The following editorial appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:
Despite the demonstration in Iraq and Afghanistan that there are limits to what military might can accomplish, there remains a seductive gung-ho streak in the American body politic.
It was on display last week as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited Washington, D.C., and as Republican presidential candidates toured primary states, offering simplistic military solutions for complex problems.
Netanyahu wanted assurances that the United States would back Israel if it decides to attack Iranian nuclear sites. The Israeli air force is not believed to have the necessary long-range strike capability, so the United States would have to be a full partner.
President Barack Obama assured Netanyahu that “all options are on the table,” and that the prospect of an Iranian bomb remains “unacceptable.” But the president also said there was too much “loose talk” of war.
He got that right. U.S. intelligence agencies are not fully convinced Iran is working on a bomb. Some analysts argue that Iran would be no more likely to use such a weapon — or give one to a terrorist group — than any other nuclear nation. Nuclear weapons leave particle evidence that pinpoint where their plutonium comes from.
Despite the mad rhetoric of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran is not suicidal. Ahmadinejad is now out of favor with Iran’s supreme leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who last week welcomed Obama’s statement that a diplomatic “window of opportunity” exists to deal with the issue.
Economic sanctions are beginning to pinch Iran: Trade and banking restrictions are in place, and inflation stands at 20 percent. Iran needs a solution to this problem as much as the Israelis do. Patience and diplomacy have not been exhausted.
Speak not of diplomacy on the Republican campaign trail. Except for the isolationist Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, the remaining candidates are employing Ahmadinejadian-style rhetoric.
On Friday, GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney was asked in a radio interview whether he’d support a first strike on Iran by a U.S.-Israel coalition. “Yes, and I think you actually have to act before they had a weapon, a deliverable weapon. They have to understand that we will take military, kinetic action if they continue to pursue a nuclear option.”
Earlier in the week, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, whose campaign is on life support funded by hawkish pro-Israel billionaire Sheldon Adelson, said that if Israel decides to attack, “I wouldn’t give this (Obama) administration one minute’s notice, because someone will leak it.”
Not to be outflanked, Rick Santorum mocked Gen. Martin Dempsey’s assertion that the United States is not convinced Iran is building a bomb. Gen. Dempsey is chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Mr. Santorum is a former senator from Pennsylvania. Who knows better?
“If they do not tear down those facilities, we will tear them down ourselves,” Mr. Santorum said, adding, “This is not bellicosity and warmongering.”
No? Well, it’s not particularly presidential, either. In the real world, things are complicated. The United States has been to war too often, losing too many lives and spending too much treasure without knowing why we got in or how we get out.
There may someday be a case for intervention in Iran. Sooner than that there may be a case for intervention in Syria. But as a last resort, not the first one.
Comments (6)
Add comment"Speak not of diplomacy on
"Speak not of diplomacy on the Republican campaign trail...." and give it lots of worthless lip service on the Demo campaign trail before we create a no-fly zone, arm Islamic Jihadist's, and reignite ancient tribal civil wars.
Ron Paul is the only one with any anti-useless-war bona fide's this campaign season.
This ex-republican is not scared that Obama is a bigger boogey man than Romney and the others.
If Ron Paul isn't on the ballot I'm not voting.
If Ron Paul isn't on the ballot...
...lock em up and throw away the key!
this is the scenario:
1. Israel has expressed it doesnt need our approval when it chooses to engage;
2. when the Israelis engage, they are counting on US-led efforts to keep a lid on neighbors that would like nothing better than to eliminate the Jews;
3. without that assurance, Israel will be fighting a very near-term war of survival;
4. that's where Israel is short on time -- their diplomatic efforts are with a US administration that is milktoast in foreign policy. If it went down tomorrow, I do not think we'd have their back.
Grendel, I think Obama and
Grendel, I think Obama and his handlers realize they need the Jewish vote since many of the white baby boomers, their white guilt soothed by voting for Obama last election, won't be back this time around.
Obama will back the Israeli's up until the election but after that all bets are off and even if Iran doesn't have a bomb right now a lot can transpire in the next four years.....I think Israel would rather jump the gun a bit than be left with their butts in the wind sometime in the next four years.....
@blackdog
the fundamental difference is that Israel acts in Israel's best interests and Obama acts in Obama's best interests. Nevermind that we have MOA's with Israel that commit us to their security, and in exchange they dont beat the falafel out of every ill-tempered neighbor that decides to lob a salvo across the "disputed" territories. They dont have 4 yrs to wait it out.
no trust for Israel
They are not realistic. They over react showing total disregard for innocent neighbors then look to the rest of the world to back them up. I hate to see terriorist activity committed upon them...I wouldn't wish it upon them...but firing missles at innocents won't help either.