Revvin' Up For Iran
It would appear that Israel is confident in its ability to deal with Iran in March should it need to. I think that's great.
What I don't think is great is that the U.S. will probably take the lead in any action. All talks about action against Iran usually involves the words (or acronyms), "U.S.," "E.U." and "NATO." As if they're the only groups with opinions on the matter. Now, don't misunderstand me. I'm not calling for a "world consensus" on the matter. Far from it. But Israel, the most probable target for Iran's nukes next to the land of apple pie and white picket fences, certainly should be involved and, I daresay, take the lead.
Israel has made it clear she intends on launching an offensive against Iran regardless what the world community has to say about it. Not that to world community disagrees anyway. But with the idea of a U.S. led attack and the media denigrating Bush at every available moment I think perhaps the Administration should let Israel handle this one and simply provide intel and moral support. Cheerleaders if the situation really calls for it.
I think Bush needs to back off blowing stuff up for the time. I mean, I’d love to see the guy blow stuff up but if someone else is willing and able to go to the mat on this one we should let them.
But, perhaps, with the overall feeling that a nuclear Iran is a pretty bad idea it might be a good PR opportunity for the Administration. In that light I could see the U.S. leading this coalition of backstabbing cowards. Present company excluded (I'm lookin' at you England, Australia and Israel). The President could definitely use the poll boost and I'd like to see him get it. Just not at the expense of allowing Israel to show her strength. For when she does terrorists tend to back off. And that has even longer reaching positive consequences.
What I don't think is great is that the U.S. will probably take the lead in any action. All talks about action against Iran usually involves the words (or acronyms), "U.S.," "E.U." and "NATO." As if they're the only groups with opinions on the matter. Now, don't misunderstand me. I'm not calling for a "world consensus" on the matter. Far from it. But Israel, the most probable target for Iran's nukes next to the land of apple pie and white picket fences, certainly should be involved and, I daresay, take the lead.
Israel has made it clear she intends on launching an offensive against Iran regardless what the world community has to say about it. Not that to world community disagrees anyway. But with the idea of a U.S. led attack and the media denigrating Bush at every available moment I think perhaps the Administration should let Israel handle this one and simply provide intel and moral support. Cheerleaders if the situation really calls for it.
I think Bush needs to back off blowing stuff up for the time. I mean, I’d love to see the guy blow stuff up but if someone else is willing and able to go to the mat on this one we should let them.
But, perhaps, with the overall feeling that a nuclear Iran is a pretty bad idea it might be a good PR opportunity for the Administration. In that light I could see the U.S. leading this coalition of backstabbing cowards. Present company excluded (I'm lookin' at you England, Australia and Israel). The President could definitely use the poll boost and I'd like to see him get it. Just not at the expense of allowing Israel to show her strength. For when she does terrorists tend to back off. And that has even longer reaching positive consequences.
Posted by Kevin D. on
Friday January 13, 2006 at 7:32am
