While the West dithers
Former United States ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton rips the West's dithering over Iran's nuclear capability in a blistering piece in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal (Hat Tip: Hot Air). The rationality of continued Western negotiations with Iran depends critically on two assumptions: that Iran is far enough away from having deliverable nuclear weapons that we don't incur excessive risks by talking; and that by talking we don't materially impede the option to use military force. Implicit in the latter case is the further assumption that the military option is static -- that it remains equally viable a year from now as it is today.Bolton goes on to list five reasons. Is anybody out there listening? Read the whole thing.
Neither assumption is correct. Can we believe that if diplomacy fails we can still take military action "in time" to prevent Iranian nuclear weapons? "Just in time" nonproliferation assumes a level of intelligence certainty concerning Iran's nuclear program that recent history should manifestly caution us against.
Every day that goes by allows Iran to increase the threat it poses, and the viability of the military option steadily declines over time. There are a number of reasons why this is so.
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 7:36 AM
1 Comments:
Carl - I don't think so. And human beings have a remarkable capacity to deny and rationalize away unpleasant facts, especially when they involve dealing with the reality of evil. Yes, it does exist in this world.
Post a Comment
<< Home