A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet
**************************
Just a few days ago, we published a piece entitled: "Get Ready for a Nuclear Iran." The thrust of the piece was that Obama will not make any attempt to stop Iran from developing an atomic bomb or a missile delivery system for nuclear warheads, but will, in fact, allow Iran to continue their endeavor for nuclear weapons. We hypothesized in that commentary that Obama was developing a strategy of "containment" of a nuclear Iran -- because he knows he is not going to make an attempt to stop them and indeed, doesn't want Israel to stop them, either.
Here is just a snippet of what we said in that writing: "... it provides no comfort knowing that Iran is closing on its desire to have its very own nuclear bomb, which it intends to drop on Israel and the United States at the earliest opportunity.
It should come as no surprise when the Obama administration rolls out their plans for "containment of a nuclear Iran." Many have felt for some time that was Obama's ultimate goal all the while.
Understand: The Arab nations are scared witless of the Persian nation. If Iran is allowed to possess a nuclear bomb, expect all the Arab nations in the region to go nuclear almost overnight -- in self defense. They won't waste time with developing their own nuclear programs, they will simply purchase nuclear bombs and missiles and be done with it.
Now -- allow me to ask you -- how much safer will YOU feel if and when the entire Middle East is armed to the teeth with nuclear bombs and missiles?" We encourage you to read the entire article at: http://insightonfreedom.blogspot.com/2013/04/get-ready-for-nuclear-iran-j-d_25.html
Today, Sunday May 5th, 2013, at Israelnationalnews.com there is an article by Gil Ronen entitled: "Israel 'Opting to Contain' Nuclear Iran?" Report in Sunday Times says U.S. is brokering a deal between Israel, Saudis, Jordan, Turkey and UAE."
The opening paragraph of Mr. Ronen's pieces says the following: "Israel is considering partnering with several Sunni-Muslim Arab states in a U.S.-brokered defense alliance that would be aimed at containing a nuclear Iran, the Sunday Times reported, citing an unnamed Israeli official." (Emphasis by underlining is mine.) SOURCE: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/167735#.UYZ4-0qcNIx
If the Obama administration is seriously thinking they can be successful at containing a nuclear Iran, they are kidding themselves. And it is a dangerous joke.
Look. The US has been attempting to "contain" Iran since the Carter administration and we see where that has gotten us. Even today we have an iron wall of naval warships stationed just off shore of Iran. We have forward deployed troops in neighboring countries on continuous alert. We have satellites, drones, recon aircraft of every kind, plus electronic surveillance 24-7, all aimed at containing a NON-nuclear Iran. Plus, all the sanctions on Iran by the UN. It hasn't phased them, at all.
In an article at the Heritage Foundation website they plainly state the following: "While the Obama Administration maintains that the military option is on the table, it has done little to convince Tehran that it is serious. If this trend continues, containment of a nuclear Iran will become the default option for the United States. Before this happens, the Administration should carefully weigh the costs, risks, benefits, and feasibility of such a policy." (Emphasis by underlining is mine.) SOURCE: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/02/containing-a-nuclear-iran-difficult-costly-and-dangerous
The very same article goes on to say: "The manifest failure of U.S. efforts to contain Iranian influence and deter attacks on Americans in the past 30 years should raise alarms about the much greater difficulty inherent in containing and deterring Tehran after it acquires nuclear weapons. To argue the merits of containment now that Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons is to argue for a policy that has been tried for decades— a policy that is now close to an enormous defeat because of the progress of Iran’s nuclear program." SOURCE: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/02/containing-a-nuclear-iran-difficult-costly-and-dangerous
Obama continues to promise, publicly anyway, that "all options are on the table." That phrase is SUPPOSED to mean a military strike is an option. The problem is -- nobody believes Obama anymore -- especially the mullahs in Iran. Heck, I don't even believe him -- as you can plainly see from this commentary.
President Theodore Roosevelt is credited with saying: "Walk softly -- and carry a BIG stick." Mr. Obama would do well to heed Teddy's advice. It is not helpful when the President publicly threatens to act when certain degrees of hostility have been reached by the offending force ... as in Obama's recent back-down when the Syrians boldly crossed the "red line" Obama, himself, imposed.
A Commander-in-Chief should never threaten unless he intends to act to back up his threat. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama has now told the world that America's word cannot be trusted, that America issues empty threats, and Obama has underscored the belief by many nations around the globe today that America, today, is a nation of lions led by a sheep.
This bad, very bad.
© J. D. Longstreet
0 comments:
Post a Comment