Among the plethora of arguments made against an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, one of the most bizarre is that the ensuing wave of international sympathy for Iran would destroy the international sanctions regime and allow Iran to race for the bomb unhindered – an argument made by both Israeli and American security experts opposed to a strike.
After all, U.S. President Barack Obama has said repeatedly that preventing a nuclear Iran is “profoundly” in America’s security interest; various other world leaders have also said a nuclear Iran threatens their own security. So why would all of them suddenly decide that a nuclear Iran no longer threatens their countries’ interests just because Israel launched an attack? And unless they changed their minds in this fashion, why would any of them suddenly stop trying to prevent Iran from going nuclear? Normal countries don’t stop pursuing their own security interests merely because they are annoyed with another country.
In fact, there’s only one conceivable reason why any country currently backing the sanctions regime should reverse its position following an Israeli strike: If it never actually cared about preventing a nuclear Iran in the first place, and backed sanctions only in an effort to prevent an Israeli attack.
It’s certainly possible that many countries fall into this category. But if so, that’s an argument in favor of an Israeli strike – because if world leaders aren’t actually committed to stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, there’s no chance the sanctions regime will be maintained long enough and strictly enough to do so.
Indeed, the opposite is the case: If the world’s only interest in sanctions is preventing Israeli military action against Iran, those sanctions are sure to be eased once Iran has entered the “zone of immunity,” meaning its nuclear facilities are sufficiently protected that Israel no longer has the ability even to significantly delay its quest for the bomb. After all, most of the countries now participating in sanctions, especially in Europe, conducted a thriving trade with Iran until recently, and reviving that trade would benefit their own faltering economies. Thus the incentive to lift the sanctions would be overwhelming once the danger of an Israeli attack had passed.
In short, if other countries don’t truly believe it’s in their own interest to keep Iran from going nuclear, the sanctions effort will soon lapse regardless of whether or not Israel attacks – meaning Israel’s best play is to attack now and achieve whatever delay it can. That, as I’ve written before, isn’t an ideal solution, but it’s better than the certainty of Iran getting the bomb: Just as Israel’s 1981 attack on Iraq’s nuclear reactor bought just enough time for Saddam Hussein to provoke international intervention by invading Kuwait, an attack on Iran now could buy time for, say, a successful Iranian revolution, or an Iranian blunder (like closing the Straits of Hormuz) that would provoke international military action.
And if other countries do believe that preventing a nuclear Iran is in their own interests, they’ll continue working toward that end regardless of whether or not Israel attacks.
Veritable common sense, rather than duplicitous deception, should govern this matter, as you have clearly noted; but, as frequently happens with most issues concerning Jews, the latter prevails, much to our collective misery, and the Jewish people suffer yet again. n nI f only our Jewish and Israeli "leaders" would stand up like men and fight for their people's survival, pride, and blood, then perhaps we could have a chance to retain our youth, who are ignorant of their people's illustrious history, unconcerned about assimilation and intermarriage, embarrassed about Judaism, and who are disgusted by their "leaders'" timidity. n nAfter all, if our "leaders" do not care about Jewish blood, then why should they care about Jewish history, heritage, nation, and their individual role as a member of a great people.
There seems to be this idea that Iran that can be dealt with in the short term, and once that's done, the problem is over. Thus, sanctions as an alternative is one solution. A strike by Israel is another solution, likewise a strike by the U.S. (with or without Israel). Similarly, a solution is to just let Iran build nuclear bombs and the world lives with that until we can't. This misses the point. n nThe world cannot allow Iran to get the bomb. Period. If Israel strikes, and that delays the program, that's good. But then there would have to be further strikes, sanctions, or an overthrow of the current regime, that would cease the nuclear program completely. The idea that there's this simple solution, once implemented and then forgotten, is short-term thinking and wrong. n nThe long term, which feeds the short-term, is to prevent Iran from ever being a nuclear power. Each solution is part of the bigger solution to that overall problem for the world. It's not one step implemented, problem solved. It's one step implemented, problem delayed, and then there could be necessary follow-on steps. n nWe miss the picture if we think there's a direct and simple solution. This problem can only be solved when Iran ceases their nuclear program completely and unequivocally. Anything short of that is only a partial solution and short-sighted.
any iranian regim,current or future will continue the nuclear program, regardless of the political color of the regime.__it is the Iranian people who want nuclear deterrence against the Israelis nukes.__the methods of successive bombing will not work, as explained by michel hayden and colin kahln, after a first strike Iranians will leave the NPT, and build entirely underground and hidden. __there will be no more massives facilities to bomb again, and again.__even the current head of CENTCOM Gen James Mattis admited:__ " only iranian people can stop this programm
The problem is that virtually every Israeli military and political leader, holding office or recently retired from it, is against a unilateral attack at the present time, apart from Bibi and Ehud Barak whose months long backing and filling and hints and murmurs has yet to lead to concrete action.
"After all, U.S. President Barack Obama has said repeatedly that preventing a nuclear Iran is “profoundly” in America’s security interest; various other world leaders have also said a nuclear Iran threatens their own security." n nso one person in a bunch of countries other than the two involved have pretended they care, basically. Outside of the capitols no one cares about this. People have bigger fish to fry than a non existent nuke n nmazeld- "The world cannot allow Iran to get the bomb. period" n nbecause you say so? The arrogance is incredible. n nThe US isn't going to strike Iran and Israel can't do it by itself. It's not happening. If Israelis don't like it too bad. n n
the US may well strike Iran at such time as the Iranians decide to assemble nuclear weapons. n nconsidering that the president and several other people in high office have said that the US well might do just that, it ain't all that far-fetched.