Views expressed in guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media.
Visit the complete Guest Column archives.
Obama and Iran – Tough Choices Face the Next President
Guest Column | By Joel Himelfarb | November 11, 2008
One of the silliest analyses
of Barack Obama’s victory came from New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof.
Foreign readers e-mailing his NYT blog on Election Night were delighted about
Obama’s win, leading Kristof into fantasy land. “In Switzerland, an
American was bathed in compliments comparing the election to the fall of the
Berlin Wall. An American in Kenya
named Tom wore an Obama T-Shirt and found that his walk to work took more than
an hour because so many people stopped to congratulate him and celebrate with
him,” Kristof wrote. “The outpouring suggests that the United States
will enjoy an Obama dividend of global good will in the coming months, a chance
to hammer out progress on common threats. ‘Barack’ means blessing in Swahili,
and this election feels like America’s
great chance to rejoin the world after eight years of self-exile.”
Back in the real world,
however, Iran, Syria and the
terrorists they support don’t appear ready for Kristof’s kumbaya moment. As
Obama was winning the election November 4th, the Israel Defense Forces launched
an operation in Gaza to destroy a tunnel terrorists had dug in an effort to
kidnap IDF soldiers – a primary goal of Iranian-backed terror groups
confronting the Jewish State, who have found kidnapping soldiers a productive
way to force Israel to release imprisoned terrorists.
Israel launched the operation to prevent Hamas from
launching an “imminent” attack, aimed at kidnapping more IDF troops.
On Wednesday morning, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, two of the
Tehran/Damascus-backed terror groups based in Gaza,
responded to the IDF raid by firing 35 rockets at Israeli civilians in cities
and towns in southern Israel.
Several of the rockets hit Ashkelon, a port city located approximately nine
miles from Gaza.
Since 2001, rocket fire from Hamas and other Gaza-based terror groups has
killed 24 Israelis, wounded more than 1,000 and left many more civilians
suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.
Since Israel’s unilateral
withdrawal from Gaza in August 2005, Iranian-backed terrorists have fired more
than 5,800 rockets and mortar shells into Israel targeting civilians (nearly
half of these were fired into Israel this year). Iran provides Hamas $20-30 million
a year in training and weapons. In Lebanon,
Hezbollah – the terrorist group perched near Israel’s
northern border – receives more than $100 million a year from Tehran. And Iran
has supported Shi’ite and Sunni terrorists in neighboring Iraq. During
the past two years, the U.S.
military has
repeatedly pointed to Iran’s
role in smuggling in roadside bombs and other weaponry used to kill and maim
American soldiers. The smugglers include members of the Iranian Revolutionary
Guard – a number of whom have been arrested and detained by U.S. and Iraqi
security forces.
All of this is taking place
at a time when Iran
lacks nuclear weapons. The status quo works well for Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad and the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Their surrogates
have plenty of money to kill Americans, Israelis and others by proxy, while
Iranian leaders behind the carnage live carefree lives safe from retaliation.
In the event Tehran were to produce a nuclear
bomb, its ability to foment terror and deter the United
States and/or Israel would rise exponentially.
This creates a huge problem
for Obama, an outspoken advocate of U.S.
“dialogue” with Iran.
As for pre-emptive U.S.
military action to destroy Tehran’s
illicit nuclear facilities, neither Obama nor his Republican critics have much
of an appetite for such a step. Last year, Obama went so far as to oppose
designating the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist entity, claiming such a step
would be used to justify a military attack on Iran by the Bush Administration.
If Obama 1) opposes military action against Iran
and 2) simultaneously declares his opposition to Iran
possessing nuclear weapons, he doesn’t leave himself many options to stop Iran (aside from
covert action which might delay the inevitable.) The only remaining alternative
would be some form of Cold War era-style containment – deterring Iran in the same way the United States did with the Soviet
Union during the Cold War.
It is an open question
whether such deterrence could work. Khamenei and other senior officials have
declared that Iran
does not have nuclear weapons and that using them would be contrary to Islamic
principles. But American Enterprise Institute scholar Michael Rubin points out
that the Aytollah Ruhollah Khomeini, founder of the Islamic Republic, taught
his disciples to engage in taqiya (i.e., religiously sanctioned
falsehoods) in order to advance their goals.
In addition to the existence
of a covert nuclear weapons program for more than two decades, there are plenty
of indications that Iran
seeks nuclear weapons and would not be deterred by the prospect of massive
retaliation. Former Iranian President AliAkbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who is
usually depicted as a “moderate” in the Western press, said the
following in a December 14, 2001, sermon at Tehran University.
“The use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy
everything….It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.”
Even if Israel responded
with its own nuclear arsenal, Rafsanjani said, Iran has the strategic depth to
absorb and withstand retaliation – meaning that the price may be worth paying:
“It will only harm the Islamic world,” he said. Since that time,
various Iran
clerics have spoken of the importance of the Islamic Republic having nuclear
weapons.
