Whack Now
That’s the advice from John Bolton, who explains on today’s Washington Post op-ed page that President Obama’s mullah-coaxing plans make less sense now than ever. It’s time to greenlight Israel, if Israel isn’t already greenlighting herself. There’s a couple of other ways that could work, though. Theoretically. If someone else was president. Bolton first:
Iran’s nuclear threat was never in doubt during its presidential campaign, but the post-election resistance raised the possibility of some sort of regime change. That prospect seems lost for the near future or for at least as long as it will take Iran to finalize a deliverable nuclear weapons capability.
Accordingly, with no other timely option, the already compelling logic for an Israeli strike is nearly inexorable. Israel is undoubtedly ratcheting forward its decision-making process. President Obama is almost certainly not.
He still wants “engagement” (a particularly evocative term now) with Iran’s current regime. Last Thursday, the State Department confirmed that Secretary Hillary Clinton spoke to her Russian and Chinese counterparts about “getting Iran back to negotiating on some of these concerns that the international community has.” This is precisely the view of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, reflected in the Group of Eight communique the next day. Sen. John Kerry thinks the recent election unpleasantness in Tehran will delay negotiations for only a few weeks.
Obama administration sources have opined (anonymously) that Iran will be more eager to negotiate than it was before its election in order to find “acceptance” by the “international community.” Some leaks indicated that negotiations had to produce results by the U.N. General Assembly’s opening in late September, while others projected that they had until the end of 2009 to show progress. These gauzy scenarios assume that the Tehran regime cares about “acceptance” or is somehow embarrassed by eliminating its enemies. Both propositions are dubious.
Bolton goes on to explain that talks and sanctions … ideas Obama seems to think he invented … were aggressively pursued to no effect by the Bush administration, with the help of our European allies. Including the French and Germans, who I’d add have been more open to the military option than Obama has ever shown himself to be.
It’s too bad. Because the mullahs in Tehran have just given the president of the United States the biggest opening forthright action of any kind, military or diplomatic, since the Iranian hostage crisis. The mullahs, by overtly attacking their own people, managed to do what none of the outrages of the past 30 years have done. They outraged the world.
But never mind the naked oppression and the history of deception, ill-will and criminality. Bolton explains that Obama has a Plan B that lets him to take defeat and declare it victory. The mullahs get to have “peaceful” nukes if they promise they’ll never build bombs. Same deal Kim got. Sure.
So here’s Bolton’s Plan C:
With regime change off the table for the coming critical period in Iran’s nuclear program, Israel’s decision on using force is both easier and more urgent. Since there is no likelihood that diplomacy will start or finish in time, or even progress far enough to make any real difference, there is no point waiting for negotiations to play out. In fact, given the near certainty of Obama changing his definition of “success,” negotiations represent an even more dangerous trap for Israel.
Those who oppose Iran acquiring nuclear weapons are left in the near term with only the option of targeted military force against its weapons facilities. Significantly, the uprising in Iran also makes it more likely that an effective public diplomacy campaign could be waged in the country to explain to Iranians that such an attack is directed against the regime, not against the Iranian people.
Want to make it look good? Keep Israel out of it. Get a coalition task force of NATO and regional players do it. U.S. assets with allies along for the ride. But that isn’t going to happen. That would require diplomacy, and them liking us better. A Bush-level skill set. Barring that, if would be better to have the United States do it alone. But that isn’t going to happen. That would require fortitude and vision. I’d be stunned if there was even enough of that in the O admin to greenlight Israel.
Otherwise, be prepared for an Iran with nuclear weapons, which some, including Obama advisers, believe could be contained and deterred. That is not a hypothesis we should seek to test in the real world. The cost of error could be fatal.
OK, let’s look at how that works. It’s a lot like the Saddam WMD problem. Will Iran launch a nuke at New York City or Tel Aviv next week or next year? Not likely. What Iran will do with nukes is an enhanced version of what it already has been doing in the Middle East. Whatever the hell it wants to. Killing people, running local militias and terrorist organizations, sowing chaos and controlling governments, as it attempts to establish a greater Iranosphere. Only with nukes, Iran will do so with greater impunity and effect, finally achieving the regional dominance it has long sought, with an assist from a United States president whose priority in the region is getting the heck out.
Then there is the prospect that a country in the region might find itself directly threatened with attack, or indirectly held hostage by a nuke-toting proxy. And down the road, that will become easier, as Iranian scientists and their associates in the Axis of Evil development ever smaller, more sophisticated weapons, and better delivery systems. At which point you need to start worrying about New York and Tel Aviv.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 8:43 am on Thursday, July 2, 2009
3 Responses to “Whack Now”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:31 pm
That’s three op-eds in three weeks from Bolton calling for an Israeli bombing strike on Iran. It’s a lot like the Saddam WMD problem? Saddam had no WMD. Get real will ya?
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Even if the top dogs in Iran were willing to “negotiate” (which any sane person knows they are not, except as cover), Obama is the last person they would talk with now. They’ve watched him abandon promise after promise that got him elected. Why would they trust him to stick by his promises now, even if they weren’t back-stabbing liars themselves? On top of that, it’s pretty obvious to all but the most blind that they have no respect for Barack Obama.
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:41 pm
markg8: Yeah, Sammy had no “WMD’s”, he just liked to lie about it to scare people. The plan worked a little too well, and now Sammy is roasting in hell and Iraq is a democratic Republic, if you squint a little.
I call that a win.
Waiting for the Mullahs to actually have nukes and launch platforms capable of threatening a large portion of the planet is a really dumb idea. So naturally, that’s what President Neophyte will do.