Forcing Iran to Back Down Would Advance American Interests and Security

[Washington Post] Saul Singer - A comprehensive Israeli-Arab peace is on hold, at best, pending resolution of the Iranian problem. Neither the Palestinians nor the Arab states will officially end the century-long quest to crush the Zionist project at precisely the moment when that quest is poised to obtain nuclear backing. The U.S. might be tempted to settle for allowing Iran to develop all the components of a nuclear arsenal - including enriched uranium, bomb-making know-how, and long-range ballistic missiles - so long as they are not obviously put together. This would not be an acceptable solution for Israel or for Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, that are no less concerned about a nuclear Iran. The reason is that an Iran that is just a key's turn away from a nuclear arsenal has the immunity of a nuclear power, and therefore can destabilize the region as if it were a full nuclear power. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will launch their own nuclear programs even if Iran is "only" a near-nuclear power. Obama, understandably, wants to resolve the Iranian problem without a full showdown. But in reality there is no option of avoiding confrontation, because a nuclear or near-nuclear Iran will ultimately lead to confrontation or war. But the real reason for the U.S. to pursue a truly non-nuclear (and non-terrorist) Iran is not to avoid Israeli military action, but to advance American interests and security. Forcing Iran to back down would be the greatest setback for Islamofascism since the fall of radical regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq.

2009-05-14 06:00:00

Full Article


Visit the Daily Alert Archive