Bolton: Iran Must be Stopped, No Matter What
Toby Harnden wrote an article for the Telegraph, about Josh Bolton. Bolton said that Iran must be prevented from developing a nuclear bomb, even, if necessary, by the use of force and he also said that we’re running out of time (to act).
“It’s been conclusively proven Iran is not going to be talked out of its nuclear programme. So to stop them from doing it, we have to massively increase the pressure.
“If we can’t get enough other countries to come along with us to do that, then we’ve got to go with regime change by bolstering opposition groups and the like, because that’s the circumstance most likely for an Iranian government to decide that it’s safer not to pursue nuclear weapons than to continue to do so. And if all else fails, if the choice is between a nuclear-capable Iran and the use of force, then I think we need to look at the use of force.
“If the choice is them continuing [towards a nuclear bomb] or the use of force, I think you’re at a Hitler marching into the Rhineland point. If you don’t stop it then, the future is in his hands, not in your hands, just as the future decisions on their nuclear programme would be in Iran’s hands, not ours.
“Imagine what it would be like with a nuclear Iran. Imagine the influence Iran could have over the entire region. It’s already pushing its influence in Iraq through the financing of terrorist groups like Hamas and Hizbollah.”
He did admit though, that military action is risky:
“It’s very risky for the price of oil, risky because you could, let’s say, take out their enrichment capabilities at Natanz, and they may have enrichment capabilities elsewhere you don’t know about.”
In a related matter, he also shared with the world what he learned from Iraq:
“The regime itself was the threat and we dealt with the threat. Now, what we did after that didn’t work out so well. That doesn’t say to me, therefore you don’t take out regimes that are problematic.
“It says, in the case of Iraq, and a lot of this I have to say we’ve learned through the benefit of hindsight, was that we should’ve given responsibility back to Iraqis more quickly.”
This is the neoconservative talking point right now: the Rumsfeld strategy. Rumsfeld is one of those people who wanted the US to let the Iraqis rebuild their countries. If it were up to Rumsfeld, the US would have gone in, destroyed everything and would then have withdrawn immediately: no nation building.
Iran: the news that Iran is closer to developing a nuclear bomb than many previously thought, is clearly a signal that we should pay very close attention to whatever it is Iran is doing and that, yes, Iran will not give up its program unless forced to. Tougher sanctions have to be imposed: Iran has to be broken. The Mullahs have to, in the end, be forced to choose between the collapse of the Iranian economy on the one hand, and developing nuclear weapons on the other. That might make them think twice, although, it has to be said, I consider it to be quite possible for the Mullahs to think that once they have a nuclear weapon, the international community will back off.
In fact, that’s exactly what I think will happen as well: once Iran has a nuclear weapon its negotiation position becomes much stronger. It will change the balance in the region completely.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
12 Responses to “Bolton: Iran Must be Stopped, No Matter What”
Iran imports refined gasoline, they also subsidizes it to keep the price artificially low. Cut of the supply and the Iranian economy goes into a tail spin and highlights the fact that they should have been spending money on refineries, not weapons. The social unrest could knock off the hardliners and get the change we need. Military action is not going to get us anything, they have already taken steps to disperse their program so that no strike will take out the whole. Add to that the retaliation in Iraq and Lebanon as militant groups respond to the call of defending Shi’ism against the US and you have a real conflagration on you hands. Also note that Pakistan is showing signs of coming apart as the Taliban turn their attention to creating a failed state they can take over, we don’t have the military forces to contain that let alone an additional Iranian scenario.
They only have 1300 centrifuges in various states of readiness. Inspectors are still allowed in with minimum notice. They have only created grams of LEU. Podheretz is calling for war, what did the neocons say about Iraq? What is their batting average, under .100?
Are inspectors allowed in to ALL Iranian nuclear facilities, Rudi? Or just some of them?
I agree with you that we are a long way away from “imminent threat” from Iran. But let’s not pretend its all internationalist daisies either.
[...] By Michael van der Galien Source: The Moderate Voice [...]
JS The inspectors visited the enrichment facility, their is no evidence of a secret program. When the inspectors are kicked out, then we have a problem. Which one is crazier Josh or John?
Rudi, you need to research the history of this situation since 2002. The whole controversy between Iran and the IAEA was started in 2002 when Iran revealed the existence of numerous facilities in addition to those that were being monitored by IAEA inspectors. Additional intel since then has revealed that Iran maintains literally dozens and perhaps as many as 200 separate sites related to its nuclear program. This is natural behavior if they are hedging against a possible attack, but it does mean that access to one site is not sufficient to state anything with confidence about the state of the Iranian nuclear program.
