Here are two different courses taken by countries with regard to the threat of nuclear proliferation.
Case 1: Over twenty years ago, Iraq under Saddam Hussein built a nuclear reactor with assistance from North Korea. It was to be the centerpiece of the Iraqi push to get nuclear weapons. Israel discussed with the USA the intolerable nature of a nuclear Iraq, particularly since those nukes would surely be aimed at the Jewish state. Washington advised patience and using the international community and the UN to stop the Iraqi program. The Israelis refused to wait. Instead, Israeli air force jets flew all the way to Iraq and attacked and destroyed the Iraqi reactor just before it was to go into operation. That ended the Iraqi nuclear program.
Case 2: Ten years ago, Syria under Bashir Assad built a facility with North Korean and Iranian assistance. The facility was designed for production of a Syrian nuclear weapons. The Israelis discussed with the USA the intolerable nature of a nuclear Syria, particularly since Israel would be the target of bombs acquired by Syria. Washington advised patience and using the international community to stop the Syrian program. The Israelis refused to wait. They would not gamble with their own survival. Instead, Israeli air force jets attacked the Syrian facility and destroyed it. The attack also took out many of the foreign advisors as well. That ended the Syrian nuclear program.
Case 3: For the last decade or more Iran worked on building nuclear weapons. Because of the distance of the facilities from Israel, the Israelis were not able to attack those facilities without American help. Washington advised patience and using the international community to dissuade Iran from developing nukes. The American course was followed, mainly because the Israelis could not act alone. The end result was the nuclear agreement with Iran. The Iranians got $150 billion and the end of sanctions in exchange for agreeing to a delay in the development of nuclear weapons. In another eight years, however, Iran will be able to develop nukes in a matter of one or two months and it will do so in accordance with the agreement. The Iranian nuclear program is alive and well. The world is at risk as a result.
Case 4: North Korea has worked for a long time to develop nuclear bombs and ICBMs capable of carrying those bombs. The USA under president Clinton made a deal with the NK's that they would stop their nuclear program in exchange for substantial cash payments and other aid. America furnished the cash and assistance, but the NK's kept building their bombs in secret. About ten years ago, the NK's exploded their first a-bomb. Even when it was disclosed that the North Koreans had lied and broken the agreement, the USA tried international action to prevent North Korea from continuing its nuclear program. Under president Obama, America did nothing at all but gave that inaction a name to make it sound like a real approach to the problem. It was called "strategic patience". Now the NK's have many nuclear bombs and they are about to have fully functional ICBMs capable of reaching the USA. Iran has been helping in the effort. It's only a matter of weeks or maybe months before America and the world is faced with the reality of a full North Korean nuclear force.
So which of these coursed make sense? Do you like the Israeli approach in Cases 1 and 2? Do you prefer the American approach in Cases 3 and 4? I guess the answer depends on whether or not you like the idea of being nuked by our enemies. Those with suicidal tendencies ought to gravitate to the American approach.
Case 1: Over twenty years ago, Iraq under Saddam Hussein built a nuclear reactor with assistance from North Korea. It was to be the centerpiece of the Iraqi push to get nuclear weapons. Israel discussed with the USA the intolerable nature of a nuclear Iraq, particularly since those nukes would surely be aimed at the Jewish state. Washington advised patience and using the international community and the UN to stop the Iraqi program. The Israelis refused to wait. Instead, Israeli air force jets flew all the way to Iraq and attacked and destroyed the Iraqi reactor just before it was to go into operation. That ended the Iraqi nuclear program.
Case 2: Ten years ago, Syria under Bashir Assad built a facility with North Korean and Iranian assistance. The facility was designed for production of a Syrian nuclear weapons. The Israelis discussed with the USA the intolerable nature of a nuclear Syria, particularly since Israel would be the target of bombs acquired by Syria. Washington advised patience and using the international community to stop the Syrian program. The Israelis refused to wait. They would not gamble with their own survival. Instead, Israeli air force jets attacked the Syrian facility and destroyed it. The attack also took out many of the foreign advisors as well. That ended the Syrian nuclear program.
Case 3: For the last decade or more Iran worked on building nuclear weapons. Because of the distance of the facilities from Israel, the Israelis were not able to attack those facilities without American help. Washington advised patience and using the international community to dissuade Iran from developing nukes. The American course was followed, mainly because the Israelis could not act alone. The end result was the nuclear agreement with Iran. The Iranians got $150 billion and the end of sanctions in exchange for agreeing to a delay in the development of nuclear weapons. In another eight years, however, Iran will be able to develop nukes in a matter of one or two months and it will do so in accordance with the agreement. The Iranian nuclear program is alive and well. The world is at risk as a result.
Case 4: North Korea has worked for a long time to develop nuclear bombs and ICBMs capable of carrying those bombs. The USA under president Clinton made a deal with the NK's that they would stop their nuclear program in exchange for substantial cash payments and other aid. America furnished the cash and assistance, but the NK's kept building their bombs in secret. About ten years ago, the NK's exploded their first a-bomb. Even when it was disclosed that the North Koreans had lied and broken the agreement, the USA tried international action to prevent North Korea from continuing its nuclear program. Under president Obama, America did nothing at all but gave that inaction a name to make it sound like a real approach to the problem. It was called "strategic patience". Now the NK's have many nuclear bombs and they are about to have fully functional ICBMs capable of reaching the USA. Iran has been helping in the effort. It's only a matter of weeks or maybe months before America and the world is faced with the reality of a full North Korean nuclear force.
So which of these coursed make sense? Do you like the Israeli approach in Cases 1 and 2? Do you prefer the American approach in Cases 3 and 4? I guess the answer depends on whether or not you like the idea of being nuked by our enemies. Those with suicidal tendencies ought to gravitate to the American approach.
No comments:
Post a Comment