8 February 2010 / 24 Shevat 5770 The Jerusalem Post
BOMB IRAN!
Obama needs dramatic gesture to save presidency
I do not customarily offer advice to a president whose election I opposed,
whose goals I fear and whose policies I work against. But here is a way
for Barack Obama to salvage his tottering administration by taking a step
that protects the US and its allies.
If Obama's personality, identity and celebrity captivated a majority of the
American electorate in 2008, those qualities proved ruefully deficient in
2009. He failed to deliver on employment and health care, he failed in
foreign policy forays small (e.g., landing the 2016 Olympics) and large
(relations with China and Japan). His counterterrorism record barely
passes the laugh test.
This poor performance has caused an unprecedented collapse in the polls
and the loss of three major by-elections, culminating two weeks ago in an
astonishing senatorial defeat in Massachusetts. Obama's attempts to "reset"
his presidency will likely fail if he focuses on economics, where he is just
one of many players.
He needs a dramatic gesture to change the public perception of him as a
lightweight, bumbling ideologue, preferably in an arena where the stakes
are high, where he can take charge and where he can trump expectations.
Such an opportunity does exist: Obama can order the US military to destroy
Iran's nuclear weapons capacity.
Circumstances are propitious. First, US intelligence agencies have reversed
the preposterous 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that claimed with
"high confidence" that Teheran had "halted its nuclear weapons program."
No one (other than the Iranian rulers and their agents) denies that the
regime is rushing headlong to build a nuclear arsenal.
Second, if the apocalyptic-minded leaders in Teheran get the Bomb,
they render the Middle East yet more volatile and dangerous. They might
deploy these weapons in the region, leading to massive death and
destruction. Or they could launch an electromagnetic pulse attack on the
US, devastating the country. By eliminating the Iranian nuclear threat,
Obama protects the homeland and sends a message to America's friends
and enemies.
Third, polling shows long-standing American backing for an attack on
the Iranian nuclear infrastructure.
• A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll in January 2006 found that 57%
of Americans favored military intervention if Teheran pursues a program
that could enable it to build nuclear arms.
• A Zogby International poll in October 2007 found that 52% of likely
voters supported a US military strike to prevent Iran from building a
nuclear weapon; 29% opposed such a step.
• McLaughlin & Associates in May 2009 asked whether people would
support "using the [US] military to attack and destroy the facilities in Iran
which are necessary to produce a nuclear weapon"; 58% of 600 likely
voters supported the use of force and 30% opposed it.
• Fox News in September 2009 asked: "Do you support or oppose the
United States taking military action to keep Iran from getting nuclear
weapons?" Sixty-one percent of 900 registered voters supported military
action and 28% opposed it.
• Pew Research Center in October 2009 asked which is more important,
"to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it means
taking military action" or "to avoid a military conflict with Iran, even if
it means they may develop nuclear weapons"; of 1,500 respondents,
61% favored the first reply and 24% the second.
Not only does a strong majority – 57%, 52%, 58%, 61% and 61% – already
favor using force, but after a strike Americans will presumably rally
around the flag, pushing that number much higher.
Fourth, were the US strike limited to taking out Iran's nuclear facilities,
and not aspiring to regime change, it would require few "boots on the
ground" and entail relatively few casualties, making an attack politically
more palatable.
Just as 9/11 caused voters to forget George W. Bush's meandering early
months, a strike on the Iranian facilities would dispatch Obama's feckless
first year down the memory hole and transform the domestic political scene.
It would sideline health care, prompt Republicans to work with Democrats,
make netroots squeal, independents reconsider and conservatives swoon.
But the chance to do good and do well is fleeting. As the Iranians improve
their defenses and approach weaponization, the window of opportunity is
closing. The time to act is now or, on Obama's watch, the world will soon
become a much more dangerous place.
whose goals I fear and whose policies I work against. But here is a way
for Barack Obama to salvage his tottering administration by taking a step
that protects the US and its allies.
If Obama's personality, identity and celebrity captivated a majority of the
American electorate in 2008, those qualities proved ruefully deficient in
2009. He failed to deliver on employment and health care, he failed in
foreign policy forays small (e.g., landing the 2016 Olympics) and large
(relations with China and Japan). His counterterrorism record barely
passes the laugh test.
