Posted by: mcq on Thursday, July 20, 2006 William Kristol spends most of his article in the Weekly Standard describing how Hezbollah and Hamas really aren't Israel's problem but Iran and Syria are. No secret there. I think every pundit south of the moon has figured that part out. As Kristol points out, no Iran or Syria, no Hamas or Hezbollah. OK, I'm with him to that point. I think we can all agree that's probably true. So what to do about it? Well, claiming Israel's war is our war too, Kristol recommends the following: The right response is renewed strength—in supporting the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, in standing with Israel, and in pursuing regime change in Syria and Iran. For that matter, we might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait? Does anyone think a nuclear Iran can be contained? That the current regime will negotiate in good faith? It would be easier to act sooner rather than later. Yes, there would be repercussions—and they would be healthy ones, showing a strong America that has rejected further appeasement.Why wait? My question is why expand the problem, especially when you're unprepared for the results? We have a relatively limited action going on in Lebanon. To this point Iran and Syria's support has been mostly sub rosa. Any strike on Iran will involve them fully and overtly. Do we want that at this time? And does anyone suppose that if we strike Iran, they won't do their level best to destabalize even further a very fragile Iraq? And what about Syria? Does anyone think that if we strike Iran they won't figure they're next and act accordingly against Israel? How are those repercussions "healthy ones"? And why is it necessary to demonstrate our rejection of "further appeasement" by boming Iran? Like I said, Kristol spends an entire article building up to this recommendation and it simply doesn't sell. Striking Iran wouldn't eliminate Hezbollah or Hamas or Iran's support for those groups. And more likely than not it would strengthen internal support for the mullahs, not facilitate "regime change". If anything, a post-strike Iran would probably expand its support and, given reports of Hezbollah cells world wide, order the terror organization to strike outside the ME and especially in the US. I'm not averse to a policy of regime change in both Syria or Iran. But a military strike is not the way to achieve that, and especially not now. Obviously Iran's nuclear ambitions are of great concern, but Kristol's suggestion is not the way to address them. I don't necessarily disagree with him when he says Israel's war is our war too. It engages radical Islam, who is our enemy. Don't forget we still owe Hezbollah for 200+ Marine deaths in Lebanon. But not all wars are won exclusively through military action. And I can't imagine a worse suggestion, in terms of military action, that that which Bill Kristol is now advocating. The one thing this nation doesn't need is an expanded role in the fighting in the ME. And it damn sure doesn't need to fuel the fire into a conflagration by attacking Iran based on the dubious notion that doing so will somehow fuel an internal regime change and magically defang Hezbollah. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| TrackBacks | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Return to Main Blog Page | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Comments For This Post | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Previous Comments to this Post |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Add Your Comment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| Vicious Capitalism |
Buy Dale's Book!
|
