Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: nathanbedford

Very good observations and assessment of Bush who is certainly not a traditional conservative. I think the terrible dilemma posed by Krauthammer necessitates the second option - diplomacy will inevitably fail and Iran MUST be prevented from creating a nuclear arsenal - by military action.

It seems to me to be a classic case of intervention, with all its dangers, being far more desirable than failing to act.

Benjamin Netanyahu made a very astute observation about why the Iranian situation is unique. He said that during the Cold War the Soviet Union, although it proclaimed a very irrational ideolgy, conducted its foreign policy rationally. Why? Because they wanted to live and didn't want a nuclear holocaust. This is why MAD was effective in preventing such a conflict.

But he said that Iran is completely different. It's predicated on a fanatical and apocalyptic religious vision that prays for and welcomes catastrophe as part of the divine plan for the return of the last Immam.

My fear is that many "rational" Westerners are unwilling or unable to recognize true EVIL and take it seriously as the very imminent and dangerous threat that it is.

We have an almost superstitious reverence for "diplomacy" and "negotiation". And an equally naive belief that, at bottom, our enemies are rational and we just have to "talk it out" and determine what they "really want".

While such procedures have their place, I think it would be disastrous if we let the Iranians suck us into their stalling-for-time strategy. When we see reality it may be too late.

We don't take the loudly and proudly proclaimed threats of these mullahs seriously at our own peril!





30 posted on 09/16/2006 2:36:12 AM PDT by T.L.Sink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]


To: T.L.Sink; jdm
As one who lives in Germany, I am acutely sensitive to the sentiment expressed by JPM to the effect that we are in thrall to Israel's national interest rather than to our own. And this is a criticism which is widely current here in Europe. Indeed, it is this belief which permits the Europeans to stick their heads in the sand over the entire issue of terrorism, especially nuclear terrorism, because they believe that their disassociation from Israel immunizes Europe from such threats.

It seems to do little good to point out that terrorism already exists against Europe in Spain and in Great Britain and recently in Germany itself. It seems to be a disconnect in it arises out of America's connection with Israel. In fact, Europeans tend to believe that Americans, by a close association with Israel, are making life more dangerous for them.

I have often posted that it is necessary for American find its own way and be prepared to jettison Israel if necessary. After all, my children's fate is tied to the United States of America, not to Israel. I have often been tempted to post in response to mindless support of Israel or in support of mindless exortations to "nuke" Iran, or Mecca, or wherever, and ask of what country are these people citizens? But to do so is to court charges of anti-Semitism and start a whole pissing match which is tedious and diverts us from our real task which is to voice a conservative foreign policy for the USA. Besides, anyone who supports my avatar must be doubly careful in this regard.

But if I thought that America was being led down the path by Israel or Israel's agents in the American government, I would not hesitate to scream. However, there is a difference between parallel interests and substitute interests. I believe America's need to prevent Iran from getting the bomb is parallel to Israel's and we are not acting solely as a proxy for Israel. I do not think if we repudiated Israel today that it would solve our problem with the Iranians getting the bomb.

Finally, whatever the wisdom over the years of so intimately entwineing ourselves with Israel, we are today where we are, and we must go on from here. Whether it was simple human justice, or folly, to cast our lot with 4 million Israelis against 1.4 billion Muslims with all the oil in the world, one can argue until the next millennium. But those risks which we accepted were courted initially when we had a monopoly on the nuclear bomb and then, later, when we were dealing with a rational adversary in the Soviet Union.

The Specter which confronts us now, as you point out, is an irrational adversary with the bomb. In this situation, we put at risk our Western alliance, and we make it almost impossible to turn sane Muslims against the crazies which must be done if the war is ultimately to be won.

Just as we have ceded definition of victory in Iraq to our so called "allies" in Iraq, so we have put our faith to some degree in the hands of the Israelis and Palestinians. In Iraq, we cannot have victory without a democracy and we cannot have democracy without cooperation from the Iraqis. In the broader mid East, we will find it very difficult to work with sane and somewhat secular Muslims against fundamentalists unless the Israelis and the Palestinians can come to a modus vivendi. So our fate in both realms is out of our hands, we cannot impose democracy on Iraq, and we cannot impose peace on Palestine.


32 posted on 09/16/2006 3:41:53 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("I like to legislate. I feel I've done a lot of good." Sen. Robert Byrd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]

To: T.L.Sink

Spot on!


54 posted on 09/16/2006 12:20:43 PM PDT by gogeo (The /sarc tag is a form of training wheels for those unable to discern intellectual subtlety.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson