Words Won't Stop Iran's Nuclear Program
To many people, the continuing saga of Barack Obama as U.S. president is one of often noble declarations of intent, with stumbling blocks of reality along the way.
At the UN, he told the 15-member Security Council (five permanent, 10 non-permanent members) “We must never stop until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of the earth.”
Who can disagree with that as a goal? But how to achieve it?
The Security Council is hopeless, specializing in declarations of intent that rarely come to fruition. Remember how Saddam Hussein jerked them around. The summit is now over, having endorsed an Obama-like resolution to “seek a safer world . . . without nuclear weapons.”
The stumbling block for Obama (if not the Security Council) was French President Nicolas Sarkozy scolding: “We live in a real world, not a virtual world, and the real world expects us to make decisions.”
“Decisions” are more than declarations of intent. “Decisions” don’t come as easily to Obama as platitudes – witness his reluctance to decide on whether more troops are needed in Afghanistan, which his hand-chosen military leaders say are essential to avoid defeat.
With this in mind, it came as a refreshing surprise to many when Obama seemed to hurl a gauntlet at Iran’s quest to develop nuclear weapons by exposing a new nuclear site in Iran that international intelligence sources agree is only useful for weaponry.
Flanked by Sarkozy and Britain’s PM Gordon Brown (who said the time has come to “draw a line in the sand” with Iran), Obama talked tougher than usual in warning Iran to desist and dismantle.
The denials by Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad were more pathetic than persuasive. Neither China nor Russia seemed supportive of Ahmadinejad.
While total nuclear disarmament is unlikely to inconceivable in the lifetime of most of us, Iran and North Korea are the main obstacles to nuclear progress – both being rogue regimes intent on developing and expanding nuclear weapons.
If Iran gets nukes, neighboring countries will also want them. How long before they reach Hamas? And al-Qaeda?
The world has no shortage of nutbar leaders and terror activists who’d relish a nuke to detonate in an unsuspecting city. Sarkozy recognizes this, and has called for action that will realistically deter the lust for nukes.
No problem if Russia and the U.S. agree to trim their nuclear arsenal by, say, 25%. Neither is likely to behave irrationally. Can the same be said of Ahmadinejad?
One hopes Obama goes beyond platitudes about banning nuclear weapons -- “That is our task, that is our destiny.” More says Obama. Just rhetoric.
The UN resolution to seek a safer, better world, preventing nuclear proliferation with “new, comprehensive, legally binding agreements...” is not reassuring.
Such agreements are meaningless. As Sarkozy points out, Iran has flouted five Security resolutions since 2005, North Korea 15 or more since Kim Jong Il ventured into nuclear blackmail.
So far, only Israel faces international condemnation if it takes direct action against Iran’s development of nuclear capabilities. And it’s the target country. UN members are never reluctant to condemn Israel if it defends itself, or fights back against terrorism.
Would NATO ever take action against Iran if it developed nuclear weapons? Doubtful, since most NATO countries are too craven to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, Iran tests its new surface-to-surface Sajil missile with impunity.