A period of consequences?
Jamie Fly and William Kristol argue that the United States should strike Iran. Some in Washington seem resigned to letting Israel take action. But a U.S. failure to act in response to what is perhaps the greatest threat to American interests in decades would be irresponsible. Israel, moreover, lacks our full capabilities to do the job.Let's set the record straight. Nothing would make Israelis happier than for the US to strike Iran. The US has much more firepower than we have and is capable of doing a much more thorough job than we are, thereby minimizing the Iranian response.
Despite our global commitments and our engagement in two ongoing wars, the U.S. military is fully able to carry out such a mission. Indeed, the success of President Bush’s 2007 surge of forces into Iraq and of President Obama’s sending additional resources to Afghanistan means we are on better footing to deal with Iran’s nuclear program than we were a few years ago.
Obviously, the best alternative in Iran is regime change brought about by domestic opposition. Unfortunately, President Obama waffled while innocent Iranians were killed by their own government a year ago after the fraudulent elections. To this day, he has done little to support the forces of freedom in Iran.
It’s now increasingly clear that the credible threat of a military strike against Iran’s nuclear program is the only action that could convince the regime to curtail its ambitions. But instead of using the possibility of military action as leverage, the Obama administration has tried to soothe the mullahs’ nerves. It’s time to put Tehran on edge.
In a speech to the House of Commons in late 1936, Winston Churchill warned, “The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences.”
Having said that, I would rate the odds that this administration will strike Iran as somewhere between slim and none. President Obama is a pacifist except when it comes to cajoling Israel. And unfortunately, an awful lot of people are likely to pay the consequences of his fecklessness. Even if Iran were to (God forbid) attack Israel with nuclear weapons, I doubt that Obama would respond.
When Churchill made that speech in 1936, he was not Prime Minister. Neville Chamberlain was Prime Minister and remained Prime Minister until 1940, when Britons confronted their reality and decided that they needed a forceful leader. Because the United States cannot remove President Obama by a no-confidence vote - and I have serious doubts whether anyone is willing to term incompetence a high crime and misdemeanor in order to impeach him - we are likely stuck with the Obumbler until at least January 2013. Let's hope that change comes then. You can bet on one thing: It won't be American Jewry that will be standing in the forefront to throw Obama out.
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:43 PM
3 Comments:
Hi Carl.
Until now Obama has done very little in the intrest of America.Most of what he has done harms the US in one way or another.When it comes to Iran it will depend if his hostility towards Israel is greater then the threat of Iran having nuclear weapons.
Israel has to defend itself - as long as the Stupid Jews don't allow the world to tie their hands behind their back.
What could go wrong indeed
Good ol Churchill, Johnny on the spot except when it came to saving Jews.
His legacy on one hand was remarkable, on the other his legacy ended with quotas on how many Jews could come into his dirty country filled with antisemites. His legacy was what the British did to Jews of Palestine prior to the founding of Israel.
I could vomit. We forget too easily.
Post a Comment
<< Home