As we embark on one of the longest Presidential campaign trails in American political history the Democrats are enjoying their newfound stardom. Bush has been rendered a lame duck and no Republican candidate, America's Mayor included, has made so much as a spark against the supernova that is Obama and Clinton. Part of their success, if their respective race and gender are taken into account, is their fierce antiwar rhetoric. Barack sports his refusal to authorize the war on his sleeve and Hillary wants to start planning our exit from the region. That's all fine and dandy, but isn't it time to start looking toward our next war? Where do these candidates stand on Iran? Here's the answer:
Its success in attracting attention to the ostensible nuclear threat posed by Iran is another demonstration of the power of the Israel lobby to influence U.S. foreign policy and affect the policy debate in Congress. TIP’s press conference was striking for the strong written statements of support issued by more than 13 presidential candidates, including Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
***
“Allowing Iran, a radical theocracy that supports terrorism and openly threatens its neighbours, to acquire nuclear weapons is a risk we cannot take,” said Obama in a statement read aloud to reporters. “All nations need to understand that, while Iran’s most explicit and intolerable threats are aimed at Israel, its conduct threatens all of us.”
Obama recently introduced the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, one of several bills making its way through Congress that calls for stiffer economic sanctions on Iran’s energy industry and countries that do business with Iran.
“We cannot permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. We must also not let go unanswered its state sponsorship of terrorism. We must not stand silent in the face of brutal repression of women and minorities. And we must not tolerate threats to the existence of Israel,” said New York Senator Hillary Clinton.(Source)
It's interesting to see how much the Democrats, for being such self-lauded radicals, are retailing Republican buzz phrases. For instance, Congressman Brad Sherman of California repeated the lie that Ahmadinejad used the line "wipe Israel off the map". This is not only untrue but impossible. The speech he delivered was in Persian, a language which has no comparable idiom as to "wipe something off the map". More accurately translated Ahmadinejad said he wanted the Israeli government to be erased from the pages of time. His dispute is with Zionism, not Jews.
Moreover, a line of delineation needs to be drawn between nuclear technology for energy purposes, Iran's stated motive, and militaristic ends. It is easy to argue, as one should, that a leader cannot be taken at face value, their actions must be scrutinized additionally. Even when analyzed by this measure Iran appears to pose no threat. It was the only country to vote for a restriction on the production of Fissile Material used in creating nuclear bombs. Such a ban would have allowed for closely monitored nuclear production for non-military purposes.
Iran should not be tampered with, it will burn itself out like a contained brushfire. Don't let the media, Bush or even his opponents tell you otherwise. Sanctions are unnecessary as Iran has not wondered outside the boundaries of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and if Iraq sanctions are any indication economic constraints would only harm the people. Under US/UK sanctions the Iraqis were forced to eat garbage and drink dishwater, this type of treatment would help mend a frayed relationship between the Iranian government and its people in opposition to our interference. If the Iranian President should seek the bomb it would only be the doing of imbeciles from America's trigger-happy ruling class.
No comments:
Post a Comment