About Me

My photo
This site is the inspiration of a former reporter/photographer for one of New England's largest daily newspapers and for various magazines. The intent is to direct readers to interesting political articles, and we urge you to visit the source sites. Any comments may be noted on site or directed to KarisChaf at gmail.

Monday, November 25, 2013

A nuke-armed Iran threatens far more than just Israel -- By Allan Gerson, The Washington Times

Illustration by Greg Groesch for The Washington Times(Illustration by Greg Groesch, The Washington Times)

The Iran talks that concluded on Sunday in Geneva should have focused on one central question: Is Iran's ultimate ambition to be a nuclear force that can dominate the Gulf and the Arab region as well as threaten the survival of Israel? Clearly, the answer to that question should have been evaluated not on the basis of expressions of intent voiced at the diplomatic table, but by acts on the ground. Although the "freeze" accord just reached with Iran may be implemented by an executive order alone, given its importance, a full airing of congressional concerns would surely better serve the national interest.

Yet instead of asking that question forthrightly and debating it seriously, it is being evaded, thus providing time for Iran to perfect its nuclear break-out capability. This evasion takes many forms, sometimes cloaked in diplomatic niceties. What is not nice at all are the repeated swipes aimed at demonizing U.S. congressmen, France and Saudi Arabia, but predominantly Israel, for daring to challenge the administration's assumptions about Iran's ultimate intentions.

Reflective of this thrust to disparage and indeed demonize the opposition are the latest columns of Tom Friedman, foreign-affairs columnist for The New York Times. Reading them, one would think that the devil incarnate had taken control of Congress, poisoning its members' commitment to U.S. national interests in favor of being prepared "to do whatever the Israel lobby asks them to do in order to garner Jewish votes and campaign donations."

If the members of Congress were not public figures in the legal sense of the word, where almost anything can be said against them without fear of a libel suit (absent a showing of malice), it would not be surprising if Mr. Freidman found himself the subject of multiple libel actions by members distressed over the potshots at their integrity. For surely he knows that many of these congressmen come from states where Jewish votes are of little consequence, and in others, hardly sufficient to sway votes on relaxing tens of billions of dollars in economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for a temporary freeze of its nuclear development programs. For Mr. Friedman to contend that the debate in Congress is about being "willing to take Israel's side against their own president's" is to mischaracterize the real nature of the debate: whether America is to honor commitments made by this and prior administrations to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapon capability.

(Click link below to read more)
READ MORE Sphere: Related Content

No comments:

Post a Comment