Iâ€™m just curious, your last comment about being a defeatist on Iran is troubling. I agree with your cautious approach and analysis. â€œNuke â€˜em firstâ€ isnâ€™t an option, nor do I think The White House is seriously considering it.
But, your approach swings to the other extreme that by trying to stop them by force would incite a terrorist riot across the world. Is that outcome worse than the realistic possibility of a nuke going off in some major city within the next ten years?
In a rational world, this crisis should be played out along the lines of the Cuban Missile Crisis. What we donâ€™t know is how â€œrationalâ€ the other team is at this point. We know from historical hindsight that the Soviet Union was much more rational in their approach to a nuclear war. Can we say the same about Iran or a terrorist organization with a nuke?
Current day Iran has been trouble for years thanks to Jimmy Carter. The worse-case scenario would be for Iran to develop an arsenal of nukes and the reliable means to deliver them. Their status in regional and world affairs would explode exponentially. An Iranian conventional military buildup would soon follow. Within years, they would be moving into Iraq (with or without a US presents). Would they be rational enough not to use tactical nukes to capture Iraq?
I agree with a deliberate and cautious approach to handling Iran, but the worst-case scenario in my opinion is much, much worse that a ten fold increase in Islamic terrorism.
If you saw your peculiar acting, farm neighbor carry bags of ammonium-nitrate fertilizer, and gallons of diesel fuel into his barn from a rented moving van, would you call the police or close your blinds?Comment Posted By John Mc. On 13.04.2006 @ 14:10
Good points and comments. I think youâ€™ve covered it from a balanced and more realistic approach. I canâ€™t stand the liberals on the left with their heads in the sand, nor the right-wing conservatives screaming to nuke them now.
But, the one thing you failed to address is that the successful enrichment of uranium on a small scale is the red line that Israel said theyâ€™ve drawn. From published reports before Sharonâ€™s stroke, the Israelis do not want Iran to be able to move from small scale to industrial scale enrichment. Israel is not going to wait until they have the bomb, or even enough uranium to build one. As in 1981, once theyâ€™ve given up with UN diplomacy (which doesnâ€™t have a great success rate) all bets are off as to how they will attempt to stop Iran, and when.
What we in the public domain donâ€™t know is really how far along they are. Bloggers with the best background in nuclear physics can â€œpredictâ€ or â€œcalculateâ€ timelines, but the fact is we donâ€™t really know. If the Israeli Mossad determines they are farther along than previously feared, and the UN hasnâ€™t reached any kind of consensus, they will make some kind of attempt to stop Iran. History has always shown this. Their survival as a nation depends on preemption (Six Day War) as opposed to waiting to be attacked (Yom Kippur War).
Itâ€™s not so much that the US is the only country that can take action. Israel may be the ones who ultimately make the decision to strike, and no one should be too quick to cast them aside as irrelevant to the final outcome.Comment Posted By John Mc. On 13.04.2006 @ 09:58
Pages (1) :