And your pattern of asking “who is worse” is just non-responsive. I don’t have to like or agree with John Bolton to note that we know a helluva a lot less about Iran’s nuclear program than we need to. It is possible to BOTH believe that John Bolton is a really bad diplomat and strategist AND to believe that Iran is potentially dangerous and deceptive.
JS – I agree that Iran is “dangerous and deceptive”, but they aren’t an immenent threat or a valid existential threat at this time. The Bolton comment was snark. the walrus is dead…
Whats the point of forcing nations to comply with non-proliferation? In 30-50 years so many nations are going to have the bomb its not going to matter. Anything along these lines now is simply a stop gap measure. What we really need to be doing if developing a policy of dealing with these regimes that are going to get them. That is the state the world is going to end up in in our lifetime. If we don’t figure out a way the price of that ignorance is everything.
Stop Israel from committing the blunder.
John Negroponte, director of national intelligence, has told President George W Bush that there is no rush to use force as Iran’s nuclear programme is beset with technical errors. He has been saying, it’s not an immediate problem
Do Israeli leaders realize the repercussions of attack on Iranian installations? This military action against Iran will prove to be a disaster.
Iran has the world’s second biggest proven oil reserves after Saudi Arabia and the second biggest gas reserves after Russia. Iran is currently Opec’s second largest producer. Iran’s geo-strategic position and its already-existing network of pipelines also make it a key actor in the energy world. The sky-rocketing price of oil has put a lot of money into its pocket.
Iran has the power and means to stop world’ oil supply. Oil and gas from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and Iraq, which constitutes 40 percent of the world’s crude oil pass through the Straits of Hormuz, which is a stretch of ocean at the mouth of the Persian Gulf. Iranians have already made her intention that they would cut off tanker traffic, if UN imposes sanction them in connection with their nuclear programmatic they carries out what they are threatening , it will create an economic panic around the world.
Iranian can destabilize the Middle East region, because they good working relationship with Hezbollah , Hamas and Islamic Jihad movements. The recent war in Lebanon has clearly proved how deadly these movements can prove.
General John Abizaid, commander of US forces in the Middle East, has warned that striking Iran could cripple oil supplies, unleash a surrogate terrorist army and lead to missile attacks on America’s regional allies. The army is particularly concerned about Iran’s ability to destabilize an already chaotic Iraq.
Iranians don’t make empty rhetoric. They carry out their threats. They raided on a Rumanian-owned oil platform and occupied in August, because of dispute over ownership rights. Analysts say the real aim of the action was to convey to western companies including Halliburton, who is in power there.
Sanctions cannot be imposed upon Iran, because of the economic interests of France, Russia, and China, who are three permanent members of the Security Council.
Russia is building Iran’s first, $800 million (#640 million) atomic reactor and has impeded U.N. sanctions against Tehran. It has also agreed to resume shipment of fuel for the reactor, which experts say could be diverted and used to build bombs.
French President Mr. Chirac said he believes fruitful dialogue with Iran is still possible He called Iran “a great nation”, His comments may reflect a growing belief among European leaders that persuading Iran to drop its troublesome nuclear ambitions can realistically be done only by staying on good terms with Iran, not by hostile pressure or threats.
What then can be done in the face of the mullahs’ implacable drive to acquire nuclear weapons? Here a variety of responses can be discerned.
Senator Joseph Biden, insist that we have at least ten years before we have to worry about Iran’s getting a working bomb. According to Ashton Carter, who served as an assistant secretary of defense in the Clinton administration, we at least have enough time to explore every possible diplomatic avenue before contemplating any direct military response.
Israel should also take hint from these major players, and try to improve her relationship its neighbors. If it tries to do the dirty work for US, it will bring miseries for her people and hurt interests around.
http://www.munaeem.org
I find the endless ‘if only we had done this instead of that’ analyses of the war in Iraq totally unhelpful. None of them take into account the likely repercussions, and all of them glibly imagine a happy ending.
It’s great to fight wars in fantasies, but not so great in reality.
I agree with Sam. It’s time we started developing a Plan B for a world with nuclear capabilites that the US can not control by itself. It’s time to stop dreaming and start planning. There are serious people in the UN with serious ideas, but to assess them would require the US to step back from it’s go-it-alone mindset.
Continued ‘what-if’ story lines about Iraq only serve to divert attention from the world as it is.
Sure, when its possible. Israel can (and does!) seek to improve relations with neighbors including Jordan and Egypt. But it is really hard to improve a relationship with people who are openly committed to your genocidal extermination, as is the case with Hamas and Iran.
Jason is ignoring what he learned from me about the Ayatollah’s stance toward Israel.