American officials from both sides of the aisle have said for years that Iran with a nuclear weapon means unprecedented danger, and destruction, on scales never before experienced. The situation is even worse today, thanks to weakness in the White House, and the refusal of other nations—notably China and Russia—-to do anything about the threat. Consequently, Israel will be forced to act. We can only hope there is at least one testicle left on Capitol Hill sufficient to protect Israel, and the rest of the free world, when the backlash comes. Meanwhile, between the two columns below, one learns much about the present state of affairs, and about declining American prestige thanks to this naive and inexperienced administration. One can hope ‘crippling sanctions’ do the trick, but one doubts there is sufficient time either to institute them, or see them work. By our weakness, and by the weakness in Europe, our ally Israel is again placed in the horrendous Catch 22, but, Israel will act, as it must, because we failed to act these last 12 years.
by Clifford May 9.30.09
In 1981, Israeli leaders sent bombers to destroy Saddam Hussein’s nuclear reactor at Osirak. Rafael Eitan, then Israel’s Army Chief of Staff, is said to have explained the motivation succinctly: “The alternative is our destruction.”
Three decades later, the militant jihadist regime in Iran is developing nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them. It is also, not just coincidently, supporting terrorists groups abroad, facilitating the killing of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, vowing to wipe Israel off the map, and promising, in the longer term, “a world without America.”
It’s a plan — one that we will find a way to stop if we have learned anything from history. Both Presidents Bush and Obama have said it would be unacceptable for Iran’s current rulers to have their fingers on nuclear triggers. The reality, however, is that the Bush administration took no serious steps to prevent Tehran from making progress toward that goal, and it remains to be seen whether the Obama administration will bring change on this critical issue of national and international security.
Israel’s attack on Saddam’s nuclear facilities resulted in a chorus of international condemnation. Over time, however, minds changed. “(What) the Israelis did at Osirak in 1981 …in retrospect, was a really good thing,” President Bill Clinton later said, articulating what has become the consensus view on both the moderate left and the moderate right.
by Charles Krauthammer
Confusing ends and means, the Obama administration strives mightily for shows of allied unity, good feeling and pious concern about Iran’s nuclear program — whereas the real objective is stopping that program. This feel-good posturing is worse than useless, because all the time spent achieving gestures is precious time granted Iran to finish its race to acquire the bomb.
Don’t take it from me. Take it from Sarkozy, who could not conceal his astonishment at Obama’s naivete. On Sept. 24, Obama ostentatiously presided over the Security Council. With 14 heads of state (or government) at the table, with an American president at the chair for the first time ever, with every news camera in the world trained on the meeting, it would garner unprecedented worldwide attention.
Unknown to the world, Obama had in his pocket explosive revelations about an illegal uranium enrichment facility that the Iranians had been hiding near Qom. The French and the British were urging him to use this most dramatic of settings to stun the world with the revelation and to call for immediate action.
Obama refused. Not only did he say nothing about it, but, reports the Wall Street Journal (citing Le Monde), Sarkozy was forced to scrap the Qom section of his speech. Obama held the news until a day later — in Pittsburgh. I’ve got nothing against Pittsburgh (site of the G-20 summit), but a stacked-with-world-leaders Security Council chamber it is not.
Why forgo the opportunity? Because Obama wanted the Security Council meeting to be about his own dream of a nuclear-free world. The president, reports the New York Times citing “White House officials,” did not want to “dilute” his disarmament resolution “by diverting to Iran.”
Diversion? It’s the most serious security issue in the world. A diversion from what? From a worthless U.N. disarmament resolution?