On the threat from Iran, there is some good news, some bad news and some even worse news.
The good news: Both presidential candidates think the prospect of Iran going nuclear is a bad thing.
Republican candidate John McCain went straight to the bottom line in the first presidential debate when he flatly stated, “We cannot allow a second Holocaust.” Should Iran gain nuclear capability, he declared, it would be an “existential” threat to the existence of Israel as well as a danger to the rest of the world.
His Democratic opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, echoed some of those sentiments when he asserted, “We cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran. It would be a game changer. Not only would it threaten Israel, a country that is our stalwart ally, but it would also create an environment in which you could set up an arms race in the Middle East.”
A bipartisan consensus that Iran is a genuine threat to world peace is essential, and the fact that both candidates affirmed this stance, while disagreeing about just everything else, was an important step toward building support for action on the issue.
The bad news is that there is no such consensus as to what can be done about Iran.
McCain spoke of tough sanctions to be enforced by a “league of democracies,” led by the United States and its principal Western allies, which would bypass the United Nations and inflict so much economic pain on Tehran that it would give up its nuclear ambitions.
Obama dismissed McCain’s “league” idea, saying that for sanctions to work, we would need non-democratic nations, such as Russia and China, to help us. He believes direct diplomacy with both those nations, as well as Iran, can do the trick.
Neither option ought to inspire much hope.
McCain’s “league” is a grand idea, but the notion that Britain, France and Germany, not to mention the rest of Western Europe, will abandon the UN as the instrument of policy on this question is unrealistic. If push comes to shove on Iran, what the world will need is an America unwilling to be fettered by our feckless allies. Anyone waiting for Europe, even democratic Europe, to take action before that “existential” problem is resolved hasn’t been paying attention to the continent recently.
As for Obama’s blind faith in his ability to win over China and Russia, let alone Iran, the kindest thing one can say is that he’s a trifle optimistic. The Iranians have used every meeting with the West (including one that was the result of a recent humiliating retreat on the part of the Bush administration) as evidence that they can’t be stopped.
Both Beijing and Moscow have also been crystal clear that they will not allow the UN or the United States a free hand on the issue and haven’t the slightest intention of backing the sort of crippling sanctions that could actually bring the Iranians to their knees.
What could be even worse than that? How about the fact that while the presidential candidates were talking tough on Iran, the object of their rhetoric spent a triumphal week in New York City addressing the UN, CNN and even a Quaker dinner – to applause.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad used his speech before the UN General Assembly, as well as a typically fawning interview conducted by CNN’s Larry King, to spout Holocaust denial and other anti-Semitic lies about Zionism, Israel and the Palestinians.
Iranians who chafe under the despotic rule of the Islamists could take no comfort from the way the UN and the press failed to hold Ahmadinejad accountable for his threats of genocide against Israel. Indeed, the night before the presidential debate, he was feted at a Ramadan dinner sponsored by Mennonite, Quaker and other religious groups, including the American Friends Service Committee.
These “humanitarians,” who seem to share Tehran’s disdain for Israel, were joined at their party by the president of the UN General Assembly, Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann, a Nicaraguan diplomat and Catholic priest. Jewish groups protested his presence, but did anyone expect that either the world body or the Quakers would shun a Jew-hater like Ahmadinejad?
Unfortunately, the mass demonstration planned by Jewish groups to protest Ahmadinejad’s presence in New York illustrated that, even among Jews, there is a lack of urgency or even a real sense that a crisis is at hand.
