The Iranian issue
Jake Davidson
Managing Editor
I am not a fan of President Barack Obama at all. I am appalled at the manner in which he has denigrated Israel in the eyes of the global community. I am disheartened at his economic ineptitude and his inability to revive American business. I am dismayed by his recent partisan actions with the Keystone pipeline, sacrificing American jobs for his re-election campaign. However, all of these failings pale in comparison to my outright consternation as both a Jew and an American in Obama’s approach to Iran’s nuclear situation. To be frank, every Jew (and for that matter every American) who believes in democracy should be concerned with the current path the Obama administration is taking in dealing with Iran.
For the purposes of this article, we will ignore the atrocities and neglect of Iranian citizens and focus on Iran’s relevance internationally. Iran has taken steps towards nuclear proliferation, even creating computer models of nuclear explosions. The country has attempted to hide their program under the guise of generating electricity to provide fuel for medical reactors. However, a 2011 United Nations report exposed Iran’s true intentions, saying that they have uncovered evidence that makes a “credible case that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device” (United Nations report).
Standing alone, Iran possessing nuclear weapons would be a global crisis. When combined with the fact that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that “Israel should be destroyed from the face of the earth,” this becomes even more of a serious crisis.
From a Jewish perspective, this is a major issue, for if not stopped Iran will develop a nuclear weapon and proceed to obliterate Israel. History has shown without Israel as a safe haven for Jews we will be persecuted. It happened in 1492, it happened in the pogroms of Russia in 1903, and it happened during the Holocaust. It would be the ultimate in naïveté to deny the very real and imminent possibility of these events happening.
On top of this issue is a larger issue at play, which should cause anxiety for every westerner, Americans and Europeans alike. While the liberal media slams Israel every chance it gets, the fact remains that Israel is the only democracy in a sea of dictatorships and Muslim Brotherhood-run states. If Iran were to exterminate Israel, the Middle East would develop further into a powder keg. Dictators and tyrants would run even more rampant and global democracy would suffer a colossal setback. Seeing that our country has spent taxpayers’ dollars on combating tyrant run countries, it would be inane to let this happen.
At this point, you are probably thinking Barack Obama and his administration would most certainly stop Iran’s nuclear program and prevent this severe fallout. While this would seem logical, you would have misplaced your faith in the steward of our country. Obama has kept the kid gloves on, playing softball with Iran. His defense secretary, Leon Panetta, (interestingly enough a Jew himself) has repeated the mantra that “all options are on the table” yet we have not seen any decisive action.
Obama’s reasoning for not bringing stringent action upon Iran has been referencing vague “unintended consequences” and the fear that sanctions would shake up the fragile economy by way of the oil market.
On December 1, 2011, the Senate voted unanimously on legislation that would sanction any company that deals with the Central Bank of Iran (CBI). The purpose of this legislation would be to stop Iran’s exports of oil, which are run through the CBI. The idea was that this would cut into Iran’s state revenue and make nuclear development a fiscal impossibility. This legislation was considered to be the strongest to date, and “the last step short of military action to prevent a nuclear Iran.” Even though the senate unanimously backed this legislation, the Obama administration convinced the bills author’s to “weaken the legislation.”
The logic behind Obama’s decision was that these sanctions would spike the price of oil, as it would reduce the supply of oil in the market. While this is true in the short run, which happens to coincide with Obama’s re-election campaign, in the long run it poses very few adverse effects towards the oil market. The oil minister of Saudi Arabia has gone on the record pledging that his oil production will provide what the market needs, meaning that it could help soften the blow of losing Iran’s oil. The difference between losing Libya’s oil which caused a spike in prices and shook up the economy, and Iran’s oil is that Saudi Arabia can replace Iran’s oil and Libya’s oil was too high of a quality to replace.
So like many of Obama’s economic assertions, this one is shortsighted. However even if Obama were to back these sanctions, which he hasn’t, the public position of this administration is that any military action would have “unintended consequences.” So at this point Obama, the foreign policy whiz, has struck zero fear into the mind of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Although the “unintended consequences” Leon Panetta has referenced are vague and not specified, I am almost certain they would pale in comparison to the ripple effect of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. It would set off a nuclear proliferation race in the Middle East, create instability in the Middle East, and undermine U. S. efforts in Afghanistan.
