Diary

Why the State Department Wants Iran to Get a Nuclear Weapon

I believe the U.S. State department actually wants Iran to get a nuclear weapon and I think that while the plan may not necessarily be one of President Obama’s design, he most certainly is in support of it.  I think this strategy might even pre-date the Obama administration.  Here is why I hold this opinion.

In career diplomatic circles, Israel is viewed as the stumbling block to Middle East peace and the root cause of Islamic terrorism.  The three administrations prior to the Obama administration all tried and failed to broker some form of an historic agreement to settle the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians.  It is always Israel who gets the blame for not being willing to give up enough in the name of peace (even though on at least one occasion it was the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat who walked away from the table after Israel was prepared to cave on virtually all points).

My theory is that the State Department feels that Israel has too strong of a hand in the negotiations.  Israel controls the territory in dispute and has repeatedly demonstrated the military strength to defend it (even against some pretty incredible odds).  In order for true peace to be achieved, the playing field needs to be leveled.  I believe that near the end of the George W. Bush administration, the State Department saw an opportunity for such an equalizer in the nuclear ambitions of Iran.

Willfully allowing a radical, terror-sponsoring state like Iran to go nuclear is the very definition of playing with fire.  But such is the arrogance of Progressives (both Republican and Democrat) that they feel they can control any situation and bend circumstances to their will.  They believe that despite the fiery rhetoric coming from Iran, the Mullahs will in the end buy in to the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction and keep their new weapons holstered.  But more importantly, they think Israel (who is currently disproportionately powerful because it already possesses nuclear weapons) will be forced to come to terms with an enemy that has finally gained an equal footing.

The State Department’s path to Middle East peace is to essentially hold a gun to Israel’s head.  Faced with the threat of annihilation from a nuclear Iran, Israel will be forced to cave and make all the concessions necessary to finally satisfy the Muslim world.  The timing is such that in the final year of his presidency, Obama can secure his legacy by presiding over the historic agreement.

If you think this is far-fetched, ask yourself why the United States government, spanning two administrations, would allow this process to drag out to the point where Iran is on the brink of developing a nuclear weapon.  Bush named Iran as a member of the Axis of Evil, but left office with Iran on the path to getting the most destructive weapon known to mankind.  How could a man who convinced us that a broken and battered Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat leave office without stopping the nuclear ambitions of a nation who has a vocal hatred for America and a well-documented track record of funneling weapons to terrorist?  Is it just because he ran out of political capital or did his advisors convince him that a nuclear Iran could actually bring peace to the Middle East, as crazy as it sounds?

And how do you explain the Obama administration’s willful compliance with the stalling tactics of the Iranian regime?  Only the most hopeless fool would fail to see that Iran is simply buying time as they work feverish to accomplish something that once done, will not be undone, unless through open war (something that America and its Western allies have made abundantly clear that they have no stomach for).

How do you explain Obama’s veto threat should Congress attempt to pass further sanctions against Iran or his not so subtle efforts to influence the upcoming Israeli elections so as to remove the hawkish Prime Minister Netanyahu from office?  A Netanyahu victory would almost certainly mean an Israeli military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities – something that if successful would destroy the State Department’s attempt to force Israel to the negotiating table with an Iranian nuclear tipped missile pointed at their back.

If you think that no one could be so stupid or self-delusional as to think that intentionally allowing Iran to get nuclear weapons so as to force Israel into a peace deal is a reasonable plan, I would point to the stupidity and self-delusion of diplomats as they dealt with Adolf Hitler in the lead-up to World War II.  Looking back, it seems absurd that anyone would have thought they could negotiate with Hitler in good faith.  But men like Neville Chamberlain had a plan and they convinced themselves (and tragically their nations) that it would work and prevent war.  All it served to do was to buy Hitler more time to acquire more power.

And this plan will fail just as miserably (if Israel doesn’t stop it first).  Iran will use a nuclear weapon if it gets one (either directly or through a surrogate group like Hezbollah).  They will not adhere to the MAD doctrine.  They will risk devastating retaliation in the name of advancing the cause of Islam.

And even if the reality of a nuclear-armed Iran did force Israel to capitulate, the Muslim world will not accept anything less than the total dismantling of the Jewish state.  They do not want a two-state solution.  They want a one state solution, with Palestine being the only state.  All the territory we are being told Israel must give up to satisfy the Muslims is territory the Muslims had before they attacked Israel in 1948 and again in 1967.  A nuclear Iran will not bring peace to the Middle East.  It will guarantee war, as the power of such a weapon will embolden a Muslim coalition led by Iran to launch what they hope to be a final and decisive attack against Israel.

Unless something changes quickly, future generations will look back at our reaction to Iran’s nuclear ambitions with the same disbelief we hold for those who thought they could appease Hitler.  If our modern diplomats insist on ignoring history, they should at least have the sense to follow an adage known by us all – if you play with fire, you’re going to get burned.