Pursuant to my decision to run for president on the www.americanselect.org platform, this is the latest of a series of blogs laying out my domestic and foreign policy positions. Today's blog indicates the next step I feel is appropriate in dealing with the nuclear threat posed by Iran.
Time for Congress to Authorize Use of Force Against Iran
Successive administrations have warned Iran that it would not be permitted to obtain nuclear weapons.
President Clinton's first Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, stated: "Iran's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons... pose enormous dangers. Every responsible member of the world community has an interest in seeing those efforts fail. There is no room for complacency."
President Bush promised to eliminate the nuclear threat emanating from Iran, stating that "Permitting the world's leading sponsor of terror to possess the world's deadliest weapons would be an unforgivable betrayal for future generations... For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."
And President Obama stated, "(My) administration will do everything we can to keep Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon... Iran has to stand down on its nuclear weapons program."
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has said: "...Our red line to Iran is to not develop a nuclear weapon. That's a red line for us."
Unfortunately, neither these implied military threats nor the economic sanctions imposed to date have deterred Iran in its ongoing effort to develop nuclear bombs and the means of their delivery. Indeed, Iran has, it appears, responded to the warnings and economic sanctions by accelerating its development of nuclear weapons. Iran is also allegedly working on long-range missiles that could deliver nuclear explosives to major U.S. cities. Iran apparently already has missiles capable of hitting major cities as well as U.S. bases in the Middle East and Europe.
The President's current policy involves significantly raising the economic pressure on Iran to elicit compliance. But economic sanctions, no matter how tough, are not likely to succeed within the short time left -- an estimated year -- before Iran has acquired sufficient nuclear material to make several bombs.
Nor is the Iranian regime likely to be deterred by more stringent economic sanctions even if their development of nuclear weapons will take longer than one year. A regime that forced tens of thousands of children to clear mine fields with their bodies is not going to be deterred by economic shortages that will affect the general population, but that will surely leave top leaders untouched.
The president has stated that the U.S. is working "in lockstep" with Israel on preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. This statement means that should Israel attack Iran's nuclear weapons facilities, the Iranians will view the attack as coming from the U.S. no less than from Israel.
We should not ask Israel to fight our wars for us. Our national security is our own responsibility. If Iran poses an existential security threat to the United States, as the last three administrations have stated, it's up to the United States to make sure that whatever military action is taken is sufficient to protect our country for the long term.
In my view, only military action or the assurance of imminent military action will eliminate the threat to our country posed by Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons.
To make crystal clear that military action is imminent and enjoys wide political support, the president should immediately request from Congress a resolution authorizing the use of all force necessary and for as long as necessary to eliminate Iran's nuclear weapons acquisition program.
A Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force would not constitute a declaration of war. Our intent is not to go to war with Iran. Our intent is to eliminate Iran's nuclear threat to our country and our allies.
A Congressional resolution would also give the president the public support he needs and deserves in confronting Iran with the only language it appears to understand -- force.
Follow Laurence J. Kotlikoff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kotlikoff
http://www.theonion.com/articles/iran-worried-us-might-be-building-8500th-nuclear-w,27325/
On the other hand, Qaddafi in Libya renounced nuclear weapons at our entreaties, and joined us in our GWOT. As a result, he met a Mussolini-like end while our bombers flew overhead.
The incentives are all there for Iran to acquire nukes in sheer self-defense (noting, that like Iraq and Libya, they have lots of OIL, the drug that addicts us).
is lost on them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVESMxs4rbA
We've spent 10 years fighting a 2 front war in the Middle East, and it's a big part of why this country is in worse shape than most of us can remember. It can't go on. And Israel? As much as I support that nation's right to exist, we can't establish a pattern of behavior whereby they go around picking any fight they want with the expectation that the US will back them up. In fact, I disagree with the author's assertion that "We should not ask Israel to fight our wars for us.". Why not let them take point on this one? If they're such a valuable ally to the US, let them deal with this "threat", which concerns them far more than it does us, while we try and salvage what's left of our nation.
Two final points: first, Pakistan DOES have nukes, and is no more a friend to the US than Iran (particularly in light of the Bin Laden fiasco). Do we attack them too?
Second, nuclear technology is upwards of 70 years old. The secrets are out there. Can we really go to war every single time we get the notion that a country we don't like might have plans to build one?
We will not fail. If Obama even thinks for A SECOND that attacking Iran is a winning electoral strategy we will end his re-election prospects.
If an enemy of the US had nuclear weapons and the US did not have that capability, don't you think the US would spend whatever it took, ignore whatever treaties it needed to, to feel secure? The answer is clear. Why we should so arrogantly suppose that Iran does not have that same right, nay obligation, to its own citizens?!
It is the height of delusion of the Netanyahu government and unfortunately many of the warmongers beating the drums for Iranian military action, that Israel will be safer if military action takes place.
NO. Iran will become MOREresolute and determined to secure its safety so long as the mortal threat to its security, e.g. ISRAEL's nuclear weapons remain in place. Moreover, military action will mobilize the Iranian center to the side of the mullahs at a time when moderates and liberals in Iran have made tremendous strides!
Having worked very hard to stop the Iraq invasion from taking place, having failed by non-violent means, the generation that saw our country become a laughing stock because of the capricious and ignorant whims of the Bush administration to seek war at any cost, we no longer have tolerance for non-violent means.
We should not ask Israel to fight our wars for us.
HA HA HA! You aren't kidding anyone.
OCCUPY
The concept of MAD ( mutually assured destruction) does not apply due to the nature of the fanatical Shia regime which sees martyrdom as an inducement to war, not a deterrent. ( This is, after all, a regime that marched children across minefields after giving them brass keys representing the "key to paradise".)
The world is at a cusp very much like that of 1938. In similar fashion the naive were all aghast at the idea of war ( only 20 years after WWI ), and the same naive idealists and isolationists got their way culminating in Chamberlane's famous "peace in our time" fiasco...followed by a world war that killed some 60 million people.
The cost of stopping Iran before it obtains the world's ultimate weapon will be high, but it will pale in comparison to the costs of that same war after Iran has that weapon.
Who's the bigger threat to our peace?
You and others like you have killed enough.
You really ought to be locked up.