So Obama’s indecisiveness towards Iran is both misguided and detrimental to the global goals of the United States. His administration has not prevented or even halted the development of nuclear weapons. In fact he has emboldened Iran by publicly denouncing any possible military action.
A country without fear is a scary proposition, a country without fear and nuclear weapons is even scarier, and a country without fear, nuclear weapons and hell-bent on wiping Israel off the map is a nightmare.
This nightmare scenario is on the horizon. While Obama has no control over Iran’s feelings towards Israel, he can be held responsible for Iran developing nuclear weapons and their lack of fear.
However, doomsday can still be prevented. If Obama can be pressured into legitimately scaring Iran, then this potential scenario can be avoided. After three years of Obama in office, I am not sure this is likely. Instead I hold out hope that Iran will not make significant progress in the next year and Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich will have the fortitude and resolve to halt Iran’s program and save the world from a potential catastrophe.
Featured image by Jake Davidson.
Daniel K • Feb 16, 2012 at 8:28 pm
Anon-
Do you think Iran will nuke Israel if it means Iran’s destruction?
anon • Feb 16, 2012 at 2:02 pm
AS SOON AS IRAN is done making their nukes, they will first attack israel
and then the western world
DONT BE NAIVE
iran has been developing this program for YEARS
its not anything new
so obama is to blame partially, and the whole world should be stopping iran because the whole world is in danger, especially israel.
iran is a strong powerful country and they will not be afraid to use their nukes as soon as they know it will be more powerful than any other countries.
daniel- wake up and realize
nukes are just to sound powerful in theory. ahmadinejad chants death to israel death to america at every one of speeches in iran and they mean it
he is trying to take over the world, and although that sounds dumb its true, and that is what hitler was trying to do as well.
keep in mind, iran has already started its attacks…
in thailand and in india
and they wont stop
Daniel K • Feb 10, 2012 at 10:31 pm
Have you read my initial reponse?
Though I agree that history definitely has a habit of repeating itself, you have to understand that the nature of nuclear weapons is unlike anything that has been developed in human history.
There are clear reasons why Iran will not nuke anyone; I discussed them earlier. If you are not willing to read it or respond to the actual arguments I made, then I can only hope that you will educate yourself more thoroughly in the future.
-Daniel
Anonymous 3 • Feb 6, 2012 at 10:23 pm
Are you kidding me? China and Russia are smart with nuclear weapons, they won’t nuke anyone. But when the nukes get into the hands of Iran, of course Iran will use it! Now I can see why “Anonymous 2″ said why you don’t know much about the threat of Iran and how evil they really are. It’s a no-brainer that they will use the nukes on the US and Iran! Don’t underestimate them, look what people did with the Nazis, even Jews did not think the unthinkable. It is a course of history that people tend to underestimate evil, and Daniel, you fall in that course. You are like every one else in history, you underestimate evil, that is okay, but, all it means that if it were to come down to someone saving the world or even acknowledging evil, you would not be able to, someone like Jake would. Please step it up, or someone like you will allow another holocaust.
Ami • Feb 3, 2012 at 6:20 pm
“U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Friday that “all options [are] on the table” with Iran, implying that the United States may be willing to use military force to stop the Middle East country from developing nuclear weapons. “We have all options on the table and would be prepared to respond if we have to,” said Panetta, speaking to U.S. airmen in Germany, according to The Associated Press.”
– POLITIC, February 3, 2012
Daniel K • Feb 1, 2012 at 8:48 pm
Countries only want nuclear weapons because /other/ countries have them (NOT because they want to use them). An actual nuclear war is incredibly unlikely unless WE mess something up (i.e. start a meaningless war).
Raw force isn’t always the best way to solve problems. This is the kind of mentality that creates a lot of enemies, which creates a lot of wars that we don’t want or need. These are American lives at risk, not pawns in a chess game where Israel is the king.
