Micah Zenko, a fellow at the Center for Preventive Action at the Council on Foreign Relations, writes in a Los Angeles Times op-ed that history suggests Israel will indeed strike Iran, without informing the US prior to the action. MZ notes that in Suez (1956), the Six-Day War (1967), and strikes on the Iraqi (1981) & Syrian (2007) nuclear reactors Israel acted alone and did not tell us beforehand. With Team Obama tilting heavily towards the Palestinians & twisting Israel's arm there is no doubt Israel will not ask for approval from us; besides, though MZ doesn't discuss this, our ability to keep a secret like that is effectively near zero.
Most telling in MZ's article: During the past near three months of turmoil in Iran, production of uranium hexaflouride and centrifuges has not slowed down one iota, according to Friday's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report. Here is a summary 5-page link for the August 28, 2009 IAEA report. It notes that: (1) the IAEA made "no substantive progress" in evaluating Iran's military program; (2) Iran could enrich enough uranium for a nuclear bomb in 3 to 6 months; and (3) Iran, which had enough material last February to make one nuclear bomb, would have enough material by February 2010 to make two bombs.
Washington Post columnist Jim Hoagland, a wise voice always, compares the Libyan welcome with the status Iran's nuclear program enjoys, and finds a lesson in Libya's behavior that applies equally to Iran: Iran will never give up its nuclear program, which gives it a seat at the table with the world's major powers. A WSJ editorial urges Team Obama to get more serious on stopping Iran, else Israel will strike.
The nuclear clock keeps ticking.
Comments