In response to a worrying trend in U.S. politics, Lobe Log publishes “Hawks on Iran” every Friday. Our posts highlight militaristic commentary and confrontational policy recommendations about Iran from a variety of sources including news articles, think tanks and pundits.
*This week’s must-reads:
- – News:Our Men in Iran
- – News: Impact of Iran Sanctions Widens
- – News: What do Iran sanctions cost you? About 25 cents a gallon, experts say.
- – News: Barak reveals conditions for Iran-West talks
- – Research Publication: Iran Nuclear Brief: The Breakout Option
- – Opinion: How Commitments Work
- – Opinion: Real solutions to nuclear deadlock with Iran
- – Opinion: Self-Defeating
- – Opinion: How to Avoid Disaster With Iran
- – Opinion:Friends of Israel, Iran Negotiations Will Require Patience
John Bolton, Christian Science Monitor: The former Bush administration official and long-time advocate of hawkish U.S. and Israeli policies in the Middle East continues to argue that the Obama administration is protecting Iran’s interests over Israel’s while criticizing the President’s unwillingness to initiate war. Bolton also attempts to convince readers that a nuclear-armed Iran is inevitable unless “someone stops them” militarily:
The president’s unwillingness to take preemptive military action against Tehran’s nuclear efforts has long been evident, notwithstanding his ritual incantation that “all options are on the table.” Equally evident is his fixation to ensure that Israel does not act unilaterally against Iran, a principal reason why Washington’s relations with Jerusalem are at their lowest ebb since Israel’s 1948 founding.Accordingly, stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons in the first place must be America’s top priority.
The prolonged failures of diplomacy and sanctions have brought the United States to the point where, realistically, there are only two alternatives: Either Iran’s mullahs get the bomb, or someone stops them militarily beforehand.
James A. Lyons, Washington Times: Retired Navy Adm. James “Ace” Lyons advocates three positions on Iran. First, the U.S. should make “regime change in Iran the official policy of the United States Government.” Second, the U.S. should wage war on Iran. Third, the U.S. should delist the anti-Iranian terror cult, the Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK), from its foreign terrorist organizations list. This week Lyons used the claim (upheld by a U.S. District Court and largely based on testimony from 3 Iranians who say they defected from Iran’s spy agency) that Iran is tied to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, to advocate U.S. military confrontation with the Islamic Republic or at “minimum” U.S. material support for an Israeli attack:
As the Obama administration wrestles with the question of what to do about Iran’s nuclear weapon program, the action we should take should be very clear. We certainly have more than sufficient justification to launch a devastating strike against Iran. The failure of all previous administrations to act, it can be argued, indirectly contributed to the Sept. 11 attacks. The difference now is that Israel must act to ensure its survival.
President Obama repeatedly has stated that a nuclear-equipped Iran is unacceptable. As a great nation, we should prepare our own strategic strike plans to eliminate Iran’s nuclear weapon infrastructure and other key targets. If we do not act, then it is most likely Israel will launch its own strike before our national elections in November. Whether we assist Israel or not, we will share the blame for failure. Therefore, as a minimum, we should provide Israel with all the necessary equipment and material to make their strike as effective as possible. Nothing less is acceptable.