The Atlantic has a disturbing story with monstrous ramifications:
In an interview conducted shortly before he was sworn in today as prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu laid down a challenge for Barack Obama. The American president, he said, must stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons—and quickly—or an imperiled Israel may be forced to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities itself.
“The Obama presidency has two great missions: fixing the economy, and preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons,” Netanyahu told me. He said the Iranian nuclear challenge represents a “hinge of history” and added that “Western civilization” will have failed if Iran is allowed to develop nuclear weapons.
In unusually blunt language, Netanyahu said of the Iranian leadership, “You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs. When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the entire world should start worrying, and that is what is happening in Iran.”
History teaches Jews that threats against their collective existence should be taken seriously, and, if possible, preempted, he suggested. In recent years, the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has regularly called for Israel to be “wiped off the map,” and the supreme Iranian leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, this month called Israel a “cancerous tumor.”
Netanyahu is right to fear for the future of Israel if Iran gets the bomb. But what are the chances that Obama is going to do anything more than talk with Iran? That leaves Israel with no options other than military action. That’s a powder keg.
This one should worry everybody. Iran is building the bomb. Obama will likely not take any forceful action to prevent it. Netanyahu is intent on stopping it.
One of the sides of this possibly deadly triangle must change. And I don’t think it’s going to be Iran.
You think about moments in history. And often the key moments are defined by the personalities of the time. During the height of the Cold War with the Soviet Union you had giants like Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and perhaps most importantly Pope John Paul II. These heroes stood up strong and brought the evil empire down.
On the other hand you have men like Neville Chamberlain meeting with Hitler at another key moment in history.
So often, key moments are defined by the players. I fear that this moment may be one of those moments with Ahmadinejad, Netanyahu, and Obama as the leading actors of our time and their strength, will, and character will determine the outcome. And the world may forever be changed.
April 1, 2009 at 7:52 am
Terrifying. And to think that millions of innocent lives may rest upon the decisions of a handful of people. May peace reign.
April 1, 2009 at 11:57 am
I’m rooting for Benjamin Netanyahu. Thanks for telling me about all this.
April 1, 2009 at 2:13 pm
“Spengler” at Atimes.com has written extensively about the critical “now or never” situation Iran finds itself in. Add a disintegrating-as-we-speak nuclear armed Pakistan to the mix, an Iraqi peace that’s fraying, and a NATO ally increasingly sighing for the good old Ottoman days and quietly purging all secularists from public life (while blaming “israeli agents” for concocting nefarious plots with them), and you, sir, have a powder keg right next to the fireplace.
We very well might be in 1910 all over again.
April 1, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Next to the fireplace?
I’d say we’re using dynamite for Duraflame logs myself.
April 1, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Y’know, I’d never thought of it quite that way before: that the future of our planet might hinge on the “strength of character of Barack Obama”.
How’s *that* to chill the marrow in your bones? It does mine…
April 1, 2009 at 7:59 pm
I was going to say what Paladin said. Obama is a spineless shill.
Shortly, Israel will bomb Iran due to Obama’s pathetic spinelessness.
Fire Obama
April 1, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Amazing. How you can all think America should be starting wars on the command of some foreign PM is beyond me. It’s one thing for Chamberlain to give Hitler permission to invade his neighbors, and another entirely to refrain from attacking a foreign nation which has not lifted a finger against its neighbors. May God have mercy on us all and grant us the peace we so clearly do not deserve.
April 1, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Sleeping Beastly: No one said that Obama should start a war based on Netenyahu’s “command.” However we do realize the seriousness of this situation and hope that the man in the oval office has the spine to do SOMETHING, exert some sort of pressure or something (!!!) to STOP Iran. Even if US efforts don’t succeed (which I doubt they will), I don’t see how we can NOT attempt to stop Iran.
Iran IS a danger. Don’t believe otherwise.
April 1, 2009 at 11:05 pm
If Iran attacks Israel, that is Israel’s problem, not America’s. Let Israel defend herself. What has Iran to do with America? I’m sure Iran has thousands of WMDs they’re just itching to unleash on the US. Sorry, won’t be fooled again.
April 2, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Timothy: do you mean besides all the “Death to America” chants and devloping a nuclear program that will allow them to strike at every democratic nation in the Middle East, palling around with North Korea and Russia, promising to destroy us because we are the Great Satan? Besides all that, what does Iran have to do with America? You can’t be fooled again because you’re still fooled from the first time. Let’s hope for a change for you that doesn’t involve nukes landing on Japan, South Korea, Iraq, Israel, or India.
April 3, 2009 at 1:55 am
Anonymous,
Nine other nations that I know of have the bomb, and I suspect many of the “former nuclear nations” of holding on to stockpiles as well. Sure, it’s dangerous to have nukes in anyone’s possession. The questions are: (1)whether there’s a non-military way to “stop” Iran from making their own nukes and (2)whether a nuke-free Iran is worth a military solution. If it’s worth a war to prevent Iran from getting the bomb, why wasn’t it worth a war to keep the other nuclear nations from getting the bomb too?
This talk about Obama’s spine (or lack thereof) is just nonsense. Is a president’s willingness to sacrifice other people’s lives indicative of some kind of courage on his part? History’s full of cowards who were perfectly willing to order others to their deaths. But if you insist on calling bloodlust courage, then be satisfied that your president has the heart of a lion. Not only is he happy to send more American soldiers off to fight in Afghanistan, he’s already let everyone know he’s willing to go to war with Iran, and Pakistan too, just in case our government hadn’t already spilled enough blood on our behalf.
I agree with Timothy that Israel should fight their own wars. And while they’re at it, they can fund their apartheid state with their own tax dollars, rather than mine.