Posted on 02/12/2015 11:51:29 AM PST by Dave346
The importance of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s March 3 address to Congress extends far beyond its effect on his own country. That is apparent from the testimony of two former secretaries of state–Henry Kissinger and George Shultz–before the Senate Armed Services Committee on January 29. Kissinger told the committee that shifting the goal from (a) preventing Iran’s capability to build a nuclear weapon, to (b) simply limiting Iran’s use of that capability, will create not only “huge inspection problems,” but a far more critical problem:
I’ll reserve my comment on [the inspection problems] until I see the agreement. But I would also emphasize the issue of proliferation. Assuming … the stockpile of nuclear material that already exists, the question then is, what do the other countries in the region do? And if the other countries in the region conclude that America has approved the development of an enrichment capability within one year of a nuclear weapon, and if they then insist on building the same capability, we will live in a proliferated world …
Because it’s a different problem from not having a capability at all to having a capability that is within one year of building a weapon. Especially if it then spreads to all the other countries in the region, and they – and they have to live with that fear of each other. That will produce a substantially different world from the one that we know …
I’m troubled by some of the implications of what is now publicly available … and the impact of all of this on an international system where everybody is within a very short period of getting a nuclear weapon. Nobody can really fully trust the inspection system or at least some may not. That is something I would hope gets carefully examined before a final solution is attained. (Emphasis added.)
In other words, even if the agreement purports to keep Iran a year away from a nuclear weapon, and even if there is an inspection regime that purports to enforce the agreement, the inevitable result will be nuclear proliferation throughout the region that will endanger every state in it, and affect those beyond as well. Iran will have turned “binding” UN resolutions against its nuclear program into an American agreement approving it, and the United States will be in no position to prevent other states from acquiring the same capability (or more), or to urge them to rely on American promises that will have been proved ineffective. Secretary Shultz joined Secretary Kissinger in portraying a stark picture of what it would mean to leave Iran with its enrichment process intact:
I see nuclear weapon proliferation. That is devastating … my physicist friends say the Hiroshima weapon was just a little play thing. Well, look at the damage it did. A thermonuclear weapon would incinerate the Washington area totally. … And we were making progress, but that’s been derailed and we’re going the wrong way right now. … It should be pointed out that a bomb made from enriched uranium is much easier to make than [the] Hiroshima bomb. [The] Hiroshima bomb was a uranium enrichment bomb. It wasn’t even tested … [Y]ou can make an unsophisticated bomb from enriched uranium fairly easily. That’s not a big trick. So the enrichment process is key. (Emphasis added.)
An agreement that leaves Iran’s enrichment process in place, guaranteeing a rapid proliferation throughout the region, is a strategic disaster, not only for the region but for the United States. Given the Kissinger and Shultz testimony, it is clear that the critical issue is not the prospects for legislation imposing contingent sanctions if Iran does not reach an agreement. The problem is the agreement the Obama administration is seeking, against the advice of two distinguished secretaries of state, both of whom served in World War II and remember what caused it.
Neither the congressional invitation to the Israeli prime minister nor his acceptance of it was a mistake. The speech will be his attempt to say what Churchill would have said if he had seen America heading down the road Kissinger and Shultz described to the Armed Services Committee. A head of state must come to Washington to say it, and to say it not simply in private discussions, nor simply before pro-Israel advocates at AIPAC, but directly to the representatives of the American people, and before it is too late.
It is not going to be David Cameron, Angela Merkel, or Francois Hollande, the leaders of a Europe that is no longer strategically serious. If it is going to be anyone, it will have to be Benjamin Netanyahu. For the reasons he set forth in his powerful statement on February 10, the issue goes far beyond politics and protocol.
LOL. God bless and keep you. Thank you from my heart for your service. I'm sure you're right about Kissinger and about the majority of those in power and their puppet friends wishing, hoping and trying to attain power. Enough of the game playing with our brave, volunteer military.
yes, Bibi certainly should have spoken earlier.
I am hoping that all the Obama/Pelosi/Reid BS-mischief and insults (and outright lies such as claiming Boehner didnn’t notify when he did...and did not even have to)
I am hoping that all the ObamaCompany lies and BS and insults will backfire as the American public comes to see just how embarrassing their baby-level behavior is to our country
but..who knows? Obama is still getting his way (arming and funding and defending the growth of the new IslamoNazi worldwide dictatorship, selling out or undermining one country at a time...1,2,3,4,5,6,.....
I dunno......I don’t trust Boehner to not cave in to pressure.
I can’t disagree. I’ve told co-workers of mine, I too believe Iranian already possess one or two nuclear devices.
Especially if it then spreads to all the other countries in the region, and they – and they have to live with that fear of each other. That will produce a substantially different world from the one that we know …>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is something that every New York cabbie knows. The real question is why is Obama engaged in treason ? So far Obama has completely destabilized the ME and Africa; now he wants to continue that policy trajectory in relation to Iran....WHY?
Well its the revenge of the down trodden and oppressed who have been denied their proper privileges in America.It would be the end of US leadership and greatness in the world.We would be forced to look inward only, pay for the sins of our ancestors,rearrange our internal house to reflect the Obama Utopia, redefine history, and engage in wealth redistribution because of the IRS, and the Affordable Health Care Act.
Now why would Obama want that?
Here is your answer:
“Barack Obama, The Quintessential Fascist”:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html
We have Islamaphobia, Homophobia, why don’t they say Jewphobia? Maybe the meaning of phobia; an irrational fear?
I hope it is televised. I live Bib, as much as I hate Obama. It’s sad we don’t have a real leader.
We have a real leader. Too bad he’s an enemy agent but he is quite effective leading usa downwards. We also hope to see Bibi on the boobtoob. He is a good speaker
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.