On Iran
Towse asked in misc.writing what our comments were on Seymour Hersh's piece in the New Yorker on Iran.This is my answer. I'm not keen on the US' interfering in other countries' business but I believe that Iran's acquiring a nuclear weapon is impossible to accept. I take note that Pakistan, an unstable state, has one without causing undue concern (except when it was reported to be considering a first strike on India, of course, but that would be "due concern" in my books). I take note that Iran has a desire to be recognised as a regional power of importance and a culture that stretches back into antiquity.
However, Ahmedinajad is a cryptofascist. He is very scary. It is bad that America has nuclear weapons, but worse, much, much worse that Iran does.
Saddam had no links to Islamists. But Iran has links to people who hate Israel sufficiently to consider a "final solution".
I say that if Israel knows where the reactors are, and it almost certainly does, we greenlight them to bomb them. They don't actually need the green light. If Iran really has enriched uranium, Israel will do it anyway. Were I Olmert, I would be asking my spooks for the definitive word on enrichment. If they say yes, it's go. After I have destroyed the reactors, I make it clear to Iran that any revenge attack on Israel or Israeli interests will cause the destruction of Teheran. There is no way Ahmedinajad should be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.
Should we go to war to prevent Iran from getting the bomb? I think we should prevent Iran from getting the bomb. I do not think Iran is entirely insane. If we show resolve, it will back down. We must offer them carrots to do it, not just show the stick. But there must be a stick. And if that means that Iran wants a war, that is a consequence we must bear.
posted by Dr Zen @ 11:25 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home