Moreover, Ahmadinejad and
other senior leaders speak in apocalyptic tones suggesting that mass death
would be an acceptable price to pay to advance the regime’s political goals.
Mehdi Khalaji, a senior fellow at the Washingto Institute for Near East Policy,
spent 14 years training in the religious seminaries in Qom, Iran.
He writes: “Ahmadinejad appears to be influenced by a trend in contemporary
apocalyptic [Islamist] thought in which the killing of Jews will be one of the
most significant accomplishments” in the government of the Mahdi – Shi’ite
Islam’s messianic figure.
In a new AEI paper, Rubin
makes a powerful case that the United States
lacks the military forces in the Middle East necessary to deter Iran. Although
the U.S. has bases in the
region, it faces resistance from hosts like Saudi
Arabia, Oman,
Iraq, Kuwait and Turkey to the
projection of American power. Saudi Arabia,
for example, only permits Washington to
maintain a small combined air operations center on its soil. Oman initially refused the U.S. Air Force permission to fly missions into Afghanistan
from its territory after September 11th (an operation far less controversial
than any strike on Iran
would be). The Iraqi government wants the United States to evacuate according
to a set timetable, a position not all that different from Obama’s. The
Islamist regime in Turkey
has worked to improve relations with Iran and has sought to limit U.S.
Air Force use of the Incirlik Air Force base. Countries like Bahrain and the United
Arab Emirates, where the U.S. 5th Fleet uses
facilities, remain vulnerable to Iranian air strikes.
These are just some of the
obstacles to a serious U.S.
effort to “deter” or “contain” Iran without using military force.
Pundits who wax poetic about Obama (or any other U.S. politician) ushering in a new
era of world peace are deluding themselves. And dealing with the mullahs could
prove to be simple when compared to potentially more dangerous long-term
problems with Russia and China.
FamilySecurityMatters.org contributing editor Joel Himelfarb is the assistant editor of the editorial page of the Washington Times.
Guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media or its staff.
8 Comments | Post a Comment
Mr. Bush turned down FLAT Iran’s offer to negotiate once we invaded Iraq. An opportunity squandered because of hubris.
We have no way of knowing how Mr. Obama will fare, but as of January 20 he’s the president; I would hope you’d be happier to see him succeed than fail, but your post (#1) suggests otherwise.
Making some kind of nice with Russian and China is our most serious problem - and failure to succeed in coming to some sort of working political relationship with each will result in another version of the Cold War. Iran ranks further down on the priority list.
Enjoy the remains of peace we’ve enjoyed under GW Bush. Obama wants “change,” which means war on this country, and the prosperity we’ve had for the past six years under Bush is already tanking as the markets prepare for the disastrous economy Obama proposes with high taxes for the 5% who are paying most of our taxes already. His supporters are eagerly waiting with their hands out for all his great promises.
This is the great deceit of socialism. The leaders promise prosperity and deliver depression. Get used to it.
Wysiwyg, Post 6;
“Enjoy the remains of peace we’ve enjoyed under GW Bush.”
You gotta’ be kiddin’! We’ve had 6 years of (Bush’s) WAR (to no avail) in Afghanistan and Iraq - with no end in sight. 6,000 dead military is not exactly “peace”!
“the prosperity we’ve had for the past six years under Bush ... ”
You gotta’ be kiddin’! Bush has more than TRIPLED the national debt from some $3 trillion to more than $10 trillion - and is now headed for a record-breaking $1 trillion additional deficit for 2008 - and has led us into the 2nd Great Depression! You call that “prosperity”? He’s been slowing bankrupting the the whole damned country for the eight years he’s been in office.
“His (Obama’s) supporters are eagerly waiting with their hands out for all his great promises. This is the great deceit of socialism.”
You gotta’ be kiddin! Bush has socialized all the Wall Street investment banks, several Wall Street brokerage houses, several retail national banks, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, AIG - and who knows what else! BUSH IS THE DAMNED SOCIALIST! And it’s only been the mega-multi-millionaire Wall Street FAT CATS who have had “their hands out” for some of Bush’s $700 billion in borrowed money!
Geez! You better clean your glasses and tune-up that hearing aid!
Geez!
The war was not “Bush’s war” but was urged before he even took office by all the leading Democrats in Congress. The videos are all available, and were made during the Clinton administration. Bush had little choice given the urgency of the CIA’s intelligence and the statements by the Clintons and all their supporters, leading to a national policy that Saddam had to be removed from power. Why do you liberals all forget history so quickly when you don’t like the extension of it into a Republican presidency?
Obama has backed off his resolve to withdraw our troops. He knows we will be in great danger if he does. The war is on a winning track, and it will be Obama’s to lose if he follows his own plan. He will not want to be saddled with losing a war we should have won under Bush’s plan.
You can’t lay the blame on Bush for the Freddie and Fannie collapse. That is purely Democrat in inception, development and deceit in hiding its corruption. It is available on YouTube the Dems in Congress claiming that Fred and Fan were doing fine when the Democrat heads were lying and stealing millions of dollars, paying off Democrat legislators all the way and Clinton era politicians were raking in tens of millions at the expense of retirees and working Americans who were invested in the market to ensure their own survival in their retirement. Those crooks stole the money of everyone with an IRA or 401K, and now they are laughing at us who trusted our system to handle our money.
