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.

posted by DrewM. at 12:12 PM

| Access Comments