Viewpoint illustration
Let me begin by stating a few of my positions on the Middle East politics. First, I believe that the State of Israel has absolute right to exist and to do so in peace and security. Second, I believe that the Palestinians have the right to sovereignty and statehood should have been granted more than half-a-century ago. And third, I believe that both sides can and should coexist peacefully.
In addition, I believe in power parity and deterrence, and also believe in the absolute right of nation-states to pursue independent foreign and national security policies so long as they do not endanger the well-being of the global common. And where states have gone roguish, then, it is incumbent on the United Nations or similar bodies to act. Furthermore, it is my view that the Iranians have the right to acquire nuclear weapons. Why not?
The United States conducted its first test in 1945 and as of today, has about 7,650 nuclear warheads. Russia followed suit in 1949, and has about 8,420 warheads. France, Pakistan the United Kingdom, China, North Korea, and India, all, have nuclear weapons. According to the Cable News Network, “Israel refuses to confirm or deny the widespread belief that it has the bomb, but it is thought to have about 80 atomic weapons and enough plutonium for as many as 200.”
The global news outlet went on to say that “Former Prime Minister Shimon Peres, in a 1998 television interview, said Israel began developing a ‘nuclear option’ in the 1950s to prevent war. Over the years, Israel has acquired submarines and aircraft capable of carrying nuclear warheads, but it isn’t confirmed whether they’ve been modified to do so. Many estimate that Israel’s land-based Jericho missiles are also nuclear-capable.”  What does Iran have?
Other than the Palestinians and her non-state allies, the Israeli government, it seems, is more concerned with the Iranians who are considered the most formidable in both the Arab and Islamic world. Along with Syria, it remains, perhaps, the only unconquered and unbowed state in that part of the world. A nuclear-Iran becomes even more formidable.
Iran, in the estimation of Israel and many western capitals, is the most dangerous country in the world — or at least in that part of the world. Unless you are paranoid or just being mischievous, you cannot and must not believe this to be true. The Islamic Republic of Iran remains one of the most stable and rational countries in the world. Sure, it is not a country you mess with; but when did strength and singular focus become a crime? By the way, who has ever messed with the US and got away with it?
There is an argument that goes like this: Israel is a democracy and abides by international laws and conventions; however, it is dangerous for a non-democracy like Iran to have such weapons. Baloney! Only an unreasonable fellow will argue that Iran is not a democracy, or stable. Democracy is not just about elections (which Tehran conducts freely and periodically), but it is whatever system of government the people want, promote and condone. Also, Tehran is as stable as any country anywhere in the western world.
In trying to discourage Iran from possessing nuclear weapons, she has been threatened with awe-inducing bombing; her cyberspace has been targeted; and crippling sanctions placed on her financial and economic dealings.  In recent times, however, it seems as though (a) there is the possibility of normalcy between the West and Iran; (b) embargoes will be lifted if certain conditions are met; and (c) the bombing option is looking less and less likely. For the first time in a generation or two, Iran may be invited to global parties. These visions are vexing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who prefers military actions.
For years now — and more so since President Obama spoke with President Rouhani — the Israeli prime minister has been threatening this and that and everything else.  He has been beating the drums of war. How ironic that this is coming from a Prime Minister who has refused to acknowledge owning weapons of mass destruction.
The world has known for at least four decades that Israel has nuclear weapons; yet – yet – not a single journalist has had the courage to directly ask Benjamin Netanyahu if he possess the bombs. Not a single American, British, German or French journalist has been able to look the Israeli Prime Minister in the eye and ask and to point to his duplicity. And for that matter, not a single western capital has publicly confronted Tel Aviv on this issue.
In all of this, however, something strange has been going on in the last couple of weeks: the scolding and verbal spanking of President Obama by Netanyahu. It’s been difficult to watch and to listen to such public-putdowns. Many American politicians do not hold Obama in high regard. He’s been disrespected in so many ways it’s insane! However, I have yet to see a foreign leader or politician that disrespects him as much as Netanyahu.
The Israeli leader is not even pretending or hiding his disdain for Obama. Sadly, no one has chastised Netanyahu for his sustained disrespect of Obama. The media is looking the other way, and so too is the American political establishment. What’s going on here? What’s vexing Netanyahu? Is it Obama’s overture to the new Iranian president – and for not going to war over Syria? What is it?
Just as many thought Yasser Arafat was the stumbling block to peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, many also believed that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iranian President from 2005 to 2013, was the stumbling block to whatever Washington and her allies wanted. Arafat wasn’t but he was killed. Today, Iran has a new president. Why won’t Netanyahu give peace and diplomacy a chance instead of constantly calling for war against Iran? The UN, NATO and others should caution Netanyahu.Wars are tiring.
The world is tired of conflicts. Even the good people of Israel must be wary and weary of wars. But unfortunately, Netanyahu seems not to know this. He seems not to understand the mood of the global community – a community that opposed the bombing of Syria.  Diplomacy, not military aggression, is the key to solving the region’s problems and challenges. What does he not understand?   

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post