friends:
pamela geller at atlas shrugs has again published remarks made by john bolton before the american congress. appearing as a senior fellow, the american enterprise institute, bolton spoke before the house committee on foreign affairs, united states house of representatives, on the subject of "iran/syria: next steps" with regard to the iranian/syrian nuclear weapons programs. http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/06/text-john-r-bolton-remarks-before-committee-on-foreign-affairs-united-states-house-of-representative.html#comment-6a00d8341c60bf53ef014e8956789d970d
as usual, bolton's remarks are concise, and his analysis nearly impeccable, with regard to the geo-political dangers posed by iran's nuclear program. it is a metaphor of limited wit, and a reflection upon my inability to come up with something better, but allowing iran to have nuclear weapons is like giving your kid a loaded .44 magnum when he is a five year old. not smart.
please go there, and read the entire text of bolton's remarks.
my letter in response to john bolton's recent remarks on the iranian/syrian push to nuclear weapons, posted in the comments section of atlas shrugs. http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/06/text-john-r-bolton-remarks-before-committee-on-foreign-affairs-united-states-house-of-representative.html#comment-6a00d8341c60bf53ef014e8956789d970d --
................................................
pamela, friends:
with regard to ambassador bolton's remarks: he makes a very telling point about iran/syria's nuclear weapons pretensions, and it is stated entirely as follows. neither nation can ever hope to reach parity with the western nuclear stockpile of weapons. therefore, their weapons do not trip the analysis supporting "mutually assured destruction." in short, neither nation could rely upon a "defensive" response to attack to destroy the u.s./west.
ambassador bolton rightfully remarks that this dictates that such weapons could only be used for "terrorism." i take a teensy weensy teeny tiny exception to this characterization, not because i disagree with it, but because i think that there is a bit of an omission in the description. that being, that not only are these weapons capable of rational use as "terror" weapons, but that they are also useful for weapons to initiate and sustain a nuclear attack upon another nation.
there is a distinction to be drawn between preemptive attack and terror attack. the heart of that distinction is the nation of israel.
the possibility of terror against a western nation is small, as it would invite overwhelming reprisal.
the possibility of a first strike/preemptive attack against israel is overwhelmingly likely. 1.)iran must realize that if israel believes iran has the capacity to attack it with nuclear weapons, then israel is very greatly tempted/pressured to attack iran to destroy its weapons production and delivery systems. iran will not have come this far just to see israel destroy the weapons systems it has just spent so much time, money and effort into developing, so the pressure is to use them upon israel before israel destroys them. it almost assures that iran will attack israel to prevent this from happening. 2.)i believe very firmly that in light of the growing anti-semitic thought in the west, and in "progressive circles" especially, that iran feels that if it attacks israel first with atomic weapons, and destroys israel so that it cannot strike back, that iran also feels that it will face no attack in retaliation from the west, the united states, from nato.
these are odds and pressures that iran will not be able to resist, and almost dictate that iran will use atomic weapons in a preemptive attack upon israel, once iran has developed the ability to deliver her weapons.
john jay
milton freewater, oregon usa
p.s. i have written on this extensively, in a paper entitled "the logic of war." you may look it up. http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2008/05/war-and-logic.html
Comments