« Brit sniper silences two Taliban's dissent, sets new record in the process | Main | Racist neo-Nazi teabagger jury find Palin e-mail hacker guilty on two counts »
May 03, 2010

John Bolton: Just A Reminder, Obama's Iran Policy Is Leading To A Very Dangerous Place

The Mustache speaks and a per the usual, it slices like a f'ing hammer.

After going through for the umpteenth time what everyone but a liberal Democrat understands...diplomacy and sanctions won't stop Iran, Bolton looks to the future to see where Captain Awesome's engagement policy leads.

It's not pretty.

It is hard to conclude anything except that the Obama administration is resigned to Iran possessing nuclear weapons. While U.S. policy makers will not welcome that outcome, they certainly hope as a corollary that Iran can be contained and deterred. Since they have ruled out the only immediate alternative, military force, they are doubtless now busy preparing to make lemonade out of this pile of lemons.

President Obama's likely containment/deterrence strategy will feature security assurances to neighboring countries and promises of American retaliation if Iran uses its nuclear weapons. Unfortunately for this seemingly muscular rhetoric, the simple fact of Iran possessing nuclear weapons would alone dramatically and irreparably alter the Middle East balance of power. Iran does not actually have to use its capabilities to enhance either its regional or global leverage.

Facile analogies to Cold War deterrence rest on the dubious, unproven belief that Iran's nuclear calculus will approximate the Soviet Union's. Iran's theocratic regime and the high value placed on life in the hereafter makes this an exceedingly dangerous assumption.

Even if containment and deterrence might be more successful against Iran than just suggested, nuclear proliferation doesn't stop with Tehran. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and perhaps others will surely seek, and very swiftly, their own nuclear weapons in response. Thus, we would imminently face a multipolar nuclear Middle East waiting only for someone to launch first or transfer weapons to terrorists. Ironically, such an attack might well involve Israel only as an innocent bystander, at least initially.

I've had this discussion with liberal friends about the cost of stopping or not stopping Iran and they all ignore the costs of "containment".

Even if you believe Iran will be rational and not nuke Israel directly or hand off some nukes to their terror front groups to do the job, you simply can't ignore 30 years of history. Iran has been a dangerous and belligerent nation without nukes. Why in the world would you think they won't ratchet up their non-nuclear attacks once they have the shield of nuclear weapons?

People always talk about the price of oil skyrocketing if Iran is attacked. Well, it will. For awhile. Now if Iran gets the bomb, it will sky rocket whenever the Iranians want it to. They won't have to attack anyone directly (with or without nukes), they'll just issue a press release to stir up the markets and presto...several billion dollars more whenever the IRGC needs some more pocket change.

Yes, there are costs and dangers in attacking Iran. The thing is, adults living in the real world, not The Republic of Unicorns and Rainbows, understand there are real costs and dangers in not stopping Iran.

Alas, there's no reason to think this administration is populated by adults. Witness their latest plan to get rogue nuclear countries in line...declassify information about our weapons stockpiles that has been closely held for decades.

The Pentagon on Monday will release long-classified statistics about the total size of America’s nuclear arsenal, part of an effort to make the case that the country is honoring its treaty commitments to shrink its inventory of weapons significantly, senior administration officials said Sunday.

The American initiative will be cast by the White House as a small but significant step toward allowing the world to measure whether President Obama makes good on his promise of reducing American reliance on nuclear defenses. The commitment to make the figures public will be included in a speech that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will deliver at the opening of a United Nations conference reviewing progress on the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Mrs. Clinton will also announce new funds for the International Atomic Energy Agency.

For years, American intelligence officials have objected to publishing quantitative descriptions of the American nuclear arsenal, concerned that the figures might help terrorist groups calculate the minimum nuclear fuel needed for a weapon. But administration officials said reputable Web sites that track such issues have long noted that American weapons designers need an average of around 4 kilograms of plutonium, or 8.8 pounds.

(via Gabe)

It's childish to think Iran has the slightest interest in our weapons program when it comes to the continuation of theirs. It's simply irrelevant to their calculations.

You know who cut a lot of nuclear weapons without any fanfare or self congratulations? George W(ar Monger) Bush. He did it because he thought it was in the national interest, not because of some moon-eyed romanticism over the effect it would have on Iran.

Once again, Obama is all show and no results.


digg this
posted by DrewM. at 12:12 PM

| Access Comments




Recent Comments
Banana Splits Guy - Bunch Em If You Got Em: "Kelly brings it. I said that was a good pick! ..."

Tami[/i][/b][/s][/u]: "Aannnnd now Shep is going to try to spin his words ..."

simplemind: "I'm shocked there aren't many people in the press ..."

redc1c4 [/b] [/i] [/s] [/u]: "this is why the Left/Swamp wants Trump off Twitter ..."

WhatWhatWhat?: "Holy Crap, Kelly fking KILLED it. The rhineston ..."

Jane D'oh: "I want to punch Shep and the other prissy tools so ..."

JuJuBee, just generally being shamey: " Trump hammered on the Uranium scandal during the ..."

Witwickian Sage: "the never trump stench...oh sure the left lied abo ..."

MSM: "I'm dubious of those that say they do know a Gold ..."

tihs is CNN: "Trump Forces Gold Star Dad To Answer Questions Abo ..."

Blue Hen: "FBN says they were not alerted to Gen. Kelly being ..."

WisRich: "Kelly done. Wow, damn dust. ..."

Recent Entries
Search


MuNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat
Archives
Powered by
Movable Type 2.64