Playing with fire

I don't even know what to say about this...

According to several news reports, Israel's Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz warned the Iranian people that they face "destruction" if they continue with plans to pursue nuclear power, in a speech to an international conference of security experts on Saturday. Mr. Mofaz stated:

I know that a large part of the people of Iran do not support [President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's] policies but his despicable acts could bring destruction to all of you. You understand what must be done to prevent this...

Israel must have the capability to defend itself, with all that that implies, and this we are preparing.

These statements seem strikingly reminiscent of the controversial outburst of Ahmadinejad a short time ago, an outburst which received immediate condemnation around the globe. And yet Mr. Mofaz's far more credible threat has engendered barely a whisper of protest from those same nations who were ready to crucify the Iranian leader.

"Defend itself"? Naturally, Israel has every right to ensure security against a verifiable danger from outside its borders. But the fact remains that there is no evidence that Tehran has even a fledgling nuclear program, much less a weapon that threatens the Israeli state.

And when one couples Mofaz's warning with the recent promise of French President Jacques Chirac to use tactical nuclear force against "terrorist states" or simply to protect his nation's oil interests, it hardly seems surprising that Ahmadinejad's government is taking an increasingly defiant stance toward the West.

If we had real leadership in Washington, these belligerent and reckless threats would be swiftly criticized by our Administration as vehemently as were the much less actionable taunts that spewed forth recently from Tehran. But that's an awfully big "if". Instead, the relative silence from the U.S. seems to indicate that George and the gang are in support of such action by our "friends" to the East. After all, unwarranted pre-emptive strikes by Israel or France would free the U.S. from any accountability if things don't go as well as planned, but would accomplish the Administration's true wishes if successful.

As I've repeatedly said, Iran is still a big question mark, and needs to be monitored carefully and negotiated with repeatedly. But the fact remains that the Iranians do not have nuclear weapons, so all this talk of "a need for defense" and "danger of attack" and "imminent threat" are manipulative propaganda by Western leaders and nothing else. To what end, I'm not yet sure, though I have strong suspicions that the answer rhymes with "linoleum".

No, the growing threat of actual nuclear violence in the Middle East seems to be from America's well-stocked allies, with the tacit support of our Cowboy in Chief - and they're all playing with fire. Why is this issue not getting wider, more objective coverage here at home? Am I the only one scared sh#tless by the way this situation is escalating so rapidly?

For more than half of my life, America and its global partners faced an ideologically opposing empire which had thousands of real, functional nuclear warheads aimed at our respective homelands, a danger far greater than that posed by an isolated, unarmed Islamic state. But that danger was minimized and contained by decades of intelligent, patient diplomacy, by summit meetings and negotiated treaties and U.N. observation. Can we afford to do anything less in our dealings with Tehran?

I think not. There is simply no excuse for our government, and the governments of our allies, to not follow that same, demonstrably successful path with an "enemy" that is comparatively insignificant.