It is difficult to reconcile support of democracy, of free elections, of removal of dictatorial regimes, with a call for "tedious diplomacy," for engagement and for appeasement of not yet fallen structures of power, which a democracy would destroy. For the sake of argument let us assume that Israel is of no concern, because Iranians only talk about destroying it, but do not really mean it, or because security and existence of Israel is of no national interest to the US. In this case Iran needs nuclear ability in order to increase its power in the region, to control its neighbors, and to have an overwhelming influence on the oil market. A primary energy commodity will be in the hands of an unfriendly country. Iran will control the world oil price, and consequently the economy of the US. Since it will have nuclear weapons, when for instance, as it is threatening today, it will close the Hormuz straits, the counter threat by the Fifth Fleet, would be meaningless, unless nuclear war is tolerated. In the preceding scenario, Israel was set aside. The supporters of engagement, be it or not an euphemism for appeasement , claim that Iran talk about attacking Israel is meaningless. It is hard to see how the pundits know how to distinguish between true and false Iranian talk. Be this as it may, since Israel's existence would be in line, Israel will respond by disregarding any interest, which is not its own and act as it deems best for itself.
The only way to avoid war is to press with hard sanctions and prepare for war. Anything else makes the war unavoidable.
אין תגובות:
הוסף רשומת תגובה