So the Prime Minister of Israel came to Washington and addressed a joint session of congress to tell the President of the United States how to run his foreign policy.
Without addressing whether I think U.S. President Obama’s foreign policy is correct — and we’re specifically talking about with Iran of course — I would have to say that was bad manners on the part of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.
And it was the wrong thing to do for Speaker of the House John Boehner, a Republican, to invite Netanyahu. It was all a staged event to make our president, a Democrat, look bad — to help the Republicans in their current political fights and in the 2016 presidential election and something to help bolster Netanyahu in his soon-approaching parliamentary elections in Israel.
But what I heard and saw in the videos of his speech was compelling. He is a good speaker.
His opposition here in the U.S., though, says Netanyahu criticizes Obama’s negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program without offering an alternative — other than bombing Iran.
Well I’ll cut to the chase with my opinion:
We can’t let Iran develop nuclear weapons (if we can help it, if we can stop them).
The religious fanatics who run Iran seek to wipe out freedom in the world.
But how do we go about stopping Iran? Good question.
Yes, we should conduct negotiations. So President Obama is correct in that. Diplomacy is always better than war or military action, when it works.
But Netanyahu is probably right in that Iran cannot be trusted.
I’m just guessing we can no more trust the current ayatollah in Tehran than we could Adolph Hitler at Munich (he of course was not at all sincere and used negotiations as a diversion away from his plan to conquer the world, which led to World War II).
But if talks can stall things, so much the better.
It is an open secret that the U.S. has conducted computer sabotage on Iran’s nuclear program.
I would think we must continue to do what we can to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. Too many powers have it already. Too bad it was ever built. We did it first, but if we had not someone else would have — Nazi Germany came the closest to beating us.
But as I have stated previously — too much talk. We need to say little but do a lot or at least do what is necessary to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons capability. We’ve probably said too much already, but we could still shut up.
I’d say despite the fact Iran’s government is so disagreeable to us and seems a threat to Western democracies, we should nonetheless have civil relations with that nation and even cooperate where we can. Iran is ironically on our side in the fight against ISIS, although Netanyahu says they are just vying to be the power to rule the world via terror.
And we cannot forget that the United States did create animosity on the part of Iran by installing the dictatorship of the old Shah of Iran, just because he was a Cold War ally to us.
I’d say we should not try to run Iran’s business and not meddle in its internal affairs, except, sorry, we just cannot allow it to have the bomb. We don’t need another irresponsible actor with that capability.
(And whoops, the U.S. is the only nation so far that has ever detonated nuclear bombs in combat.)
Maybe there is a diplomatic solution here, but we have to be ready to employ whatever means we can to keep the bomb out of the hands of Iran.
We just don’t need to talk about it so much.
And I have written this before: I say let Iran’s leaders know in private that we will not sit by while they implement a nuclear weapons program — we will strike them if necessary. I think even Obama has alluded to this, saying such things as “we take nothing off the table”.
We have to stand firm and at the same time give peace a chance. Inflexible positions led to World War I, one of the worst disasters in history.
On the other hand, peace at any price did not serve the Western Powers well in negotiations with Hitler, the end result being Word War II.