Israel Is Correct; This Isn't Their Problem
Iran's nuclear capabilities isn't Israel's problem. It's the world's problem, and Glenn Reynolds tackles this subject for the Guardian.
As the Iranian nuclear programme continues to worry people, I've noticed a hope on the part of a lot of commentators for a sort of Deus ex Tel Aviv, with people reassuring themselves that the Israelis will strike, as they did at the Iraqi Osirak facility in 1981.
I don't think that's very likely, and I think it's more of a way for people to avoid confronting the problem ("We don't have to worry: the Israelis will!") than a realistic solution. Certainly that's the message the Israelis are sending.
My wife and I do a regular series of podcasts and our most recent episode featured an interview with Daniel Ayalon, Israel's ambassador to the United States. He made it quite clear that Israel regards the Iranian nuclear programme as the world's problem, not Israel's problem, and that the world shouldn't look to Israel to solve the world's problems.
Quite a few people (Jim Dunnigan and Austin Bay, for example) think that the military solution to Iranian nuclear weapons is dubious, or at least that talk of such an approach is premature. They suggest that we should be encouraging (and assisting) Iranians to overthrow the mullahs. That might not end the Iranian nuclear programme, but it would at least put it in the hands of a modern democracy, rather than a murderous theocracy. That would surely be an improvement.
Regardless, however, I don't think that the world can look to Israel to pull its chestnuts out of the fire. And, I have to say, I don't blame the Israelis for taking that attitude.
Israel has a right to state this this is the world's problems, and not theirs. As yet, aside from a threat or two, Iran's done nothing to Israel. They haven't made a nuke and pointed in their direction yet, so Israel isn't moving on Iran. They remain vigilant, but not pre-emptive.
In the meantime, the West is wetting it's pants over the prospect of a nuclear Iran. Which is sort of funny, because it's not like the world hasn't known this since the early eighties when France first promised to build them a reactor. When they welched on the deal, Russia promised to finish the reactor for them, and is still working on it. In the meantime, Iran has some dozen or so nuclear facilities spread throughout it's nation. And while I'm sure that a few of them are for "peaceful" applications of nuclear power, the mad mullahs in Tehran have been salivating at the prospects of joining the nuclear club.
This can't be allowed to happen. To allow a nuclear Iran into the world would be devastating. A commenter posted after the column by Mr. Reynolds, why can't we live with a nuclear Iran. Is it any different from living with a nuclear North Korea. Yes, it would be different. North Korea rattles it's saber when it wants something; sort of like ringing a bell for the maid or the butler. They want something, they start talking up their nuclear program. The world comes running to them to see what they want. This has literally turned into a game with them. They talk up the possibility of hitting the US with a nuke, and while the rest of the world asks what they want, we tell them we're not talking until you return to the six-nation bargaining table.
The same can't be said of Iran. Whereas North Korea has China sitting north of it, and China would have no problem crushing North Korea if it stepped out of line, there is no one to do that to Iran. Except, as is pointed out here, the misnomer conveyed by the world that Irsrael will bail us out. No, they can't and they won't, unless Tehran points a nuke in their direction.
An airstrike into Iran, launched from Israel, has a limited chance of success. I agree with Col. Austin Bay. We need to fuel the dissident movement in Iran, and get them to institute a coup. We can't go into Iran right now. We are stretched too thin at this point. One of the two ongoing operations would have to be sealed up, and neither can be because we're not done there. So, it would be better to move covertly, and spark the dissidents to move on the mullahs and Ahmadinejad. Like Glenn, I don't blame the Israelis for this stance. For far too long the Israelis have taken it on the chin for their reaction to terrorism against their citizens. For far too long, the world has expressed shock and outrage at the "brutality" used by Israel in dealing with such threats. (LOL. They use a Hellfire to smoke a Hamas or Hezbollah terrorist, and the world calls that brutal; I call it justice served.)
Oh no. This is the world's problem. And Israel has basically just let the world know that when they point their missiles at Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, then they'll take notice of them. Until then, Iran's our mess to clean up.
Publius II
Iran's nuclear capabilities isn't Israel's problem. It's the world's problem, and Glenn Reynolds tackles this subject for the Guardian.
