Candy Crowley on State of the Union had this exchange with former CIA director Michael Hayden:
COWLEY: … I mean, Iran doesn’t seem to be paying much attention to the sanctions. As far as we know, they are still trying to get nuclear capability. If it should, is there any alternative to taking out their facilities?
HAYDEN: It seems inexorable, doesn’t it?
We engage. They continue to move forward. We vote for sanctions. They continue to move forward. We try to deter, to dissuade. They continue to move forward.
My personal view is that Iran, left to its own devices, will get itself to that step right below a nuclear weapon, that permanent breakout stage, so the needle isn’t quite in the red for the international community. And, frankly, that will be as destabilizing as their actually having a weapon.
When I was in government, what we would used to mystically call “the kinetic option” was way down on our list. In my personal thinking — in my personal thinking; I need to emphasize that — I have begun to consider that that may not be the worst of all possible outcomes.
To put it differently, the most destabilizing event would be a nuclear-armed Iran, not a military strike on Iran. Hayden was not predicting what Obama would do, merely what should be done if all other options fail. It remains far from clear that the Obama team — which has been insistent on playing out engagement and then sanctions long after their utility was widely called into doubt — will act to prevent the worst of all possible outcomes.
What remains inexplicable is that the administration has openly and repeatedly pooh-poohed the idea of military action. You would think a team so desperate to avoid military conflict would recognize that a credible threat of force would be useful. But the administration can’t even bring itself to bluff. How likely is it, then, that it will deploy military force?
It is an election year, so voters have maximum leverage to extract answers and commitments from candidates. It would seem there is no more important question to ask than this: if force is needed, would you urge military action to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran? For those incumbents who answer yes, the next question should be: so what are you doing to persuade the administration to do just that?
Come to think of it, that is the most telling pair of questions to pose for those lawmakers, pundits, and groups advertising themselves as pro-Israel. If the answer to the first is “no,” the respondent can’t, in any meaningful sense, be considered pro-Israel. If the answer to the second is “nothing,” then we know the respondent is too timid, too ineffective, or too shortsighted to be of any help to Israel in the Jewish state’s hour of need.
Agree completely. Last night had some rocky patches but was a net positive. Tonight was magic.
Charlie Gibson was the last chance for the MSM. Sarah Palin has likely endured the worst. It gets much easier from here on end. She’s home free.
Unfortunately my significant other has many plans for the weekend which means much less football than one would ideally or even passibly want. On the upside, were meeting with several couples all of whom are fastidiously and adamantly (not to say violantely) anti-Palin. Can’t wait to sample their views in person (judging by text messages and such Sarah ain’t exactly the belle of that particular ball). Ho Ho. He he hee.
Must remind self that this remains a tossup and there’s two very dangerous months to go. Must not gloat.
“Must remind self that this remains a tossup and there’s two very dangerous months to go. Must not gloat.”
Obama/Biden cannot beat McCain/Palin. Only McCin/Palin can beat McCain/Palin. It is rapidly getting to the point that only pictures of them robbing convenience stores or selling drugs to school children will make a difference.
I have not seen the Jewish right so giddy and happy since you lot proudly marched off for the Kaiser in 1914. remember how that turned out in the long run
Oh snap! Who the hell was that? Is Pat Buchanan visiting again?
Stop laughing at your elders, FA. Don’t you have any manners? I think it’s pretty cool that people in their 90s at least are posting messages here. I figure he or she must be at least 98, a very precocious 4 years old in 1914, to remember the “Jewish right” giddily marching off to war for the Kaiser. Hat’s off to K Wick, and 23 skidoo, too!
The best kept secret of Commentary is that it’s one of the last redoubts of Americanism. I’m as Christian as they come, and I read every word. So here’s to a vigorous alliance between people of intelligence and good will, of all faiths, against the denizens of society’s sewers.
Looks like Palin might have just lost the old wives vote for her ticket. She really must be more careful.
Commentary is for the Reaganites among us.
As an old wife who was thinking about voting for Palin I have to say that I was very deeply offended by her perpetuation of the myth that old wives are more prone to spread malicious gossip than other people. For that reason–and because we really don’t know the truth about the baby, do we–I’m voting for Barack Obama, someone who respects old wives (except for Hillary).
Tying McCain to Bush didn’t work. Next Obama attack ad: McCain and Wilhelm II, peas in a pod.
Al – I am a Scots Irish Christian, and I find Contentions the best and most insightful blog around. Ms. Rubin pinned down the problems with the Obama Supremency earlier and better than anyone, plus the commentators are the best.
Too many German-Americans in Pennsylvania, SteelyTom – otherwise I’m sure it’d already be in the can and ready to go.
Obama Supremacy? Robert Ludlum could do somthing with that title were he alive to do it. Work something in about the Borne Ultimatum, such as the one Matt gave us the other day, and you might get a three pidture deal out of it.