Iranian Nukes, Revisited, Part III

Breaking News!  The U.S. has attacked three of Iran's nuclear sites.  President Trump to address the nation at 10pm Eastern time tonight.

Those opposed to U.S. action have neglected some important facts.  One is that Iran has repeatedly referred to the United States as the "Great Satan."  Israel is the "Little Satan."  Also, Iran has been seeking ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles).  They don't need ICBMs to reach Israel.  They do to reach the U.S.

A friend and colleague who writes his own blog, opposed U.S. involvement.  I replied to him as follows:  "First, I'll remind you that every president this century has said that it's unacceptable for Iran to get a nuclear weapon.  Second, Iran, both directly and indirectly through its proxies, have taken Americans hostage, have killed Americans, and have attacked American bases.  Third, Iran is the leading state sponsor of terror.  Imagine if they had nuclear weapons what actions  they would feel free to take beyond what they've already done...

Fourth, Israel is our best ally in the Middle East.  We share the same democratic values.  Israeli intelligence has proven to be a tremendous asset to the United States...what message are we sending to the world if we refuse to come to the aid of one of our closest allies in the world?  China and Russia will surely get the message.  Russia will have no incentive to stop the war in Ukraine.  China will think they will have free rein with regards to Taiwan...imagine what (our Sunni Arab allies) would think - if the U.S. won't even support Israel, there's no chance they would come to our defense.  They would have to consider closer ties to Russia and China."  

I then told my friend about 2 opposing views of war and peace.  Jimmy Carter:  "'War may sometimes be a necessary evil.  But no matter how necessary it is always an evil, never a good.'  How very wrong...Contrast that with Teddy Roosevelt:  'Peace is generally good in itself, but it is never the highest good unless it comes as the handmaid of righteousness; and it becomes a very evil thing if it serves merely as a mask for cowardice and sloth, or as an instrument to further the ends of despotism or anarchy.'"

Today, President Trump did what every other president this century only gave lip service to.  When Trump said Iran must not get a nuclear weapon, he actually meant it.  Six of the 30,000 pound bunker busting bombs were dropped on Iran's hardened nuclear sites (Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan), and 30 tomahawk missiles were also deployed.  No one should be surprised.  Trump refused to sign the proposed G-7 statement calling for Israel and Iran to de-escalate.  That would have allowed the Iranian nuclear program to get multiple nuclear bombs. 

So, I say G-d bless President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu.  Those two leaders are the only true leaders in the Western world.  They understand "peace through Strength."  As for those MAGA isolationists, who claim U.S. involvement would fracture MAGA (such as Marjorie Taylor Greene), Trump posted on June 16:  "AMERICA FIRST means many GREAT things, including the fact that IRAN CANNOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON.  MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN." 

Iranian Nukes, Revisited, Part II

While support for Israel has come from both Republicans and Democrats, neither side is completely behind Israel.  Here are a few comments by Democrats who immediately jumped on Israel for daring to prevent another Holocaust against the Jewish people.  Here was Senator Andy Kim (D-NJ):  "This action ordered by Prime Minister Netanyahu appears to deliberately undermine ongoing American diplomatic negotiations about Iran's nuclear program."  Senator Kim is 42 years old.  So giving him the benefit of the doubt, maybe he just doesn't know that "diplomatic negotiations" with Iran have been ongoing for most of this century.  And where has that gotten us?  And no, Netanyahu did not undermine America; in fact he waited for the 60 days Trump gave to Iran to make a deal before attacking.

Here was Senator Jack Reed (D-RI):  "Israel's alarming decision to launch airstrikes on Iran is a reckless escalation that risks igniting regional violence."  Escalating regional violence?  Where have you been, Senator?  Since October 7, 2023, Israel has been at war with Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthis in Yemen.  And even Iran, which sent missiles into Israel back in April, 2024.  How's that for regional violence?

And here was Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn):  "This is a disaster of Trump and Netanyahu's own making, and now the region risks spiraling toward a new, deadly conflict."  New conflict?  I'll say one thing about these Democratic Senators.  Like many, they were quick to blame Israel.  Don't dare blame Iran for failing to make a deal with president Trump.  No, blame the Jews.  Because make no mistake, when they blame Netanyahu, they are blaming Israel and the Jews.  Why do I say that?  Because the Jewish people in Israel, of all political stripes, support Netanyahu's decision to attack Iran.  

Yair Lapid is the head of one of the opposition parties to Netanyahu.  Lapid:  Israel "didn't declare war on Iran.  Iran declared war on Israel and the Jewish people decades ago."  Israeli President Isaac Hertzog, long with the opposition Labor Party, was also in full support of Netanyahu's decision.  What all Israelis understand is that Iran has repeatedly threatened to wipe their country off the map.  If Iran obtained nuclear weapons, what would it take to destroy Israel?  One nuke?  Two?  Certainly not more than three.  

But these Democrats apparently forgot that it was a single lifetime ago that the Nazis murdered 6 million of the world's 17 to 18 million Jews.  But since then, the Jewish people have their own state, with their own military.  And to Jews everywhere, the expression "Never Again" means never again will Jews go quietly to their deaths.  Who gives a damn what these Senators think?  As we Jews know, people like that tend to be sympathetic only to dead Jews.   

On the Republican side, there is also a split in opinion and support for Israel.  Some Republicans say let Israel do what it wants, as long as the U.S. is not involved.  These Republicans are what I refer to as the "MAGA isolationists."  Here is Senator Rand Paul (R-KY):  "I see more war and more carnage and it's not the U.S.'s job to be involved in this war.  Iraq was a mess.  Afghanistan was a mess."  I see no comparison with those two wars.  Because Trump has made it clear over and over again that he prefers peace.  He is proud that the U.S. got involved in no wars during his first term.  And even now, he is only considering whether or not to send in the B2 bombers with their 30,000 pound bunker busting bombs to take out the hardened nuclear facilities in Iran.

Yes, any conflict could take an unpredictable turn.  But with Trump as president, I see little likelihood of an intensified war ensuing.  No surprise that Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) said "This is not our war."  He even joined others in supporting a resolution that would prevent Trump from taking action without authorization from Congress.  Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) is generally a strong supporter of Israel.  But in this case he said that "I don't want us fighting a war...I don't want another Mid-east war."  

Also no surprise was Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), who said our focus should be on domestic issues, and "not going into another foreign war."  She expressed concern that war could "fracture" the MAGA movement.  I think that these MAGA isolationists are completely wrong.  The isolationists kept us out of WWII, until Japan decided they didn't care about that, and bombed Pearl Harbor.  These MAGA isolationists do not understand the concept of "peace through strength."  That does not mean that America must get involved in every war.  But it does mean that unless America does project its power when appropriate, then the only ones stepping up will be China, Russia, Iran and North Korea.  Anybody think if those countries feel empowered the world will be a safer place?  As mentioned earlier, the Europeans cannot be counted on.  

Iranian Nukes, Revisited - Part I

Curiously, I was at home on the evening Thursday, 6/12, when I received the following text message from my son at 6:12pm:  "Holy shit I can't believe this is happening."  Needless to say, that prompted me to immediately turn on the TV.  There it was.  Someone was finally trying to put an end to Iran getting nuclear weapons.  Not surprisingly, that someone was the tiny country of Israel.  Israel has approximately 10 million people and is the size of New Jersey.  Iran, on the other hand, has over 92 million people, and is more than twice the size of Texas.  A fair fight?  No.  Iran didn't stand a chance.

I say "finally" someone was trying to end Iran's nuclear program, because I started writing about the issue the very first year of the blog.  In a post of 11/26/09 (written on 09/26/09, and simply called "Iranian Nukes"), I pointed out that Obama had announced that Iran had built a secret, and undisclosed, nuclear facility deep into a mountainside.  At the UN General Assembly meeting in September, 2009, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu accurately assessed the situation when he told the world that the struggle against Iran pits "civilization against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who sanctify life against those who glorify death."  It could not be any more clear.

I ended that early blog post with this observation:  "We in the West are fools!  After six years (of negotiating with Iran) we still believe in more talking, more negotiating - even though those six years accomplished ABSOLUTELY NOTHING."  At the turn of this century the U.S. did not have any direct contact with Iran; not since the Iranians held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days - ending on the day Ronald Reagan took office.  But the Europeans, with the U.S. behind the scenes, were negotiating with Iran.  And it's been the same for the last 20 to 25 years.  Iran feigns interest in making a deal, all the while continuing to develop their nuclear enrichment.  

No one should waste their time telling me about the JCPOA (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), Obama's famous Iran nuke deal.  That agreement (Obama did not have a sufficient number of votes in the Senate to make it a binding treaty) was signed onto by the U.S., the U.K., France, Germany, Russia, China, and of course, Iran.  Many will remember the deal made by then President Clinton with North Korea regarding their desire to have nuclear weapons.  We know how well that worked out.  To evil dictators who abuse their own citizens, and who murder their own citizens, the words on a piece of paper mean nothing.  

Nevertheless, President Trump wanted to give diplomacy a chance - for 60 days.  On June 4, the Times of Israel reported that Ayatollah Khamenei said Trump's proposal was "100% against" the ideals of the 1979 Islamic Revolution.  The New York Times reported that "Iran has roughly doubled its stockpile of near bomb-grade uranium over the past three months even while negotiating with the Trump administration over a deal to limit its nuclear program, according to a confidential report that the United Nations nuclear inspection agency has begun circulating to capitals around the world."  On June 7, the Times reported that Iran was able to  produce a sufficient amount of bomb grade uranium for 10 weapons.

On June 8, the Jerusalem Post reported on a Wall Street Journal article stating that "Iran orders thousands of tons of ballistic missile ingredients from China"  Apparently enough to produce about 800 missiles.  Also on June 8, the Jerusalem Post reported that "Iran carried out implosion tests for nuclear weapons development, IAEA reports."  It was on April 12 that Trump announce he was giving Iran 60 days to come to an agreement with the U.S.  Trump had repeatedly said for years and years that "Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon."  Now, it turns out that every U.S. president in this century has said the same thing - Iran cannot have nuclear weapons.  But none of them did anything to stop Iran.  

On June 12, Trump was asked about a possible Israeli attack on Iran.  Trump:  "I don't want to say imminent, but it looks like it's something that could very well happen."  Of course, Trump had advance notice.  Israel waited until the 61st day to attack Iran.  Early on, Israel was successful in targeting Iran's top military leaders and top nuclear scientists.  

Back in 2009, I advocated for a joint force of the U.S., the U.K., France and Israel, taking out Iran's developing nuclear program.  But we know that the Europeans are worthless.  We know that every other president this century only gave lip service to denying Iran's ability to get nukes.  And, since this started on June 12, I have alternated between being quite upset with some of Trump's comments, to again having faith in him.  Because some of the earlier comments suggested he was willing to let Israel go it alone.  That very first blog post I wrote about "Iranian Nukes" was followed up shortly thereafter with "Iranian Nukes, Part II," written on February 21, 2010.  Not believing that sanctions would deter Iran, and not believing that any enforceable deal could could be made, I ended that post with this:  "But if I am correct, it will ultimately take military action to prevent Iran from getting nukes."