This poor performance has caused an unprecedented collapse in the polls
and the loss of three major by-elections, culminating two weeks ago in an
astonishing senatorial defeat in Massachusetts. Obama's attempts to "reset"
his presidency will likely fail if he focuses on economics, where he is just
one of many players.
He needs a dramatic gesture to change the public perception of him as a
lightweight, bumbling ideologue, preferably in an arena where the stakes
are high, where he can take charge and where he can trump expectations.
Such an opportunity does exist: Obama can order the US military to destroy
Iran's nuclear weapons capacity.
Circumstances are propitious. First, US intelligence agencies have reversed
the preposterous 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that claimed with
"high confidence" that Teheran had "halted its nuclear weapons program."
No one (other than the Iranian rulers and their agents) denies that the
regime is rushing headlong to build a nuclear arsenal.
Second, if the apocalyptic-
they render the Middle East yet more volatile and dangerous. They might
deploy these weapons in the region, leading to massive death and
destruction. Or they could launch an electromagnetic pulse attack on the
US, devastating the country. By eliminating the Iranian nuclear threat,
Obama protects the homeland and sends a message to America's friends
and enemies.
Third, polling shows long-standing American backing for an attack on
the Iranian nuclear infrastructure.
• A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll in January 2006 found that 57%
of Americans favored military intervention if Teheran pursues a program
that could enable it to build nuclear arms.
• A Zogby International poll in October 2007 found that 52% of likely
voters supported a US military strike to prevent Iran from building a
nuclear weapon; 29% opposed such a step.
• McLaughlin & Associates in May 2009 asked whether people would
support "using the [US] military to attack and destroy the facilities in Iran
which are necessary to produce a nuclear weapon"; 58% of 600 likely
voters supported the use of force and 30% opposed it.
• Fox News in September 2009 asked: "Do you support or oppose the
United States taking military action to keep Iran from getting nuclear
weapons?" Sixty-one percent of 900 registered voters supported military
action and 28% opposed it.
• Pew Research Center in October 2009 asked which is more important,
"to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it means
taking military action" or "to avoid a military conflict with Iran, even if
it means they may develop nuclear weapons"; of 1,500 respondents,
61% favored the first reply and 24% the second.
Not only does a strong majority – 57%, 52%, 58%, 61% and 61% – already
favor using force, but after a strike Americans will presumably rally
around the flag, pushing that number much higher.
Fourth, were the US strike limited to taking out Iran's nuclear facilities,
and not aspiring to regime change, it would require few "boots on the
ground" and entail relatively few casualties, making an attack politically
more palatable.
Just as 9/11 caused voters to forget George W. Bush's meandering early
months, a strike on the Iranian facilities would dispatch Obama's feckless
first year down the memory hole and transform the domestic political scene.
It would sideline health care, prompt Republicans to work with Democrats,
make netroots squeal, independents reconsider and conservatives swoon.
But the chance to do good and do well is fleeting. As the Iranians improve
their defenses and approach weaponization, the window of opportunity is
closing. The time to act is now or, on Obama's watch, the world will soon
become a much more dangerous place.
--
An Ethnie without a sense of peoplehood will end up being used to achieve the goals of other ethnies. -- Michael Santomauro
A Sense of Peoplehood is not a Pathology
It is not racist for a professor such as Alan Dershowitz or for a professor like Kevin MacDonald to advocate for their ethnic group interests.
The words for bigotry, that are often used, such as: ant-Semitic, anti-white, anti-black, anti-Arab, anti-feminist, anti-gay and hundreds of other labels, are for the most part overstated. Instead, it should be seen as pro-white, or pro-Jewish or pro-women or pro-traditional family and not be ashamed of it.
These "pro" sensibilities are part of the human condition, not to be pathologized into an "anti."
It is about group interests.
A race or an ethnie without a sense of peoplehood or ethnichood will end up being used to achieve the goals of other ethnies. (Yes, ethnie, not ethnic).
__._,_.___
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment