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 If it were up to Rumsfeld, the US would have gone in, destroyed everything and would then have withdrawn immediately: no nation building.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.
PAST CONTRIBUTOR.