The President Who Cried Wolf
In a radio interview last week, President Bush spoke about the danger presented by the Iranian regime. He attested that Iran has "declared they want a nuclear weapon to destroy people."
Would Iran love to get the bomb? Yes. Would they love to destroy people? Sure. They've already got a few Jews -- ahem, people in mind. But what Bush said isn't true. It just isn't. His terribly (yet typical) imprecise rhetoric undermines the very case he's trying to make.
Above: That's...that's nice.
Even though the country's leaders haven't committed political suicide by openly "declaring" their intent to gain nuclear weapons (as Bush contests), it's obvious that Iran is a serious threat to peace and stability. As worthless as "world opinion" is, we can't turn our back on the reality that our national strength is dissolving, and in order to keep (actual) weapons out of the hands of evil people, we need resolute support from nations on the sidelines.
The fall of Iraq gave Iran a "freebie" by taking out their biggest regional competitor. Last year it was revealed that Israel tried to convince the U.S. that Iran was the bigger terror culprit than Saddam's regime in Iraq, and warned against an invasion in favor of focusing international scrutiny on the Mullahs.
While Bush might have cried wolf in the past, now there actually is a big bad wolf threatening the West. With presidential credibility merely a fond memory, we are now paralyzed by baseless claims made in the name of ideology -- particularly those that preceded what many (including this writer) consider to be the biggest strategic blunder in the history of the United States: The invasion of Iraq.
Now we face another situation, due in part to Bush's lack of credibility and recklessly irresponsible rhetoric, in which most of the non-military solutions which could have been approached to deal with Iran's nuclear impudence have dissolved.
The sanctions have been modestly effective, and they do seem enrage Ahmadinejad, which only costs him support on the world stage, but what about cutting off trade? How about increasing support for Iranian dissidents? Perhaps we could openly declare that we have no desire to establish military bases or a troop presence in Iran? Our intelligence agencies seem to have our "presence in Iran" covered.
How about doing everything possible to reduce the price of oil? If the price of oil were half of what it is today, Iran's religious leaders would be loathed by the masses as food and gas prices soared, and there would be growing outrage over the squandering of the nation's petrodollars on Hezbollah and Iran's proxy war against Israel. Iranians care far more about feeding their families and lighting their homes than fulfilling the genocidal dreams of their leaders.
Bush made perhaps the most ironic statement of his presidency when, in the same interview, he said:
Would Iran love to get the bomb? Yes. Would they love to destroy people? Sure. They've already got a few Jews -- ahem, people in mind. But what Bush said isn't true. It just isn't. His terribly (yet typical) imprecise rhetoric undermines the very case he's trying to make.
Above: That's...that's nice.Even though the country's leaders haven't committed political suicide by openly "declaring" their intent to gain nuclear weapons (as Bush contests), it's obvious that Iran is a serious threat to peace and stability. As worthless as "world opinion" is, we can't turn our back on the reality that our national strength is dissolving, and in order to keep (actual) weapons out of the hands of evil people, we need resolute support from nations on the sidelines.
The fall of Iraq gave Iran a "freebie" by taking out their biggest regional competitor. Last year it was revealed that Israel tried to convince the U.S. that Iran was the bigger terror culprit than Saddam's regime in Iraq, and warned against an invasion in favor of focusing international scrutiny on the Mullahs.
While Bush might have cried wolf in the past, now there actually is a big bad wolf threatening the West. With presidential credibility merely a fond memory, we are now paralyzed by baseless claims made in the name of ideology -- particularly those that preceded what many (including this writer) consider to be the biggest strategic blunder in the history of the United States: The invasion of Iraq.
Now we face another situation, due in part to Bush's lack of credibility and recklessly irresponsible rhetoric, in which most of the non-military solutions which could have been approached to deal with Iran's nuclear impudence have dissolved.
The sanctions have been modestly effective, and they do seem enrage Ahmadinejad, which only costs him support on the world stage, but what about cutting off trade? How about increasing support for Iranian dissidents? Perhaps we could openly declare that we have no desire to establish military bases or a troop presence in Iran? Our intelligence agencies seem to have our "presence in Iran" covered.
How about doing everything possible to reduce the price of oil? If the price of oil were half of what it is today, Iran's religious leaders would be loathed by the masses as food and gas prices soared, and there would be growing outrage over the squandering of the nation's petrodollars on Hezbollah and Iran's proxy war against Israel. Iranians care far more about feeding their families and lighting their homes than fulfilling the genocidal dreams of their leaders.
Bush made perhaps the most ironic statement of his presidency when, in the same interview, he said:
"Once a nation hasn't told the truth, it requires a lot of work to convince people that they'll be telling the truth in the future."
No, he wasn't talking about his own administration. It will be too late when (not if) A.Q. Kahn's infamous "Islamic Bomb" comes to Iran. The wolf will devour not sheep, but a nation, and the villagers will ignore the cries of the boy on the [capitol] hill. I think Aesop said it best: The liar will lie once, twice, and then perish when he tells the truth.Labels: Iran