The Blue Voice

Thursday, May 25, 2006

Ehud Olmert's visit and pressuring Iran

The visit of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to the United States this week did not produce encouraging signs for peace in the Middle East on either the Iranian or the Palestinian fronts.

On the latter, he seems to have won tacit agreement from the Bush White House on his "realignment" plan that would unilaterally impose a territorial solution on the Palestinians. A "solution" that could keep the conflict going for decades.

I was also struck by his comments on Iran in his speech to Congress. I've quoted the section on Iran at the end of this post.

But contrary to what Olmert claimed in that speech, Iran is not a "existential" threat to Israel, i.e., it does not threaten Israel's existence. Even though Iranian President Ahmadinejad really does deny the Holocaust, indicating the intensity of his anti-Semitism. Olmert also repeated the bad translation excuse for going to war with Iran.

Even less is Iran an existential threat to the United States.

The truth is that there is no justification for the US attacking Iran. It would just be killing people and expanding the Iraq War with no good reason. The US does have the capability to bomb suspected Iranian nuclear sites. But it doesn't have the troops to significantly boost the US forces in Iraq in case of the likely Iranian retaliation. Nor is there any guarantee that even massive strikes on the suspected Iranian sites would significantly set back the Iranian nuclear program. An attack would also tend to unify the Iranians around the hardliners in their regime. Including around their determination to pursue Iran's nuclear program.

And, just as a reality check on Olmert's refernce to Iran's future "nuclear aggression", the only country in history that has ever used nuclear weapons in war is still the United States, at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Since that was genuinely a defensive war for the US, I'm not sure we could call that"nuclear aggression". Israel has threatened to use its own nuclear weapons on occasion, as has the US since 1945.

Here are some of Bush's comments at a joint press conference with Olmert:

And finally, the Prime Minister and I shared our concerns about the Iranian regime's nuclear weapons ambitions. The United States and the international community have made our common position clear: We're determined that the Iranian regime must not gain nuclear weapons.

I told the Prime Minister what I've stated publicly before: Israel is a close friend and ally of the United States, and in the event of any attack on Israel, the United States will come to Israel's aid. The United States is strongly committed, and I'm strongly committed, to the security of Israel as a vibrant, Jewish state.

Although I don't see any obvious red flags in those statements, I find it disturbing that he would refer to "our common position" given some of the things Olmert has been saying about Iran, and also that Bush is making such blanket statements about US assistance to Israel if they are attacked.

In the case of the latter, Israel is not under any meaningful threat of its existence today from any of its enemies in the Middle East. It just has too strong a military deterrent for that. But Israel since 1967 has refused to conclude a mutual defense treaty with the United States precisely because such a treaty would require a clear statement of the borders to be defended, and they didn't want to do that. It makes me wonder how careful Bush is being when he says things like that.

This was what Olmert told Congress on Iran:

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, allow me to turn to another dark and gathering storm casting its shadow over the world.

Every generation is confronted with a moment of truth and trial. From the savagery of slavery to the horrors of World War II to the gulags of the communist bloc that which is right and good in this world has always been at war with the horrific evil permitted by human indifference.

Iran, the world's leading sponsor of terror and a notorious violator of fundamental human rights, stands on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. With these weapons, the security of the entire world is put in jeopardy.

We deeply appreciate America's leadership on this issue and the strong bipartisan conviction that a nuclear-armed Iran is an intolerable threat to the peace and security of the world.

It cannot be permitted to materialize.

This Congress has proven its conviction by initiating the Iran Freedom and Support Act. We applaud these efforts.

A nuclear Iran means a terrorist state could achieve the primary mission for which terrorists live and die: the mass destruction of innocent human life.

This challenge, which I believe is the test of our time, is one the West cannot afford to fail.

The radical Iranian regime has declared the United States its enemy. The president believes it is his religious duty and his destiny to lead his country in a violent conflict against the infidels. With pride, he denies the Jewish Holocaust and speaks brazenly, calling to wipe Israel off the map.

For us, this is an existential threat, a threat to which we cannot consent.

But it is not Israel's threat alone. It is a threat to all those committed to stability in the Middle East and the well-being of the world at large.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, our moment is now. History will judge our generation by the actions we take now, by our willingness to stand up for peace and security and freedom, and by our courage to do what is right.

The international community will be measured not by its intentions but by its results.

The international community will be judged by its ability to convince nations and peoples to turn their backs on hatred and zealotry.

If we don't take Iran's bellicose rhetoric seriously now, we will be forced to take its nuclear aggression seriously later. (my emphasis)

posted at 3:05:00 PM by Bruce Miller

| +Save/Share | |