Posted on 05/19/2008 11:56:36 PM PDT by Yankee Sailor
Tom Barnett’s newest column makes some proposals for dealing with a nuclear Iran. His fundamental assumption is that there’s no way at this point, short of a major ground war in Iran, to prevent Tehran from achieving their nuclear ambitions. I completely agree with Barnett that, on the current course the West has chosen, a nuclear Iran is an inevitibility; however, his prescriptions for dealing with Tehran after they’ve made a bomb are problematic.
In short, Barnett proposes that a system of mutually assured destruction be set up in the region between Israel, Iran and a nuclear Saudi Arabia, with the United States providing the retaliatory strike capability should Israel suffer from an Iranian or Saudi first strike.
The proposed role for the U.S. has been brought up before, and some have even suggested that Israel be admitted to NATO to guarantee Israel’s security. I think the U.S. acting unilaterally in such a manner would merely stoke the fires of Arab sentiment that the U.S. is too biased towards Israel. The NATO proposal is probably more workable, even without a nuclear Iran, particularly if it’s pushed from the European side of the Atlantic.
(Excerpt) Read more at yankeesailor.us ...
“...with the United States providing the retaliatory strike capability should Israel suffer from an Iranian or Saudi first strike. “
I agree, Israel needs to be included in NATO. With regard to the above, AFTER a strike (particularly Iranian) is too late. Our only hope to stop an irreversible chain reaction for the planet is to pre-emptively prevent Iran from getting to this point.
I fear that NATO would further hamper Israel’s security policy. I can just imagine the mess in Brussels every time Israel wants to make a move. Just great... with France, Germany and Turkey on board. IOne may hint that Turkey also pretty freely deals with PKK in and outside of Turkey, but we know the hypocrisy on Israel. Also what if Israel has to deal with another nation, like Iran or Syria? don’t think that this is what Israel needs.
The prospect of a nuclear armed Middle East is the worst case scenario. It wouldn’t stop with Iran and Saudi Arabia. Egypt, Lybia, Syria and certainly Turkey would want nukes too. I don’t have to mention what happens if one of the countless terrorist organizations gets hold of them.
Israel and President Bush have reiterated that they won’t accept and won’t forgive a nuclear Iran. Look at what Israel did with Syria’s nuke facility. This is business.
Israel will never let it happen.
NATO doesn’t really have the authority to veto a member country’s policies for their own defense. What it would bring to the table is an ability for Israel to invoke Article 5 and demand assistance from other NATO countries in the event of an attack. Under this article an attack on one member country is considered an attack on every member country.
I also think you’re right that allowing Iran and Saudi Arabia to have nukes would validate the claims of other nations, including Egypt, Turkey and Syria, to have nuclear weapons.
Does anyone really think that Europe or Turkey would come actively to Israel's defense when attacked? I don't think it's worth the paper. Look at the contribution the Europeans (with one or two exceptions) make in Afghanistan... insignificant posturing.
I wouldn’t be too convinced Turkey would distance themselves from an Arab/Persian-Israeli conflict. Turkey already allows Israel to use Turkish bases for air combat training, has contracted to sell to the Israelis 1.8 billion cubic meters of fresh water that deprives Syria and Iraq of resources they claim, and the Turks haven’t hesitated to strike at Khurdish rebels inside Syria, Iraq and Iran.
“Israel will never let it happen.”
You’re right on this, especially if Netanyahu is once again prime minister. But my point was that WE had better wake up to the necessity of pre-emptive action and the fact that in this situation, we cannot wait until Iran is nuclear, or to “retaliate” in the event of an attack by Iran on ANYONE.
Israel has a fierce and mighty spirit, but they are small in both size and weapons arsenal/capacity. God bless them, they would go down fighting, if it came to that, but we MUST not let it get to that point.
“Also what if Israel has to deal with another nation, like Iran or Syria? don’t think that this is what Israel needs.”
SW - upon re-thinking this, you’re probably right about NATO not being such a good thing for Israel. God knows the UN is both evil and worthless to our interests. Guess I was just thinking (initially) that if Israel were a NATO member, maybe more nations would stand with them.
“What it would bring to the table is an ability for Israel to invoke Article 5 and demand assistance from other NATO countries in the event of an attack. Under this article an attack on one member country is considered an attack on every member country.”
See, this is what I was thinking also, in my first post by saying that Israel should be included in NATO. They just really need more support closer to their borders, besides the United States.
“Does anyone really think that Europe or Turkey would come actively to Israel’s defense when attacked? I don’t think it’s worth the paper.”
I think they already fear Iran greatly, so yes, they would, BECAUSE they’d then fully realize the personal threat to themselves, and have concrete proof of Iran’s intentions to proceed further. When will we all learn from history, that if someone tells the world who they are and what their intentions are, BELIEVE THEM!!!!
Agreed 100% my friend!! I am not Jewish, but the world picks on the them again and again. They are survivors and I respect them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.