Iran isn’t going to nuke anyone. You can argue that they are evil all you want but at the end of the day they aren’t going to make a decision that would end up destroying their country.
Annonomys 2 • Feb 1, 2012 at 8:34 pm
I disagree with “Anonomous”, Iraq was started for a reason, in fact, a very similar reason the Iran war would be started for: To get rid of nuclear arms, and weapons of mass destruction; and to help save the world! You people don’t know ANYTHING about what evil is and how it is a threat to our country.
Anonymous • Feb 1, 2012 at 8:33 pm
Well said, Daniel. Although an editorial, or “opinion” piece, research is still necessary. Unlike Jake’s article you seem to have researched the details of nuclear war before forming your opinion.
Daniel K • Jan 31, 2012 at 8:13 pm
Since Fox News has failed to give you a proper lesson on nuclear warfare/politics, I will give you one myself. When discussing nuclear politics, it is important to know about the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The NPT states that 1. The signing country must not develop nuclear weapons, 2. The signing country must disarm nuclear weapons if they are present, and 3. The signing country is allowed to use nuclear technology peacefully (i.e. nuclear energy). All but four countries in the world have signed this treaty (including Iran.) The four countries that have not signed it are India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel. (There are 5 countries that have signed it but are confirmed to have nuclear weapons, are the US, Russia, China, UK, and France)
Why would Israel not sign it? Well, probably because they have nuclear weapons, and is not afraid to use them if necessary. Iran knows this, which is why they wouldn’t dare make nukes. The term “mutually assured destruction” is used a lot when discussing nuclear warfare. It means that, if one country fires a nuke, the target country will fire a nuke back, causing both territories to be destroyed. Since Iran probably cares more about their own country than destroying Israel, it is very unlikely that they would nuke Israel if they were in the possession of nuclear weapons.
This is true worldwide; no country wants to nuke other countries with nukes for this very reason. Countries only have nuclear weapons because other countries have them.
Now, back to Iran. Since the current Republican candidates (with the exception of Ron Paul) want war with Iran, this would make Iran scared. If they are scared, this wont cause them to back down on nukes, this will make them want nuclear weapons EVEN MORE. And if we do damage to Iran and they have nuclear weapons developed, they might say, “well, we’re pretty much screwed so we might as well nuke Israel,” and then sooner or later we have WW3 and that would be bad. If we don’t intervene with Iran, they will simply fear the prospect of mutally assured destruction, and wouldn’t dare engage Israel.
You seem to enjoy putting a lot of pressure/blame on Obama for handling this situation poorly, when he has, in fact, handled it very well. Obama doesn’t need to make Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fear anything; Mahmoud is already afraid of MAD and the destruction of his own country. And holding Obama responsible for the possibility of Iran developing nuclear weapons is incredibly shortsided.
And electing someone like Gingrich or Romney wouldn’t make it any better. They would fund a war against Iran, with our own taxpayer dollars. Of course, there wont be very many of those, since Republicans seem to like tax cuts quite a lot. Not to mention that a war wouldn’t exactly help the debt.
So I will propose a question to you: is it worth it? Is it worth spending taxpayer dollars on a war that we have no part in? Is it worth risking the destruction of Israel? Is it worth a possible third world war?
I sure hope not. But that’s for the voters to decide.
Eytan W. • Jan 31, 2012 at 1:13 pm
I agree with you Jake! Thank you for giving the truth.
Daniel K • Jan 30, 2012 at 7:51 pm
Also, this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUbqbpBX1Us offers a very good explanation of nuclear politics. Watch the whole thing.
Anonymous • Jan 30, 2012 at 4:08 pm
In addition, you can’t just start wars without reasonable cause (Iraq anyone?…)
Anonymous • Jan 30, 2012 at 4:07 pm
Just because you use big words doesn’t make what you say correct at all. The fact is, your (and most Republicans) ineptitude is blocking you from seeing the truth. Barack Obama, policy wise, is very aligned with Israel. Also, if you actually look at what he has done in office (which you probably haven’t done) you would also realize that he nearly mirrors your Lord and Savior, George W. Bush. Chew on that thought.