In spite of new sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council, Iran publicly asserts its intent to proceed with using nuclear power as it chooses. If the new sanctions take effect, Iran threatens to lower its level of cooperation with U.N. inspectors.
Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has apparently granted Israel permission to use Saudi airspace for an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. (Hugh Tomlinson, “Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites,” Times Online, June 12, 2010)
Such an attack is fraught with danger. If Iran has nuclear weapons and Israel fails to destroy all of them, then any attack substantially raises the likelihood of Iran launching a nuclear strike against Israel. If Iran does not have nuclear weapons and the Israeli attack fails to destroy all of Iran’s nuclear facilities and material, then any attack substantially raises the likelihood of Iran launching a non-nuclear attack against Israel or expediting weapons development in order to launch a nuclear attack against Israel. In either case, an Israeli attack against Iran hands radical Muslim groups an immense propaganda victory in spite of Iran’s Shiite version of Islam. Muslim extremists will point to the Israeli attack as evidence that the United States and its Israeli puppet are determined to destroy Islam at all costs.
Even as fears of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons increase, unmistakable signs of progress toward democracy continue to surface. In spite of Iran’s repressive, authoritarian regime protests against government policies and corruption continue. Furthermore, Iranians increasingly and openly out against government policies. (Will Young and Michael Slackman, “Across Iran, Anger Lies Behind Face of Calm,” New York Times, June 11, 2010)
6 comments:
From a reader:
Seems unlikely that tensions in the Middle East will be peaceably resolved in our lifetime. The problems are just too intractable and multifaceted. Perhaps the best that can be hoped for, short of the Second Coming, is the absence of full-scale war (whether conventional or nuclear) and genocide.
Will any U.S. president have the political courage – and political capital -- to make a fundamental change in U.S. relations with Israel? It’s difficult to imagine that. Unfortunately, evangelical Christians in the U.S. contribute enormously to this problem.
Will any U.S. president have the political courage – and political capital -- to make a fundamental change in U.S. relations with Israel?
An answer from a cynical Brit is "yes, if there was a real domestic political gain from so doing". From my perspective, I don't see or hear a major domestic lobby for the USA to change its present position on the area.
Unfortunately, I suspect you're right.
MAD worked in the Cold War. It will work today as long as the opponents feel we mean it.
I think our influence in many countries reduces the possibilities of a settlement or agreement.
MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction - operates on the premise that neither side wants to be on th ereceiving end of a nuclear barrage. That premise probably holds true for Iran. The premise certainly does not hold true for non-state actors, e.g., terrorists.
You are right. Extremist or terrorists will gladly use a weapon if they get one. For any terrorist, it is always a win-win situation.
If Iran , Pakistan, China, North Korea and others understand they will be the ones eliminated if they let a nuclear bomb explode even if someone else detonates it, they will be retaliated against.
As with the Cuban crisis, if we had struck the missiles we found, there were many others hidden and could be active in a short time.
Post a Comment