Iranian ballistic missile tests may not be a deal killer for Mr. Obama, but they certainly will be a killer of a great many other people, places and things. A nuclear war is inevitable. The terrible fact is that Israel must strike Iran's nukes and strike them now.
Where is the opposition of Obama's treason and treachery?
Norman Podhoretz in today's Wall Street Journal makes the case for a strike now.
Adherents of the new consensus would have us believe that only two choices remain: a war to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons or containment of a nuclear Iran—with containment the only responsible option. Yet as an unregenerate upholder of the old consensus, I remain convinced that containment is impossible, from which it follows that the two choices before us are not war vs. containment but a conventional war now or a nuclear war later.
Given how very unlikely it is that President Obama, despite his all-options-on-the-table protestations to the contrary, would ever take military action, the only hope rests with Israel. If, then, Israel fails to strike now, Iran will get the bomb. And when it does, the Israelis will be forced to decide whether to wait for a nuclear attack and then to retaliate out of the rubble, or to pre-empt with a nuclear strike of their own. But the Iranians will be faced with the same dilemma. Under these unprecedentedly hair-trigger circumstances, it will take no time before one of them tries to beat the other to the punch.
And so my counsel to proponents of the new consensus is to consider the unspeakable horrors that would then be visited not just on Israel and Iran but on the entire region and beyond. The destruction would be far worse than any imaginable consequences of an Israeli conventional strike today when there is still a chance to put at least a temporary halt, and conceivably even a permanent one, to the relentless Iranian quest for the bomb.
It must be done.
White House: Iranian ballistic missile test not a deal killer (thanks to Robert Spencer)
The White House says that an Iranian ballistic missile test would not invalidate a recently signed nuclear accord meant to temporarily halt some of Iran’s most controversial nuclear work.
What would be a deal killer? A nuclear missile landing in downtown Tel Aviv? Or is that the point of the agreement in the first place, at least as far as the Iranians are concerned? "White House: Iranian Ballistic Missile Test Not a Deal Killer," by Adam Kredo for the Washington Free Beacon, December 11:
The White House clarified its stance just days before Iran is scheduled to launch another ballistic missile some 75 miles into the atmosphere.
The statement contradicts recent remarks indicating that such a test would in fact violate and nullify the weeks-old agreement, which provides Iran with some $7 billion in relief from economic sanctions in exchange for a partial six-month freeze of its uranium enrichment program.
A White House National Security Council (NSC) spokeswoman told PolitiFact on Friday that an Iranian missiles test in the next six months would in fact “be in violation of the agreement” and that “the agreement would cease to exist.”
Asked on Wednesday morning to clarify that statement in light of Iran’s intent to launch a rocket next week, a White House official said that PolitiFact got it wrong.
“That statement on ballistic missiles is incorrect,” the official told the Washington Free Beacon via email. “We have reached out to PolitiFact to correct.”...