Dan
Calabrese
Read Dan's bio and previous columns here
October 25, 2007
Democrats’ Vows Not to
Attack Iran May Ensure that Bush Does
Vice President Dick Cheney reiterated last week what the administration
has hardly downplayed: It has no intention of letting Iran get nuclear
weapons.
If, before President Bush leaves office, the United States attacks Iran
to prevent its entry into the nuclear club, Democrats may have only
themselves to blame. They have declared themselves so unwilling to deal
with the threat, they may be pushing Bush to the belief that he must
launch an attack – lest he leave the job to a successor who will either
lack the nerve or tragically dismiss the seriousness of the threat.
Nuclear weapons are perfectly safe until someone decides to use one.
Those arguing that we can live with a nuclear Iran argue that the
Iranians understand the actual use of nukes would be suicide. An Israeli
counterattack – and then an American one – would surely wipe Iran itself
off the map. According to this reasoning, there is no regime on Earth
whose acquisition of nuclear weapons would be objectionable, because the
same condition applies to everyone.
Do those who make this argument believe that any regime is crazy
enough to actually use nuclear weapons? If they don’t, then there is no
need to counteract nuclear proliferation – which is quite a change in
thinking for many of the same people who marched in the “No Nukes”
demonstrations of the 1980s.
But if you believe it’s possible a regime could exist that is too
unstable, too evil or simply too irrational to be trusted with nuclear
weapons, Iran is a pretty good candidate for the honor.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has declared that Israel should be
wiped off the map, despite the attempts of liberal history revisionists
to explain this 2005 comment away. For those who argue that Ahmedinejad
really has no power in Iran (pretty much the same people who are trying
to explain away the Israel comment), meet the mad mullahs who hold the
ultimate power. This is the same regime that kidnapped U.S diplomats in
1979 and held them hostage for 444 days. Still in power. These are the
same people who are sending weapons and insurgents into Iraq to
destabilize its democratically elected government. Iran actively arms
and encourages the terrorist group Islamic Jihad.
And yet the argument against stopping its nuclear ambitions rests on the
belief that it is somehow a rational actor on the world stage. Are you
sure of that? Are you really sure? Let-them-have-nuclear-weapons
sure?
For years, the administration has indulged the usual futility of
multilateral diplomacy and “weapons inspections” by a feckless United
Nations, understanding throughout that none of this is going to stop
Iran – because it never stops anyone from doing anything.
Meanwhile, Democrats have decided to use Iran as a campaign talking
point, openly expressing their shock and horror at the prospect of Bush
attacking Iran and falling all over themselves to promise the world that
none of them would ever do so.
Put yourself in Bush’s shoes. The Democrats have succeeded, with the
help of their mainstream media allies, in driving your approval ratings
to an irretrievably low level. If you care at all about approval ratings
– and it’s far from clear that Bush does – you can count on ending your
presidency with numbers in the toilet. These same Democrats have
telegraphed to you and everyone else that they will never, ever, ever
attack Iran – and even more, that they don’t believe the U.S. is even
capable of doing so because of our other military commitments abroad.
You, Bush, are convinced that a nuclear Iran is a mortal threat. There
appears to be a strong possibility that your successor will be unwilling
to confront the problem. And your approval ratings are going to be
horrendous no matter what you do.
What’s more, at least some of your military advisors are saying publicly
that the U.S. has more than enough military resources available to
successfully attack Iran and take out its nuclear capabilities.
If Bush decides he cannot leave office on January 20, 2009 without first
attacking Iran, the Democrats who have dismissed the threat and vowed
not to deal with it will have only themselves to blame.
Of course, Americans may choose on November 4, 2008 to elect a 44th
president who takes the Iranian threat as seriously as Bush does, in
which case he may see no reason to launch the attack in the two months
and 16 days he will have before leaving office.
So if you’re not eager to see America attack Iran, you might think twice
about voting Democratic. It may be tantamount to giving the attack
order.
© 2007 North Star
Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.
Click here to talk to our writers and
editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.
To e-mail feedback
about this column,
click here. If you enjoy this writer's
work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry
it.
This
is Column # DC119.
Request permission to publish here. |