Campaign Clean-up: “Getting Tough” with Iran… Truth and Fiction

Posted on Oct 18 2012 - 8:00pm by Harrison

Should Iran have a nuclear weapon or not?  The question of our time… always answered yet never elaborated.

Mitt Romney has not gone out and agreed with Obama that nuclear weapons need to disappear but he has said, regarding Iran:

I can assure you if I’m president, the Iranians will have no question but that I would be willing to take military action, if necessary, to prevent them from becoming a nuclear threat to the world.

Meanwhile Obama has said:

The president has said he would prevent Iran from “having a nuclear weapon” and has offered assurances that U.S. intelligence would be able to determine when building one had begun.

Both candidates say “no” on Iran having nukes but neither one would say at the most recent debate what they’d do to prevent Iran from reaching their goal.

Much the same thing happened with Pakistan when it was working to develop nuclear weapons (1998) or North Korea (2006).  Nobody wanted to pull the trigger and go to war because of the possible upfront costs.

To date there are only 8 confirmed nuclear powers (Israel is most certainly a nuclear power) and should Iran attain the bomb we’d have a bloodthirsty Islamic theocracy with the ability to destroy nations.

Iran getting a nuke would then make Saudi Arabia and Iraq feel threatened and vulnerable not to mention cause Israel to go on high alert.  Japan wouldn’t be too happy about it and who knows whether a dirty bomb would be set off somewhere in the world with its material having originated in the state that sponsors terror.

So the issue of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon isn’t trivial but yet neither candidate is saying what they’d do.

Part of this reluctance might be to not tip Iran off as to what might happen but I suspect the main reason is because everybody knows a pre-emptive attack against Iran would be disastrous for public support and, during an election year, who needs this kind of a headache?

I think Obama wants Iran to get a nuke so that they will have more leverage dealing with Israel, whom I believe he would like to see turned into a territory run by the Palestinians.  I also think Obama wanting Iran to get a nuclear weapon plays into his philosophy of letting the “weak” nations be “strong” and letting the “strong” nations be “weak.”

Call it the anti-colonialist from 2016.

Romney cannot say anything because he’d be portrayed as a saber rattling despot as George W. Bush was portrayed.

The problem is, someone is going to have to deal with Iran in the next four years and if Romney beats Obama guess who that will be..?

Any military action Romney takes against Iran (unless it is behind the scenes helping the Israelis) will cause the Democrats to suddenly become anti-war again.  And the GOP will be labelled as the war mongering party.

The real threat to America has always been Iran.  Ever since Jimmy Carter helped the Shah to get overthrown they have held a black pit of seething rage against this nation.  But since Iran didn’t make itself a threat, directly, to the United States, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama haven’t done much to them except increase economic sanctions which, while they have had some results, haven’t damaged the leadership there.

Jimmy Carter should have sent in the military to release our hostages and killed everybody in Tehran with a gun pointed at us.

But that didn’t happen and George W. Bush, with the help of a willing Congress and both parties, committed us to Iraq, thus ensuring Iran would remain untouched.

These decisions are now coming back to bite us and Iran will be laughing all the way to the thermonuclear explosion.

1 Comment so far. Feel free to join this conversation.

  1. sharon smith October 19, 2012 at 10:02 AM -

    Great post!