The world should not shed tears for Iran’s ruling regime.
It should, however, be concerned about keeping the repercussions from Saturday’s bombing raid by the United States contained.
Iran’s nuclear ambitions have long been a worry for Israel and the United States, as well as for other Arab states that are friendly to the United States but wary of Iran’s regional ambitions. The 1979 Iranian revolution brought power to the current regime, whose foreign policy includes a call for Israel to be destroyed. Beyond that, its sponsorship of terrorism is a threat to its own region and beyond.
The nation’s rulers deserve little sympathy. Its people, however, deserve a lot of it.
It should, however, be concerned about keeping the repercussions from Saturday’s bombing raid by the United States contained.
Iran’s nuclear ambitions have long been a worry for Israel and the United States, as well as for other Arab states that are friendly to the United States but wary of Iran’s regional ambitions. The 1979 Iranian revolution brought power to the current regime, whose foreign policy includes a call for Israel to be destroyed. Beyond that, its sponsorship of terrorism is a threat to its own region and beyond.
The nation’s rulers deserve little sympathy. Its people, however, deserve a lot of it.
Iran’s incendiary rhetoric through the years, and its unmistakable support for Hezbollah and other terrorist groups throughout the Middle East, make its regime a pariah.
A U.S. State Department report said, “Iran used the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) to provide support to terrorist organizations, provide cover for associated covert operations, and create instability in the region.
“Iran also used regional militant and proxy groups to provide deniability, in an attempt to shield it from accountability for its destabilizing policies.”
For decades, Western nations have tried to tame Iran’s nuclear ambitions through sanctions and, in 2015, through a deal to relieve those sanctions in exchange for strict limits on Iran’s nuclear programs. But ever since the United States withdrew from that deal under the first Trump administration, that program has been expanding.
Against that historic backdrop, including the long hostage drama involving U.S. embassy personnel during the Carter administration, President Trump’s decision to order military forces to drop bombs on Iran’s nuclear facilities Saturday makes strategic sense.
One may argue the merits of diplomacy vs. military action, but that question now is moot. Trump chose military action. Now he must try to minimize the chances that military actions will expand. Talking tough is one strategy. Iran may be afraid of the consequences should it trigger an even greater military assault. But Iran’s rulers might respond indirectly through terrorist attacks that are harder to trace.
Clearly, Saturday’s attack was well-planned and expertly executed. It included diversions, such as sending bombers to the West, across the Pacific, and the president’s own talk of taking two weeks to decide whether to attack.
Iran appeared to be completely unprepared for what happened, and perhaps unable to track the incoming planes. Media reports said Israel destroyed Iranian defense systems in advance of the attack.
Such an expert operation surely would give Iran second thoughts about wanting to escalate.
Before Saturday, experts were mixed on the subject of whether Iran was close to building a bomb, but the nation had clearly built a stockpile of enriched uranium needed to do so, as the New York Times reported.
Israel, whose safety is under the most immediate threat from such a bomb, clearly believed such a nuclear threat was imminent. Its decision to initially launch attacks against Iran underscored those concerns. The United States is the only nation with weaponry that can attack bunkers hidden far underground. Its decision to use those weapons on Saturday was something Trump clearly viewed as necessary.
But it also is clear that Iran has been relentless in its long-term attempts to obtain nuclear weapons, and that much of the world seemed unrealistic about stopping this.
Even the 2015 deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, included expiration dates. Restrictions on centrifuges were to be lifted after 10 years or, in other words, this year. Restrictions on low-enriched uranium were to expire in 2030.
Experts at the time said the agreement would have kept Iran from building a bomb for more than a decade. But that is not the same as keeping it from doing so forever. Saturday’s air strikes, it is hoped, will push that date back much farther.
The question, however, is what comes next.
The Guardian reports Iran has closed the Hormuz shipping channel in retaliation — a move that might increase the price of oil.
Air strikes seldom settle matters. The president and his military advisers need to carefully weigh future responses to measures designed to hurt the United States.
As for Americans — as they always do at times like these, they should support their president, pray for his success, for peace and for the safety of the armed forces.
A U.S. State Department report said, “Iran used the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) to provide support to terrorist organizations, provide cover for associated covert operations, and create instability in the region.
“Iran also used regional militant and proxy groups to provide deniability, in an attempt to shield it from accountability for its destabilizing policies.”
For decades, Western nations have tried to tame Iran’s nuclear ambitions through sanctions and, in 2015, through a deal to relieve those sanctions in exchange for strict limits on Iran’s nuclear programs. But ever since the United States withdrew from that deal under the first Trump administration, that program has been expanding.
Against that historic backdrop, including the long hostage drama involving U.S. embassy personnel during the Carter administration, President Trump’s decision to order military forces to drop bombs on Iran’s nuclear facilities Saturday makes strategic sense.
One may argue the merits of diplomacy vs. military action, but that question now is moot. Trump chose military action. Now he must try to minimize the chances that military actions will expand. Talking tough is one strategy. Iran may be afraid of the consequences should it trigger an even greater military assault. But Iran’s rulers might respond indirectly through terrorist attacks that are harder to trace.
Clearly, Saturday’s attack was well-planned and expertly executed. It included diversions, such as sending bombers to the West, across the Pacific, and the president’s own talk of taking two weeks to decide whether to attack.
Iran appeared to be completely unprepared for what happened, and perhaps unable to track the incoming planes. Media reports said Israel destroyed Iranian defense systems in advance of the attack.
Such an expert operation surely would give Iran second thoughts about wanting to escalate.
Before Saturday, experts were mixed on the subject of whether Iran was close to building a bomb, but the nation had clearly built a stockpile of enriched uranium needed to do so, as the New York Times reported.
Israel, whose safety is under the most immediate threat from such a bomb, clearly believed such a nuclear threat was imminent. Its decision to initially launch attacks against Iran underscored those concerns. The United States is the only nation with weaponry that can attack bunkers hidden far underground. Its decision to use those weapons on Saturday was something Trump clearly viewed as necessary.
But it also is clear that Iran has been relentless in its long-term attempts to obtain nuclear weapons, and that much of the world seemed unrealistic about stopping this.
Even the 2015 deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, included expiration dates. Restrictions on centrifuges were to be lifted after 10 years or, in other words, this year. Restrictions on low-enriched uranium were to expire in 2030.
Experts at the time said the agreement would have kept Iran from building a bomb for more than a decade. But that is not the same as keeping it from doing so forever. Saturday’s air strikes, it is hoped, will push that date back much farther.
The question, however, is what comes next.
The Guardian reports Iran has closed the Hormuz shipping channel in retaliation — a move that might increase the price of oil.
Air strikes seldom settle matters. The president and his military advisers need to carefully weigh future responses to measures designed to hurt the United States.
As for Americans — as they always do at times like these, they should support their president, pray for his success, for peace and for the safety of the armed forces.
RSS Feed
