There has been endless debates about the moral justification for pre-emptive strike against Iraq. Suffice it to say such an action, even be considered justified, must be in an answer provided to the documented authenticity, the severity and immediacy of the threat in question. I will pass on this debate in particular for the moment, but with respect to the justification or the morality of a pre-emptive strike per, it would be foolhardy to reject that option on a plane. Case in point: Iran.
Iran, a country whose President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, asked recently that "Israel should be erased from the map" and whose totalitarian regime punishes "UN-Islamic" behavior among his own people. Iran, a country that has tried to acquire the nuclear bomb technology. Iran, a country that despise a prior agreement to stop the enrichment of uranium. Iran, a country that is an enemy declared and documented the United States repeatedly calling for "Death to America". Iran, where the Ayatollah Khomeini was the first to install a modern Islamic theocratic system, i.e. a totalitarian mixture of mosque and State. Iran, the country that took our Embassy in Tehran in 1979 and killed hostages. Iran, main sponsor of terrorism; financing, housing and the terrorists of the formation of groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and al - Qaida. It is claimed that Iran poses a danger much greater for the safety of the United States to Iraq, Iran poses a danger clear and present in that they can build nuclear weapons sooner rather than later.
Iran claims that its nuclear aims are exclusively to achieve nuclear energy for civil purposes. Those who believe that they participate in el capricho. Iran is the largest OPEC oil producer and has large gas reserves; in fact, it has more oil to generate electricity that could possibly consume. Clearly, any need for nuclear energy is absurd.
More to the point, Great Britain, Germany and France are participating in diplomatic efforts with Iran. These efforts, supported by Washington, are seen as a way to win - win to resolve the problems associated with Iran suspected program to develop nuclear weapons. Ironically, those talks were caused in the first place by Iran breach of a prior agreement to stop the enrichment of uranium. By negotiating with Iran and their mullahs and giving economic incentives, including the possible purchase of commercial aircraft and the entry into the World Trade Organization, some believe that Iran will give up its darker ambitions and to the West with what can avoid a military confrontation. Of course, while the incentive can help strengthen the economy of Iran, they also become one even greater threat. What you really want to they Iran is a nuclear weapon... better for use as a wedge blackmailer in future negotiation tables (as it is the case of Korea of the North) and much worse, better used against his enemies, such as Israel. You if you can do this to have become economically stronger thanks to economic Euro give far better.
This agreement all smacks of mortgaging the future by purchasing the sinecure of peace today; a "business" that would allow that they Iran to buy critically valuable time to participate, if not complete, its nuclear weapons research. This approach might very well in the Iran Declaration in the future (as did Korea in the North of all recent horror) that it has achieved in the construction of nuclear weapons.
Only intellectually naïve and pigeons flying high, those who ignore dangerously hard lessons of history, can you believe truly that such diplomatic appeasement based on fear divert its programme Iran not by the occult. As Margaret Thatcher once said, "it seems smell the stench of appeasement in the air". More telling is this quote by José María Aznar, former President of Spain, in June of this year, "the Europe really like appeasement;" "This is one of the most important differences between us and the States..."
Some will recall that in 1981, Israeli warplanes, in a widely criticized but extremely successful preventive stealth attack ordered by then-Prime Minister Menachem Begin, destroyed an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor. The raid provided zero nuclear capacity of Iraq. However, based on a highly debated and subsequent perceived threat of weapons of mass destruction, United States launched a preventive invasion against Iran - despite the threat of biological and nuclear weapons in Iraq never really settled down after the invasion. Surely a more real threat of weapons of mass destruction of the nuclear variety exists today in Iran and suggests strong consideration of a manifestly more justified strike against that country. Now is the time to focus on Iran in the context of what kind of threat posed. Iran must be condemned immediately and its nuclear ambitions effectively gagged. If it isn't, we can expect a much more deadly enemy confessed to confront.
Certainly United States should be actively encouraged and actively assist the efforts of fighters brave students in Iran in order to launch a revolution from within pour his regime of support to terrorists. Nobody despises the Islamic theocracy rather than young people and Iranian students who, for years, have occupied the mass protests in the streets. Despite the opposition strong and brutal, this rebellion is growing and the United States should encourage it in any way you can. This is the ideal solution. But United States also has the obligation to defend his Iran people continues growing and threats - and do so by whatever means necessary.
"No man can tame a tiger in a kitten by moving it." There can be no appeasement with cruelty. "Can't no reasoning with an incendiary bomb."-Franklin D. Roosevelt
Ted Sares, PhD, is a private investor who lives and writes in the area of the White Mountains of Northern New Hampshire with his wife Holly and Min Pin Jackdog. He writes a weekly column for a local newspaper and many of his other pieces are widely published.