Standing Firm
A nuclear Iran is a concern for the world, and one which Senator Kerry professed to be the most grave danger confronting America. The question is, what would he do about it? Asked directly about it in the town hall debate, he completely ducked the issue.
Fortunately for the world, even if Kerry is elected President of the United States, somebody will do something about Iran. That somebody is Israel, and they have a very un-nuanced position: a nuclear Iran is not acceptable. Period. The LA Times has a great article today about Israel's take on the situation. The resolve shown by Israeli leaders is heartening.
Unfortunately, the United States is having trouble saying the same thing. I do not imagine an American doctrine moving any closer to this under a Kerry administration. Difficulty of a military operation. Would John Kerry commit U.S. forces to a complicated pre-emptive strike? If the strike is to be successful, it would have to be, in some respects, a surprise, or come with little warning, lest key equipment and facilities be moved and hidden elsewhere. We would need to rely on various intelligence services to know where to strike. Would Kerry rely on our intelligence, given his denigration of the CIA in recent months? Would Kerry proceed knowing we might miss some of it, and have the strike viewed as a failure? I think not.
Prospect of retaliation. Judging by the DNC talking point that our war in Iraq has done nothing but help OBL recruit terrorists, and that it has made us less safe, it seems unlikely that Kerry would discount the fallout (meant figuratively) of such a strike. Indeed, the prospect of a terrorist attack on the U.S., on his watch, in retaliation for his strike, would likely be enough to deter the would-be president from taking any action save the rhetorical.
International opinion. What more needs to be said? If Iran does not stop its nuclear program, and reaches a critical point in its weapons development where a pre-emptive strike is now-or-never, the right thing to do is take military action. Before it's too late. The problem, of course, is that international opinion will never support such action. Never. Would Kerry ruffle all those feathers that he so desperately wants to smoothe? It seems unimaginable he would do so.
Israel, however, would act. The next question becomes, what does Kerry do about that? Unfortunately, the likely answer will be for him to condemn Israel for doing what he would not. It will take no political courage to pile on Israel when the rest of the world does. If there were a half-dozen kids in a schoolyard taunting an old friend of yours, who grew up with you and who may have just saved your life, there's only one right thing to do: stand up for him. John Kerry would side with the bullies. Being popular is more important than being right, in the Kerry mindset.
What ground will Kerry have to stand on then when the Shahab missiles start raining down on Tel Aviv? If an Israeli strike is unwarranted, doesn't Iran have the right to retaliate and defend itself?
Initial support for Israel, in action or even in rhetoric, would lead to no such quandary. "They were right to do it, and if you touch them, you'll regret it," sends a more clear message.
It is urgent for the United States to send this message now. Before we get to such a point. Before brave Israelis and, doubtless, many innocent Iranians are killed because of a mixed message from America. Iraq didn't believe an invasion was coming because of a decade of empty threats. They pushed their luck. Thousands have died as a result. A clear message on Iran, with clear consequences, which will happen with or without international approval, is the only way to resolve the situation peacefully.
John Kerry's plan for Iran is for talks to beget talks, which may beget sanctions, which may beget talks or sanctions. Military action will simply not be on the table. And Iran will know it.
As much as I would love to see my beloved Red Sox win the coming World Series, if I could pick only one victory in the coming fortnight, I would choose Bush for president. It's too important.
Fortunately for the world, even if Kerry is elected President of the United States, somebody will do something about Iran. That somebody is Israel, and they have a very un-nuanced position: a nuclear Iran is not acceptable. Period. The LA Times has a great article today about Israel's take on the situation. The resolve shown by Israeli leaders is heartening.
Israel would much prefer a diplomatic agreement to shut down Iran's uranium enrichment program, but if it concluded that Tehran was approaching a "point of no return," it would not be deterred by the difficulty of a military operation, the prospect of retaliation or the international reaction, officials and analysts said.
Unfortunately, the United States is having trouble saying the same thing. I do not imagine an American doctrine moving any closer to this under a Kerry administration. Difficulty of a military operation. Would John Kerry commit U.S. forces to a complicated pre-emptive strike? If the strike is to be successful, it would have to be, in some respects, a surprise, or come with little warning, lest key equipment and facilities be moved and hidden elsewhere. We would need to rely on various intelligence services to know where to strike. Would Kerry rely on our intelligence, given his denigration of the CIA in recent months? Would Kerry proceed knowing we might miss some of it, and have the strike viewed as a failure? I think not.
Prospect of retaliation. Judging by the DNC talking point that our war in Iraq has done nothing but help OBL recruit terrorists, and that it has made us less safe, it seems unlikely that Kerry would discount the fallout (meant figuratively) of such a strike. Indeed, the prospect of a terrorist attack on the U.S., on his watch, in retaliation for his strike, would likely be enough to deter the would-be president from taking any action save the rhetorical.
International opinion. What more needs to be said? If Iran does not stop its nuclear program, and reaches a critical point in its weapons development where a pre-emptive strike is now-or-never, the right thing to do is take military action. Before it's too late. The problem, of course, is that international opinion will never support such action. Never. Would Kerry ruffle all those feathers that he so desperately wants to smoothe? It seems unimaginable he would do so.
Israel, however, would act. The next question becomes, what does Kerry do about that? Unfortunately, the likely answer will be for him to condemn Israel for doing what he would not. It will take no political courage to pile on Israel when the rest of the world does. If there were a half-dozen kids in a schoolyard taunting an old friend of yours, who grew up with you and who may have just saved your life, there's only one right thing to do: stand up for him. John Kerry would side with the bullies. Being popular is more important than being right, in the Kerry mindset.
What ground will Kerry have to stand on then when the Shahab missiles start raining down on Tel Aviv? If an Israeli strike is unwarranted, doesn't Iran have the right to retaliate and defend itself?
Initial support for Israel, in action or even in rhetoric, would lead to no such quandary. "They were right to do it, and if you touch them, you'll regret it," sends a more clear message.
It is urgent for the United States to send this message now. Before we get to such a point. Before brave Israelis and, doubtless, many innocent Iranians are killed because of a mixed message from America. Iraq didn't believe an invasion was coming because of a decade of empty threats. They pushed their luck. Thousands have died as a result. A clear message on Iran, with clear consequences, which will happen with or without international approval, is the only way to resolve the situation peacefully.
John Kerry's plan for Iran is for talks to beget talks, which may beget sanctions, which may beget talks or sanctions. Military action will simply not be on the table. And Iran will know it.
As much as I would love to see my beloved Red Sox win the coming World Series, if I could pick only one victory in the coming fortnight, I would choose Bush for president. It's too important.
Comments