Washington Times’ editors support Israel’s defensive arsenal

Posted: May 10, 2009 by Jonathan Boyko in Hezbollah, Iran, Israel, Terrorism, US

Washington Times

RECENT WASHINGTON TIMES editorial took on a tough job defending Israel’s alleged possession of nuclear arsenal, and calls on Obama administration to drop comparisons between Israel and Iran:

Israel is a dependable U.S. ally and a free liberal democracy. Iran is a long-standing enemy of the United States, is directly or indirectly responsible via Iraqi insurgents and others for more deaths of U.S. service members than any country since the Vietnam War. Its people suffer under an oppressive theocracy. We approve of an Israeli nuclear force for the same reason we approve of a British, French or American nuclear force: We know it will serve peaceful purposes. We oppose an Iranian nuclear force for the same reason we oppose a North Korean nuclear force: We know it will not serve a peaceful purpose. Any attempt to establish parity between Israel and Iran on the nuclear issue is dangerous and naive.

Meanwhile, Iran has underwritten continued terrorist attacks and pledged to wipe Israel off the map. For this reason alone, Tel Aviv should never be asked to give up its nuclear deterrent. It is a matter of national survival. As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly told then-President Clinton in the 1990s when asked to sign a treaty that would restrict Israel’s access to fissile material, "We will not sign the treaty because we will not commit suicide."

If the Obama administration is genuinely interested in achieving durable peace in the Middle East, it will renew the policy of strategic ambiguity. Now is not the time to hit the reset button on one of the most successful strategies in U.S. diplomatic history.

While it is still unclear if Israel actually possesses nuclear weapons, or just successfully fooled the international community for several decades, the difference between Israel’s control of such weapons and that of Iran. While Israel usually keeps silent about its atomic weapons, Iran actively seeks it. The major problem with Iran is its supply routes to terrorist organizations, such as Hizb Allah in Lebanon or Hamas in Gaza. In case Ahmadinejad’s regime gets hold of weapons of mass destruction, no person could predict future of such arsenal, as it could get easily reach terrorists’ hands.

However, the problem Israel has on its hands is deeper. In reality, Iran is unlikely to transfer WMDs to terror groups. However, it could hold Israel hostage just by presenting such possibility, pressuring the Jewish state into concessions. Iranian chiefs know they couldn’t attack Israel with missiles – Israel has several anti-ballistic measures, such as the “Arrow” defense system. Yet, by presenting the potential of such weapons reaching Gaza, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could effortlessly pressure Israel – and the US, for that matter – into succumbing to its will.

US should be concerned as well. Besides Lebanon, Hassan Nasrallah’s HIzb Allah operated in Venezuela, where the group profits from narcotics trade, as well as indoctrinating local tribes into its genocidal agenda. If Iran’s nuclear weapons would reach Nasrallah’s faction, it could get to South America within a year.

  1. […] I have previously mentioned – also quoting Washington Times’ editors – Iran poses an actual threat by supporting terror […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s