Monday, December 02, 2013

Nuclear Fiddling

Israel, the Pilgrims and the Maccabees –Caroline Glick

In the haze of accusations and counteraccusations by opponents and supporters of Obama’s new pact with the mullahs of Tehran, it bears recalling that the problem with the Munich pact was not the agreement in and of itself. If Adolf Hitler had been a credible actor, then the agreement might have made sense.

But Hitler was not a credible actor.

The problem with the Munich pact was that it empowered Hitler and so paved the way for the German invasion of Poland a year later.

That invasion, in turn paved the way for the Holocaust, and for the death of 60 million people in World War II.

Those, like Winston Churchill and Zev Jabotinsky who foresaw these events, were castigated as extremists and warmongers. Those who ignored their warning were celebrated as peacemakers who boldly chose peace over war.

So too today, Israel is castigated by Obama and his supporters in Washington, Europe and the media as a warmonger for realistically foreseeing the consequences of last weekend’s nuclear deal with Iran. Even worse, they are portraying Israel as a rogue state that will be subject to punishment if it dares to militarily strike Iran’s nuclear installations.

In other words, rather than threatening Iran – the leading state sponsor of terrorism, led by a regime that is pursuing an illicit nuclear weapons program while threatening Israel with annihilation – with military strikes if it refuses to cease and desist from building nuclear weapons, the world powers are threatening Israel.
[Jerusalem Post]

U.S. Freed Top Iranian Scientist - Mitch Ginsburg 

The U.S. in April released a top Iranian scientist, Mojtaba Atarodi, who had been arrested in 2011 for attempting to acquire equipment that could be used for Iran's military-nuclear programs, the Times of Israel has been told.
(Times of Israel)

Implications of the Iran Deal

A Wall Street Journal panel discussed the Iran deal on Saturday on Fox News:
Bret Stephens:

The Israelis for a long time were biding their time, thinking when the chips are really down, this president is not going to allow Iran to become a nuclear-weapons state. After the capitulation in Syria, the Israelis are looking at this in a whole new way. I've been having conversations with Israelis. They simply don't think that America is a credible security guarantor.
(Wall Street Journal)


Six Reasons to Worry About the Nuclear Deal - Jeffrey Goldberg

The text of the interim agreement states that the permanent deal will "involve a mutually defined enrichment program with mutually agreed parameters." Essentially, the U.S. has already conceded that Iran is going to end up with the right to enrich.

There is no promise by Iran in this interim deal to abstain from pursuing work on ballistic missiles or on weaponization. Iran is free to do whatever it pleases on missiles and warhead development.


LHwrites said...

This entire argument is becoming absurd, for two reasons. One, it is not a static situation and reneging on Iran's part will not be met with a shrug of the shoulders as it was in WW II, but with the same fierce sanctions, and if need be, military action, that the U.S. and the world have brought to bear on other dangerous states. Two, all these arguments seem to think there are no diplomatic solutions, only military ones. Many countries better be weary of this attitude, for one day they may be viewed in an unfavorable light.

Bruce said...

Of course there are non-military solutions. But deflated of their teeth, the sanctions are now a shadow of what they once were. The diplomatic solution was squandered by an overeager US Administration.

Reassembling a coalition to reinstate sanctions will barely be possible. Certainly more difficult as countries rush to do business with Iran again.

History will put this deal in an unfavorable light. Time will tell if I or you are correct.

Let's see how this unfolds.

LHwrites said...

I agree with you that reassembling the coalition will be challenging but I don;t think it will be daunting as many of the countries were doing business with Iran when the first sanctions were put into place. I think there is international resolve as evidenced by France's initial opposition. I think this was actually a quite smart move by the U.S. International resolve for any sanctions that punish the citizenry become shaky after a while. Obama was the not the only leader looking for a diplomatic solution. American arrogance has backfired in the past and it is incorrect to think only Americans are war weary because of Iraq (and the more necessary Afghanistan)The world isn't necessarily looking for America to start another MidEast conflict it doesn't understand and can't hope to win cleanly. Now, Iran has its chance and if it squanders it, or lies outright, the world can make it pay. Iran started this by making outreach comments to the US. If this was ignored or rebuffed it would have been looked at unfavorably towards the US. Other countries would have begun the clamor to negotiate and reduce sanctions. The US, by taking the diplomatic lead, can also take the lead in reinstating sanctions or upping the ante if necessary.

Bruce said...

Hope you're correct. But I fear that President Obama has sucked the air out of this balloon.