Well,
of course, the religious leaders of Iran have sworn on their word of
honor that they're not going to manufacture nuclear weapons. If they are
lying, then I don't see that as a major catastrophe because they'll
only have one or two military weapons. Israel probably has 300 or so.
------------------------------------
JERUSALEM POST COMMENTS...
Monday Jan 30, 2012
Jimmy Carter Does It Again
When it comes to the Middle East, the former president never ceases to amaze.
His complete answer: "Well, of course, the religious leaders of
Iran have sworn on their word of honor that they're not going to
manufacture nuclear weapons. If they are lying, then I don't see that as
a major catastrophe because they'll only have one or two military
weapons. Israel probably has 300 or so."
There you have it. In 51 words, Carter demonstrates convincingly why he should stay out of the business of Iran analysis.
Not that he was much better at it while in the White House.
Remember his famous expression of confidence in the Shah -- "an island of stability" -- when one year later the Iranian leader was ousted and had to flee the country?
And the catastrophic U.S. attempt, under Carter, to free the 52
American hostages taken by the Shah's successors, that failed for the
lack of a working helicopter?
And the fact that those hostages languished in Iranian hands for
444 days, only to be released the very first day Carter's successor,
Ronald Reagan, took office?
Carter did not understand Iran then. Judging by the Time interview, he still doesn't.
First, how could any serious observer begin a response by
mentioning that "the religious leaders of Iran have sworn on their word
of honor that they're not going to manufacture nuclear weapons"?
Of what possible relevance is such a comment, other than to suggest that Carter may actually give it credence?
A regime that has been found to lie about everything else -- its
leaders claimed there were no nuclear enrichment facilities, that there
were no homosexuals in the country, that its women were the freest in
the world, that the Holocaust never took place, and that its 2009
elections were transparent -- is actually given the benefit of the doubt
by the former president.
He begins the next sentence with the phrase, "If they are lying."
Again, he himself isn't sure.
Perhaps he thinks, in contradistinction to the International Atomic
Energy Agency, UN Security Council, Obama administration, European and
Gulf leaders, and Israel, that all the Iranian leaders really want is
peaceful nuclear energy, nothing more.
And then comes the clincher. Even if the Iranians by some chance
are lying, he said, "then I don't see that as a major catastrophe
because they'll only have one or two military weapons."
How could anyone possibly know how many bombs Iran might build, if
left unchecked? This year, it might be one or two; next year, ten or
twenty; and so on.
Second, at the end of the day, the real issue is not how many bombs
Iran would have, but the very fact that it possessed the weapon.
That would change everything in its relations with its neighbors and beyond.
Iran would derive incalculable power and confidence from the mere
fact that it crossed the line. Going forward, all other countries would
have to factor the nuclear element into their dealings with Tehran --
and, it should be added, with such allies as Syria, and such
non-governmental partners as Hamas and Hezbollah.
Third, one of the most ominous changes could well be a new arms race in the region, already the most volatile in the world.
What countries might, in response, move towards nuclear-weapons
programs of their own, driven by fear (think Saudi Arabia) or "prestige"
(think Turkey)?
Then the risk of catastrophe by design, miscalculation, or accident goes up exponentially.
So, too, does the chance of a further spread of the weapons.
Remember A.Q. Khan, the Pakistani scientist who ran the Walmart of
nuclear-weapons technology?
Impossible to conceive of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez seeking
nuclear help from his Iranian friends to achieve the same position in
Latin America that Iran aspires to in its neighborhood? Not in my book.
Fourth, Carter should go back and read the
words of Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former Iranian president, who said: "[T]he use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel would destroy everything."
For Carter to imply that Israel is safe and secure from Iranian
nuclear designs by dint of having more bombs is, well, naïve, all the
more when Iran's defining eschatology is added to the picture. If
religious fervor should trump rational behavior in Tehran, all bets are
off.
And finally, Carter once again displays his misreading of Israel,
something he has regrettably made a habit of in recent years and also,
incidentally, on vivid display in the same Time interview.
Israel still lives with the shadow of the Holocaust. How could it not?
A leader set forth a plan to establish a 1,000-year Reich and
destroy the Jewish people. Few took him seriously. Indeed, there were
those at the time -- all titled, confident and credentialed -- who
sounded very much like Carter in his assessment of present-day Iran.
They were dead wrong, and the world paid a horrific price for failing to grasp Hitler's intentions earlier.
Of one thing we can be certain: Israel will not place its trust in Carter's reading of Iran. Nor should anyone else.
-----------------------------------------
ΠΟΛΛΗ ΟΡΓΗ ΚΑΙ ΣΥΖΗΤΗΣΙ ΚΑΙ ΑΝΑΘΕΜΑΤΙΣΜΟΙ ΣΤΙΣ ΕΒΡΑΪΚΕΣ ΕΦΗΜΕΡΙΔΕΣ ΚΑΙ ΣΤΟ ΔΙΑΔΙΚΤΥΟ, ΚΑΤΑ ΤΟΥ "ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑΡΗ" ΚΑΡΤΕΡ!!!! ΟΜΩΣ ΠΟΥΘΕΝΑ, ΜΑ ΠΟΥΘΕΝΑ, ΔΕΝ ΕΙΔΑΜΕ ΝΑ ΛΕΝΕ ΑΝ ΤΕΛΙΚΩΣ ΕΧΕΙ ΤΟ ΙΣΡΑΗΛ ΠΥΡΗΝΙΚΑ ΚΑΙ ΠΟΣΑ !!!! ΦΥΣΙΚΑ, ΣΕ ΠΟΙΟΝ ΘΑ ΔΩΣΟΥΝ ΛΟΓΟ ΟΙ ΝΙΚΗΤΑΙ ΤΟΥ ΠΟΛΕΜΟΥ ???? ΣΤΑ ΚΟΥΚΛΟΘΕΑΤΡΑ ΑΝΔΡΕΙΚΕΛΩΝ ΤΥΠΟΥ ΟΗΕ ΠΟΥΦΤΙΑΞΑΝ "ΓΙΑ ΤΗΝ ΠΛΑΚΑ ΤΟΥΣ" ???
--------------------------------