As the Iranian nuclear programme continues to worry people, I've noticed a hope on the part of a lot of commentators for a sort of Deus ex Tel Aviv, with people reassuring themselves that the Israelis will strike, as they did at the Iraqi Osirak facility in 1981.
I don't think that's very likely, and I think it's more of a way for people to avoid confronting the problem ("We don't have to worry: the Israelis will!") than a realistic solution. Certainly that's the message the Israelis are sending.
My wife and I do a regular series of podcasts and our most recent episode featured an interview with Daniel Ayalon, Israel's ambassador to the United States. He made it quite clear that Israel regards the Iranian nuclear programme as the world's problem, not Israel's problem, and that the world shouldn't look to Israel to solve the world's problems.
Quite a few people (Jim Dunnigan and Austin Bay, for example) think that the military solution to Iranian nuclear weapons is dubious, or at least that talk of such an approach is premature. They suggest that we should be encouraging (and assisting) Iranians to overthrow the mullahs. That might not end the Iranian nuclear programme, but it would at least put it in the hands of a modern democracy, rather than a murderous theocracy. That would surely be an improvement.
Regardless, however, I don't think that the world can look to Israel to pull its chestnuts out of the fire. And, I have to say, I don't blame the Israelis for taking that attitude.
Israel has a right to state this this is the world's problems, and not theirs. As yet, aside from a threat or two, Iran's done nothing to Israel. They haven't made a nuke and pointed in their direction yet, so Israel isn't moving on Iran. They remain vigilant, but not pre-emptive.
In the meantime, the West is wetting it's pants over the prospect of a nuclear Iran. Which is sort of funny, because it's not like the world hasn't known this since the early eighties when France first promised to build them a reactor. When they welched on the deal, Russia promised to finish the reactor for them, and is still working on it. In the meantime, Iran has some dozen or so nuclear facilities spread throughout it's nation. And while I'm sure that a few of them are for "peaceful" applications of nuclear power, the mad mullahs in Tehran have been salivating at the prospects of joining the nuclear club.
This can't be allowed to happen. To allow a nuclear Iran into the world would be devastating. A commenter posted after the column by Mr. Reynolds, why can't we live with a nuclear Iran. Is it any different from living with a nuclear North Korea. Yes, it would be different. North Korea rattles it's saber when it wants something; sort of like ringing a bell for the maid or the butler. They want something, they start talking up their nuclear program. The world comes running to them to see what they want. This has literally turned into a game with them. They talk up the possibility of hitting the US with a nuke, and while the rest of the world asks what they want, we tell them we're not talking until you return to the six-nation bargaining table.
The same can't be said of Iran. Whereas North Korea has China sitting north of it, and China would have no problem crushing North Korea if it stepped out of line, there is no one to do that to Iran. Except, as is pointed out here, the misnomer conveyed by the world that Irsrael will bail us out. No, they can't and they won't, unless Tehran points a nuke in their direction.
An airstrike into Iran, launched from Israel, has a limited chance of success. I agree with Col. Austin Bay. We need to fuel the dissident movement in Iran, and get them to institute a coup. We can't go into Iran right now. We are stretched too thin at this point. One of the two ongoing operations would have to be sealed up, and neither can be because we're not done there. So, it would be better to move covertly, and spark the dissidents to move on the mullahs and Ahmadinejad. Like Glenn, I don't blame the Israelis for this stance. For far too long the Israelis have taken it on the chin for their reaction to terrorism against their citizens. For far too long, the world has expressed shock and outrage at the "brutality" used by Israel in dealing with such threats. (LOL. They use a Hellfire to smoke a Hamas or Hezbollah terrorist, and the world calls that brutal; I call it justice served.)
Oh no. This is the world's problem. And Israel has basically just let the world know that when they point their missiles at Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, then they'll take notice of them. Until then, Iran's our mess to clean up.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 12:56 AM
1 Comments:
I'm one of those that believe Israel has the most to lose and hence it's Israel problem with Iran. But this doesn't equate to Israel taking care the of the problem alone. It's a fact that to the vast majority of Muslims, Jewish people are infidels and Israel is to eliminated. I happen to believe that Iran is controlled by insane people and should not have the nuke. Those that say we can live with Iran or any other country or group with their mentality having the bomb needs their head examined. Rawriter
Post a Comment
<< Home