January 25, 2006
Iran vs. Israel: Bush's Dilemma
By Pat Buchanan
In the test
of wills between the West and Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad shows no
sign of backing down.
The Iranian
president has said Israel should be "wiped off the map,"
called the Holocaust a "myth" and said Israelis should
be given a province in Austria, but they should get out of Palestine.
Whatever was done to the Jews, said Ahmadinejad, we didn't do
it. Europeans did. Why should we pay the price?
This weekend,
The New York Times provided supporting testimony for
Ahmadinejad, citing secret Cabinet notes of Winston Churchill's
in 1943:
"I'm
committed to creation of a Jewish National Home in Palestine.
Let us go on with that; and at end of war we shall have plenty
of force with which to compel the Arabs to acquiesce in our
designs. Don't shirk our duties because of difficulties ..."
This weekend,
Ahmadinejad was in Damascus, Syria, winning the backing of President
Assad for Iran's nuclear program, meeting with Hezbollah and Islamic
Jihad, and scoffing at Israeli threats. Iran has also reasserted
its right to enrich uranium for nuclear power.
This has
caused much threatening talk in Israel and here. This weekend,
Sens. John McCain and Joe Lieberman were again speaking of "military
options" being "on the table." And Israeli Defense
Minister Shaul Mofaz went further, speaking directly to Iran's
president:
"I
address you as someone who leads his country with an ideology
of hate, terror and anti-Semitism. I suggest you look at history
and see what happened to others who tried to wipe out the Jewish
people. ... Israel is not prepared to accept the nuclear arming
of Iran, and it must prepare to defend itself, with all that
implies."
But Ahmadinejad
is not backing off. And his provocative rhetoric has paid off.
He has strengthened his position at home and made himself the
toast of the Muslim street. And panic over a possible war sent
the Dow plunging 200 points last Friday, wiping out $200 billion
in U.S. shareholders' equity, a loss almost equal to the cost
of the Iraq war.
And with the price of a barrel of oil spiking $10 to near $70,
Iran, which exports 2.5 million barrels daily, has seen revenues
rise $25 million a day. Other oil-producing nations, like Hugo
Chavez's Venezuela, also are reaping windfall profits.
The jolts
to the Dow and NASDAQ, and Tehran's warnings that sanctions could
be met with an oil embargo that could send prices to $100 a barrel,
seem to have caused second thoughts in the Bush camp about the
wisdom of a confrontation.
In a week,
the International Atomic Energy Agency will decide whether to
send Iran to the Security Council. But as there is no hard evidence
Iran is building weapons or is even in noncompliance with the
Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, Russia may oppose sanctions
and China may veto them.
As for the
military option, no one knows what U.S. air strikes might produce.
Possibilities include tens of thousands of Iranian volunteers
streaming into Iraq to attack U.S. troops, Iran's inciting of
the Shia south to rise against us, an oil embargo, Silkworm missiles
fired at tankers, the closing of the Straits of Hormuz with mines,
and terror attacks on U.S. allies and installations across the
Middle East -- driving the price of oil to $200 a barrel.
With 160,000
U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, U.S. strikes, which could
kill hundreds of Iranians and silence the pro-American voices
there, uniting Iran behind Amadinejad, would seem an option that
could cost us everything. Can we really afford another war, against
a nation three times as populous and four times as large as Iraq?
Bush and Cheney seem aware of the risks of the "military
option." But if they rule it out, they will see a bad moon
rising on the Right. Not only will the neoconservatives howl,
Israelis will see themselves as the odd man out, if Bush should
move to negotiations with Tehran, which is the only real option
to confrontation.
If America
does not strike, Mofax is saying, Israel will. Yet, as that could
produce the same results as an American attack, without the same
assurance of success, Bush may have to restrain Israel, if he
does not want a wider war.
In short,
if Bush does not confront Iran on the nuclear issue with sanctions
or air strikes, he may find himself confronted by Israelis and
their U.S. auxiliaries. Hearken to Hillary Clinton:
"I
don't believe you face threats like Iran and North Korea by
outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines. But
let's be clear about the threat we face now: A nuclear Iran
is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond."
Hillary
is saying that if George Bush does not confront Iran, he is open
to the charge of leaving Israel to face a nuclear attack by a
regime that has threatened to wipe Israel off the map. Political
hardball.
Over to
you, Mr. President.
Copyright
2006 Creators Syndicate
