Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and President Obama at the White House in October. Credit Kevin Lamarque/Reuters
David Sanger, New York Times: For Netanyahu and Obama, Difference Over Iran Widened Into Chasm
WASHINGTON — Over six years of bitter disagreements about how to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat, President Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel kept running into one central problem: The two leaders never described their ultimate goal in quite the same way.
Mr. Obama has repeated a seemingly simple vow: On his watch, the United States would do whatever it took to “prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.” Mr. Netanyahu has used a different set of stock phrases. Iran had to be stopped from getting the “capability” to manufacture a weapon, he said, and Israel could never tolerate an Iran that was a “threshold nuclear state.”
WNU Editor: Both leaders do not see eye to eye on how to deal with Iran's nuclear program .... if there was any doubts on that it was put to bed today. What is my take on this entire affair .... it has been the same since day one .... Iran made the strategic decision years ago to put into place the basic ingredients necessary for a nuclear weapons program, and if in the future they should then decide to assemble such a weapon, to have the means to produce the necessary fissionable material .... and to do so fast. Their rational for developing such a program is the same rational the that Soviet Union used, the British and French used, the Chinese used, India and Pakistan used, and one can even say that Israel used .... we need such a weapons program because it is necessary for the defense and national security of our country. President Obama has come to accept this Iranian point of view .... Israeli PM Netanyahu has not, and he has made it very clear he is willing to exercise force to make sure that it does not happen.
4 comments:
Iran having the capability of developing a nuclear weapons capability, or even having such a capability could become a moot point should ISIS take over a country that already has that weaponry.
"Their rational for developing such a program is the same rational the that Soviet Union used, the British and French used, the Chinese used, India and Pakistan used, and one can even say that Israel used ...."
One can also say that none of those nations had a national objective of wiping another nation off the map....
Good point Philip. But there are times when both sides (the U.S. and the Soviet Union) put us at the brink. Khrushchev (we will bury you) .... John F. Kennedy (Cuban missile crisis). But yes .... unlike Iran other nuclear powers did not and do not have a policy of wiping someone off the map.
Iran's policy is also "death to America." In fact it seems to me that America is the primary target with Israel the secondary one. Currently Iran poses a greater threat to America than Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan ever did or ever could have. While the threat is greater, Iran is not the same country as Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan were. Furthermore America today is not the same country today as it was in the early to mid 1940s.
As such, any strategy or set of strategies used to defeat Iran will be much different than those used to win WWII. Nevertheless it seems a bad idea to allow a country that is committed to the end of your existence to have or have the potential to get nuclear weapons.
Specifically the 10 year plan seems to be a bad idea. At the rate it is currently going, the US will be unable to do anything to contain Iran at the end of the 10 year period as the dollar will have lost its role as world reserve currency by then making things much more difficult for America at this point.
Also, the idea that Iran would stay a year away from getting nuclear weapons is problematic. Suppose they decide to pursue nuclear weapons. We've only got a year to stop it. In order to stop it either via some type of sanctions or military action we will need to put together a coalition of allies to assist us. This will take some time. A year away simply does not allow enough time to stop this or so it would seem to me.
How do you verify Iranian compliance? The US faces very intense and often hostile media coverage. As such, there is no way for America not to honor any agreement. Iran does not face this kind of scrutiny and due to considerable anti-American sentiment in the world they'd have many people and nations willing to assist them.
Again, how do we enforce the agreement? Before agreeing to ANYTHING I'd insist on some mechanism to ensure Iranian compliance.
Post a Comment