Speculation grows that Israel may launch its long-anticipated preventive strike against Iran’s nuclear programme before November's 
US election.
The current sanctions have not persuaded Iran to stop enriching uranium (in fact, it's escalated its production), and as usual the UN Security Council is pissing in the wind.
Lately Israel's talk has intensified. Defence minister Ehud Barak says while he's well aware of the difficulties in thwarting Iran’s attempts, he believes that "dealing with the threat itself will be far more complicated, far more dangerous and far more costly in resources and human life." In other words, pay now - rather than pay much MORE later.
He also doesn't want any attack on Iran to be carried out by the good ol' US of A, believing any protection of Israel should be by Israel. But US wants the brakes put on until after its election, and certainly - if the scene must be played as per the Israeli script - Obama would like it written with US ink.
Mitt Romney, the other US presidential wannabee makes similar noises: "A clear line must be drawn with Iran: there must be a full suspension of any enrichment, period. And at every turn, Iran must know that the US and our allies stand as one in these critical objectives...If I become commander-in-chief, I will use every means necessary to protect ourselves and the region, and to prevent the worst from happening while there is still time."
But Romney has no experience in this deadly game, whereas Obama is well-blooded (literally). That's not to say Obama would do any better, but he does have more working knowledge.
Whoever calls the ultimate shots, from whatever country, faces a terrible dilemma. Attacking Iran may well remove an immediate threat, but will most certainly open multiple cans of worms. Are they prepared to pay the price that will surely be visited upon multiple countries?
US election. The current sanctions have not persuaded Iran to stop enriching uranium (in fact, it's escalated its production), and as usual the UN Security Council is pissing in the wind.
Lately Israel's talk has intensified. Defence minister Ehud Barak says while he's well aware of the difficulties in thwarting Iran’s attempts, he believes that "dealing with the threat itself will be far more complicated, far more dangerous and far more costly in resources and human life." In other words, pay now - rather than pay much MORE later.
He also doesn't want any attack on Iran to be carried out by the good ol' US of A, believing any protection of Israel should be by Israel. But US wants the brakes put on until after its election, and certainly - if the scene must be played as per the Israeli script - Obama would like it written with US ink.
Mitt Romney, the other US presidential wannabee makes similar noises: "A clear line must be drawn with Iran: there must be a full suspension of any enrichment, period. And at every turn, Iran must know that the US and our allies stand as one in these critical objectives...If I become commander-in-chief, I will use every means necessary to protect ourselves and the region, and to prevent the worst from happening while there is still time."
But Romney has no experience in this deadly game, whereas Obama is well-blooded (literally). That's not to say Obama would do any better, but he does have more working knowledge.
Whoever calls the ultimate shots, from whatever country, faces a terrible dilemma. Attacking Iran may well remove an immediate threat, but will most certainly open multiple cans of worms. Are they prepared to pay the price that will surely be visited upon multiple countries?
No comments:
Post a Comment