Bolton on Iran's "Point of No Return": "global, balance of power changes in potentially catastrophic ways"

Mr. B sums it up rather nicely - and rather deadly. But I don't believe that Bush and co. will  sign off on decisive, courageous action as he limps out of office. He will attempt to stop Israel. Pathetic, all of it.

So it rests on the crooked shoulders of Olmert, a hack, clearly out of his league with the very real weight of the world on his back. *sigh*

Israel, Iran and the Bomb  By JOHN R. BOLTON

[...] Then the decision to weaponize, and its timing, is Tehran's alone. We do not know if Iran is at this point, or very near to it. All we do know is that, after five years of failed diplomacy by the EU-3 (Britain, France and Germany), Iran is simply five years closer to nuclear weapons.

And yet, true to form, State Department comments to Congress last week – even as Iran's missiles were ascending – downplayed Iran's nuclear progress, ignoring the cost of failed diplomacy. But the confident assumption that we have years to deal with the problem is high-stakes gambling on a policy that cannot be reversed if it fails. If Iran reaches weaponization before State's jaunty prediction, the Middle East, and indeed global, balance of power changes in potentially catastrophic ways.

And consider what comes next for the U.S.: the Bush administration's last six months pursuing its limp diplomatic efforts, plus six months of a new president getting his national security team and policies together. In other words, one more year for Tehran to proceed unhindered to "the point of no return."

We have almost certainly lost the race between giving "strong incentives" for Iran to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and its scientific and technological efforts to do just that. Swift, sweeping, effectively enforced sanctions might have made a difference five years ago. No longer. Existing sanctions have doubtless caused some pain, but Iran's real economic woes stem from nearly 30 years of mismanagement by the Islamic Revolution.

More sanctions today (even assuming, heroically, support from Russia and China) will simply be too little, too late. While regime change in Tehran would be the preferable solution, there is almost no possibility of dislodging the mullahs in time. Had we done more in the past five years to support the discontented – the young, the non-Persian minorities and the economically disaffected – things might be different. Regime change, however, cannot be turned on and off like a light switch, although the difficulty of effecting it is no excuse not to do more now.

That is why Israel is now at an urgent decision point: whether to use targeted military force to break Iran's indigenous control over the nuclear fuel cycle at one or more critical points. If successful, such highly risky and deeply unattractive air strikes or sabotage will not resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis. But they have the potential to buy considerable time, thereby putting that critical asset back on our side of the ledger rather than on Iran's.

With whatever time is bought, we may be able to effect regime change in Tehran, or at least get the process underway. The alternative is Iran with nuclear weapons, the most deeply unattractive alternative of all.

But the urgency of the situation has not impressed Barack Obama or the EU-3. Remarkably, on July 9, Sen. Obama, as if stumbling on a new idea, said Iran "must suffer threats of economic sanctions" and that we needed "direct diplomacy . . . so we avoid provocation" and "give strong incentives . . . to change their behavior." Javier Solana, chief EU negotiator, was at the time busy fixing a meeting with the Iranians to continue five years of doing exactly what Mr. Obama was proclaiming, without results.

John McCain responded to Iran's missile salvo by stressing again the need for a workable missile defense system to defend the U.S. against attacks by rogue states like Iran and North Korea. He is undoubtedly correct, highlighting yet another reason why November's election is so critical, given the unceasing complaints about missile defense from most Democrats.

Important as missile defense is, however, it is only a component of a postfailure policy on Iran's nuclear-weapons capacity. In whatever limited amount of time before then, we must face a very hard issue: What will the U.S. do if Israel decides to initiate military action? There was a time when the Bush administration might itself have seriously considered using force, but all public signs are that such a moment has passed.

Israel sees clearly what the next 12 months will bring, which is why ongoing U.S.-Israeli consultations could be dispositive. Israel told the Bush administration it would destroy North Korea's reactor in Syria in spring, 2007, and said it would not wait past summer's end to take action. And take action it did, seeing a Syrian nuclear capability, for all practical purposes Iran's agent on its northern border, as an existential threat. When the real source of the threat, not just a surrogate, nears the capacity for nuclear Holocaust, can anyone seriously doubt Israel's propensities, whatever the impact on gasoline prices?

Thus, instead of debating how much longer to continue five years of failed diplomacy, we should be intensively considering what cooperation the U.S. will extend to Israel before, during and after a strike on Iran. We will be blamed for the strike anyway, and certainly feel whatever negative consequences result, so there is compelling logic to make it as successful as possible. At a minimum, we should place no obstacles in Israel's path, and facilitate its efforts where we can.

Related:  Obama blames Iranian attacks on American troops on Americans being in their neighborhood More of  oxyObama's "aggressive diplomacy"

 

Let's Not Be Provocative!  Obama's Iran nonsense. Weekly Standard

These subjects are decidedly unpleasant. A nuclear Iran is more so.

UPDATE: Astute Bloggers: "PREEMPTIVELY ATTACKING IRAN: "LET'S GET IT ON" - OR - "WE HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR BUT FEAR ITSELF!"

Comments

[jj]

pamela:

i agree very strongly with john bolton, especially his assessment that if israel attacks we will share the blame at any rate: that is a very cogent observation.

that being the case, we should participate with israel in the planning and execution of an attack on the iranian nuclear facilities, right down to the infrastructure that supports it. we should supply the suppression of the iranian anti-aircraft systems, the high air cover, and the search and rescue forces. we and the israeli's should send the fighter bombers in on precision runs. and, we should supply the strategic air to pound the facilities into dust, so the attack does not have to be repeated over and over and over.

but, we will not. for the reasons you and mr. bolton have noted.

that being said, we should therefore get the hell out of the way diplomatically, militarily and politically, and let the israeli's do what must be done, as well as they can do it, and then support and protect them diplomatically and defend them militarily in the region.

i hope this attack is executed, the sooner the better.

john jay
milton freewater, oregon usa

p.s. it strikes me that there is another relevant topic here, not discussed anywhere i have seen in the blogs, the msm, or amongst the diplomats, and that is the fact that iran's political structure and roster of leaders, up to and including the grand ayatollahs, should be considered legitimate military targets, and to the extent they may be reached by attack, they should be attacked and killed. the dwarf is every bit as malignant as osama bin laden, and should be treated accordingly. what sesnse does it make to kill the iranian soldiers and airmen who defend the facilities, to kill the technicians and engineers and workers and laborers who will inevitably be present when the attack is executed, ... , and to leave protect and sacrosanct those persons who put all of this in motion, even while their underlings die in droves.

no, the attack should be launched and coordinated, so that the political leadership, the regime, can be taken out at the same time as the facility is destroyed. there is going to be much loss of life associated with this attack: it might as well be the right lives that are lost.