Powered by WebAds

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

The righteous gentile

If he wasn't in it already, John Bolton, the former American ambassador to the United Nations and the conscience of the US foreign policy establishment, has just joined the 'righteous gentiles' club. In an article in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal, Bolton calls on the United States government to do the right thing: Support Israel if it attacks Iran (Hat Tip: Hot Air).
More sanctions today (even assuming, heroically, support from Russia and China) will simply be too little, too late. While regime change in Tehran would be the preferable solution, there is almost no possibility of dislodging the mullahs in time. Had we done more in the past five years to support the discontented – the young, the non-Persian minorities and the economically disaffected – things might be different. Regime change, however, cannot be turned on and off like a light switch, although the difficulty of effecting it is no excuse not to do more now.

That is why Israel is now at an urgent decision point: whether to use targeted military force to break Iran's indigenous control over the nuclear fuel cycle at one or more critical points. If successful, such highly risky and deeply unattractive air strikes or sabotage will not resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis. But they have the potential to buy considerable time, thereby putting that critical asset back on our side of the ledger rather than on Iran's.

With whatever time is bought, we may be able to effect regime change in Tehran, or at least get the process underway. The alternative is Iran with nuclear weapons, the most deeply unattractive alternative of all.

But the urgency of the situation has not impressed Barack Obama or the EU-3. Remarkably, on July 9, Sen. Obama, as if stumbling on a new idea, said Iran "must suffer threats of economic sanctions" and that we needed "direct diplomacy . . . so we avoid provocation" and "give strong incentives . . . to change their behavior." Javier Solana, chief EU negotiator, was at the time busy fixing a meeting with the Iranians to continue five years of doing exactly what Mr. Obama was proclaiming, without results.

John McCain responded to Iran's missile salvo by stressing again the need for a workable missile defense system to defend the U.S. against attacks by rogue states like Iran and North Korea. He is undoubtedly correct, highlighting yet another reason why November's election is so critical, given the unceasing complaints about missile defense from most Democrats.

Important as missile defense is, however, it is only a component of a postfailure policy on Iran's nuclear-weapons capacity. In whatever limited amount of time before then, we must face a very hard issue: What will the U.S. do if Israel decides to initiate military action? There was a time when the Bush administration might itself have seriously considered using force, but all public signs are that such a moment has passed.

Israel sees clearly what the next 12 months will bring, which is why ongoing U.S.-Israeli consultations could be dispositive. Israel told the Bush administration it would destroy North Korea's reactor in Syria in spring, 2007, and said it would not wait past summer's end to take action. And take action it did, seeing a Syrian nuclear capability, for all practical purposes Iran's agent on its northern border, as an existential threat. When the real source of the threat, not just a surrogate, nears the capacity for nuclear Holocaust, can anyone seriously doubt Israel's propensities, whatever the impact on gasoline prices?

Thus, instead of debating how much longer to continue five years of failed diplomacy, we should be intensively considering what cooperation the U.S. will extend to Israel before, during and after a strike on Iran. We will be blamed for the strike anyway, and certainly feel whatever negative consequences result, so there is compelling logic to make it as successful as possible. At a minimum, we should place no obstacles in Israel's path, and facilitate its efforts where we can.

These subjects are decidedly unpleasant. A nuclear Iran is more so.
All I can say (aside from agreeing with him wholeheartedly) is that God willing John McCain will win the Presidency and John Bolton will be the Secretary of State. Unlike 99% of the US foreign policy establishment Bolton has his head screwed on straight.

Read the whole thing.

6 Comments:

At 9:15 AM, Blogger NormanF said...

My thoughts also. There's no chance sanctions will work since that will require Russia, China and Europe to give up profitable trade with Iran. That will happen only in a dream world. The only thing that will work is destroying Iran's nuclear complex. The rest of the world will have no right to blame Israel since Israel has given peaceful means every chance to change Iran's behavior and it has fallen short. John Bolton has put the issue forward squarely.

 
At 12:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

John McCain does not have the guts nor the brains to appoint Bolton and shake up State.

Besides, the US needs Bolton as President. Nothing less.

 
At 4:41 PM, Blogger Vicki Claudio said...

I would love to see a McCain/Bolton ticket!

 
At 4:49 PM, Blogger Lydia McGrew said...

McCain will never associate his administration or campaign with Bolton. Never.

 
At 6:53 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

Keep in mind that an arch-Democratic Congress would block a Republican President's appointments whenever possible.

 
At 6:57 PM, Blogger Vicki Claudio said...

That's why I prefer to see him as a running mate; Congress would have no say over that. I admit that it's not very likely, but it would send an awesome message!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

Google