| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| ANALYSIS: Who wants to stop Iran? |
| 2008-05-18 |
| Bush may not be as naive as Obama, but U.S. policy under his watch has failed on the Iranian issue. Idaho senator William Borah didn't live to see the end of World War II. He died in 1940, before the U.S. had even joined the Allies and gotten involved in the war. Borah was an isolationist who wanted nothing more than American withdrawal from world affairs. And it is his words that Bush quoted Thursday in Jerusalem: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." Bush did not waver Thursday from the policies that have guided his administration since September 11, 2001. His position on Iran is longstanding. But on Thursday, when he again spoke of the naivete of those who believe dialogue can block Iran's nuclear program, it blipped on America's political radar. Barack Obama's campaign was quick to respond, calling it "extraordinary politicization of foreign policy." If those who want to talk to Iran are like those who wanted to talk to Hitler - then Obama is Neville Chamberlain or Senator Borah. But Bush should be measured by the same yardstick. Meetings will not stop Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but neither will speeches in Knesset. Bush may not be as naive as Obama, but U.S. foreign policy under his leadership has failed time after time on the Iranian issue. International sanctions are too skimpy to mount any real pressure against Iran's uranium enrichment program, and Tehran is gaining. One knowledgeable observer was using this baseball metaphor yesterday. The Iranians have players waiting on all three bases. Hamas on first, Syria on second and Hezbollah on third. All they need now is the grand slam homerun - a nuclear bomb in the hands of Iran that will send them running around the bases for home. Bush often says he learned a thing or two from his years as the owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team: "I developed a thick skin against criticism. I learned to ignore minor setbacks and focus on the long haul." But in the case of Iran, the long haul is creeping ever closer, and it appears Bush plans to leave the problem for his successor. Earlier this week, he gave the Israeli press a rather complicated answer regarding what he hopes to accomplish during his term. "I think what definitely will be done is a structure on how to deal with this, to try to resolve this diplomatically. In other words, sanctions, pressures, financial sanctions; a history of pressure that will serve as a framework to make sure other countries are involved." And here is what he said Thursday: For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. And he added: "America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions." Bush's declarations could be seen as a calming expression of support: The U.S. president clearly does not favor a nuclear Iran. But one can also wonder about the wording he chose in this speech. Does relying on what the "world" does - or standing with Israel, which might take action itself - mean that America does not plan to be the one to stop Iran? |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #4 DEM CANDIDATE OBAMA > has said he will withdraw = seriously redux US milfors in Iraq, albeit "measured/calculated", and send them to Afghanistan-Paki where Osama + Taliban, etc. are. PAKISTAN for its part is still RESISTING US EFFORTS TO SEND TROOPS INTO ITS NW FRONTIER + REFUSES TO STOP ARMED ISLAMIST MILITANTS FROM CROSSING INTO AFGHANI TO FIGHT THE US-NATO + LOCAL GOVT. Read - YOOHOO, RUSSIA-CHINA, US-NATO IN YOUR BACKYARD. POTUS OBAMA > presuming that Barack makes good on his agenda, IRAN WILL HAVE AT LEAST THRU YEAR 2010 TO WORK ON ITS NUCDEV PROGS + LIKELY THRU 2012 [beyond?] as well. IOW, ODDS ARE VERY GOOD THAT ISLAMIST IRAN WILL GET NOT ONLY URANIUM BOMB TECH BUT ALSO PLUTONIUM BOMB TECH, besides ADVANC MISSLE TECHS + for other WMDS. US REDIRECT TO AFGHANI-PAKISTAN > besides US-NATO vz. RUSS-CHIN politix, OSAMA + RADICAL ISLAM WILL LIKELY CHOOSE TO RELOC ITS CENTRE AND INTENSIFY ITS JIHAD THROUGHOUT ASIA [already active]. The RUSH LIMBAUGH histoire questionnez of the day is whether the US-NATO believe RUSSIA, CHINA, INDIA, SOUTH-SOUTHEAST ASIA, AUSTRALESIA, etc. CAN SUCCESSFULLY FIGHT INTENSIVE ISLAMIST INSURGENCIES WIDOUT US-NATO SUPPORT??? SHHHHHHHHH, GUAM-WESTPAC, YOOHOO, THIS MEANS YOU! |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2008-05-18 18:52 |
| #3 Bush isn't handcuffed after the November election. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-05-18 18:43 |
| #2 Iran will use the nuclear option once it gets it. They will not be guided by environmental issues, human rights issues, humanitarian concerns, or any of the other issues that Western civilization |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2008-05-18 18:08 |
| #1 I don't think that there is a question whether Iran will gain nuclear weapons. I don't think there is a question that the world will do nothing once Iran gains the weapons (Israel and the US are handcuffed. Nobody else has the guts.) I think the question remains what the US and Israel will be allowed to do once Iran, North Korea or Pakistan attacks another country with nuclear weapons. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2008-05-18 13:54 |