming evident. When an opponent negotiator does not believe you will use your last resort, they will not believe or accept any of the ultimatums that come before it. Sure, Obama can probably get some tougher sanctions through the UN, but what do Iran's leaders care? They run a totalitarian regime with very little threat of a revolution. Under sanctions, the people will suffer, but not the leaders.
Also, remember that we have no "smoking gun" or hard evidence that Iran is building a nuclear weapon; it's all speculation. Would the Democrats ever allow CIA intelligence and bluster from the enemy to be a sufficient cause for a preemptive strike? No chance, not after the words that came out of their mouth after Iraq became difficult. Wouldn't they look foolish(er)?
Ideally, the left would have remained committed to winning the Iraq war and the west could have then turned its gaze to Iran - with the desired effect. Now, Obama lacks the fear factor and, whether he would actually use the military preemptively or not, the Iranian leadership believes their path to nuclear statehood is unobstructed.
I have heard a couple of commentators question the west's right to deny Iran a nuclear weapon: "Who are we to decide who gets nuclear weapons and who doesn't?" This statement boggles the mind. Iran's leadership supports terrorism in Lebanon, Iraq and Gaza. They deny basic human rights to their people. It's like saying convicted criminals deserve weapons just as much as the police.
A free, democratic Iran with a track record of being a good citizen of the world? Sure, they can have a nuclear arsenal without me writing a blog article about them. Today's Iran? Are you kidding?
Obama and the left have painted themselves into a corner. The irony is that their lack of credibility makes military conflict much more likely. If the threats don't work, it's all that's left.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I personally don't believe that Pres. Obama is truly concerned in an existential way with whether or not Iran gets nuclear weapon capability. If pressed, I think he would be more likely to be of the "who are we to tell them they can't have nukes". I think eventually he will strike a grand compromise with Iran - something like Nukes for Peace with Israel or something.
ReplyDeleteFrom your own James Madison:
ReplyDelete"A standing force, therefore, is a dangerous, at the same time that it may be a necessary, provision. On the smallest scale it has its inconveniences. On an extensive scale its consequences may be fatal. On any scale it is an object of laudable circumspection and precaution. A wise nation will combine all these considerations; and, whilst it does not rashly preclude itself from any resource which may become essential to its safety, will exert all its prudence in diminishing both the necessity and the danger of resorting to one which may be inauspicious to its liberties.
The clearest marks of this prudence are stamped on the proposed Constitution. The Union itself, which it cements and secures, destroys every pretext for a military establishment which could be dangerous. America united, with a handful of troops, or without a single soldier, exhibits a more forbidding posture to foreign ambition than America disunited, with a hundred thousand veterans ready for combat."