When Bush and McCain tried multiple times to get reforms passed to protect us from the corruption of Fannie and Freddie, the Democrats blocked all bills from coming to the floor for a vote. Maybe they didn’t shout loud enough, but the pleas were well spoken and were publicized, but Democrats were not interested as long as they saw the money coming into their pockets.
Yes, Bush had his own socialist tendencies, and that is why his approval dropped. When he led as a strong conservative, as after 9/11, he was very popular, but once his programs got the economy going well again and he started with the socialist programs, his numbers fell. Obama wants to take us further down this losing path, and he will probably be in the sewer within three years too.
America wants to remain free, not in a slave state due to socialism
Wysiwyg, Post 8;
Pure fantasizing!
YOU: “The war was not “Bush’s war” but was urged before he even took office by all the leading Democrats in Congress.”
First of all, for the last seven years, GOPS and Cons have constantly criticized Clinton for “doing nothing” about Bin Laden and “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq! So, now, you say the Afghanistan and Iraq wars were in the works BEFORE Bush took office ???? Nutsy.
Second, “Democrats in Congress” had NOTHING significant to say about how things were done from 1994 through 2006 - - BECAUSE REPUBLICANS CONTROLLED THE CONGRESS and called ALL the shots!
(And, in case you don’t know this, a president has VETO POWER over whatever Congress (DEMs or GOPs) may want!)
YOU: “Obama has backed off his resolve to withdraw our troops.”
The government of Irag is demanding all U.S. and coalition troops BE OUT OF IRAQ by a date in 2010 - and an agreement is being negotiated to achieve that objective - and you can COUNT on our guys being out of there before the end of 2010! This has been in the news since early summer!!!
YOU: “You can’t lay the blame on Bush for the Freddie and Fannie collapse.”
First of all, your whole paragraph here is pure fantasy! Second, as I said above, Congress was controlled by the Republicans from 1994 to 2006 - so, any “deregulation” of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which may have led to poor decision-making and lack of oversight therein - occurred under GOP control. And, third, any bad management that may have led to problems in these organizations was the result of BAD MANAGERS - not Democratic “crooks” in Congress or the government.
YOU: “When Bush and McCain tried multiple times to get reforms passed to protect us from the corruption of Fannie and Freddie, the Democrats blocked all bills from coming to the floor for a vote.”
Bush and McCain did no such thing! And, as I said two or three times already, the GOP controlled the Congress from 1994 through 2006 - and even in 2006, the Democrats only had a majority in the Senate by ONE vote IF two Independents voted with the DEMs - and there was only a very small majority in the House - neither majority being large enough to force through or stop legislation from reaching a vote.
YOU: “America wants to remain free, not in a slave state due to socialism.”
How do you equate “slave” to “socialism”? Canada has “socialized” medicine: does Canada also support “slavery”??? United Kingdom? France? Italy? Spain?
And, talking about “socialism” in America: how about Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Aid to Dependent Children, Workmen’s Disability Compensation, Federal Unemployment Compensation, land grant universities, free public education, community hospitals, free public libraries, the Tennessee Valley Authority, government research grants, the Small Business Administration’s programs, the Interstate Highway System, the Air traffic control program, the Federal Reserve banks, control of motor vehicle emissions and minimum mileages - etc. - etc. - etc. The list is almost endless! You’ve ALREADY LIVED YOUR WHOLE LIFE taking advantage of some of these “socialistic” programs.
In reality, the simplest acceptable definition of “socialism” is “government ownership of the means of production”. MR. BUSH’s government has recently taken over ownership of Indy Mac bank, a couple other retail banks, several Wall Street investment banks, AIG Insurance Co., and some other “financial services” firms - while currently contemplating buying stock in the three American automakers. That would appear to me to be “Republican Socialism” - and, probably, “real” socialism, according to the definition.
You are totally entrapped by abject partisanship and non-real-world ideology.
And, as I said earlier: “Geez!”
Amor patriae.
I’m guessing the poster who calls him/herself WYSIWYG is a professor of revisionist current history. How else to explain someone laying our invasion of Iraq at the feet of the Democrats, as opposed to those of the fine folks at PNAC where it belongs?
Then he says “Why do you liberals all forget history so quickly when you don’t like the extension of it into a Republican presidency?”
Who’s forgetting history? (hint: it rhymes with WYSIWHG!)The Republicans have been running the show for 8 years now. Your attempts to pin blame on the Democrats show you to be a factually bankrupt kneejerk.
November 12 at 12:18 pm | #1 | Link
Any bets on how long it will take Obama to admit that he is in over his head? Mr. Tough Guy will wilt in the face of the threat of Islamic destruction of Israel.
If he sits down to tea with Ahmadinejad, he should have a “taster” before taking the first sip.