|
|
The
views expressed
on this page are soley those of the author and do not
necessarily
represent the views of County News Online
|
 |
Townhall
Overreaching on
Iran
By Steve Chapman
Apr 19, 2015
The case against the U.S. nuclear deal with Iran is easy to make. It
doesn't ensure that Iran will never get the bomb; it doesn't require
Iran to renounce terrorism; it doesn't end Iran's hostility toward
Israel. Each of these things is highly desirable, and the agreement
provides none of them.
What it will do, if all the right details are nailed down and the terms
are firmly enforced, is make it harder for Iran to acquire nukes while
postponing that possibility for a decade or more. Before the agreement
under which the talks began, Tehran's "breakout time" was estimated at
about a month. Under the tentative deal, it will be more like a year.
There is a basic dispute on this accord. The opponents see Iran as a
deadly disease that must be cured once and for all. The supporters
regard Iran as a troublesome condition that may not be eliminated but
can be managed.
The fantasy of permanently eliminating a security problem is a
recurrent one in American foreign policy. It wasn't enough to topple
the Taliban and smash al-Qaida in Afghanistan. We had to undertake a
long-term military effort to guarantee it would never again harbor
terrorists.
It wasn't enough to keep Saddam Hussein in a cage, where he posed
minimal danger. We had to remove him and make his country a model for
the Middle East. It wasn't enough to get Moammar Gadhafi to swear off
terrorism and give up his nuclear program. We had to bring about regime
change.
None of these ended well. In each case, smaller ambitions would have
provided adequate protection at a reasonable cost. But the temptation
to banish a danger once and for all caused us to overreach...
Read the rest of the article at Townhall
|
|
|
|
