Tuesday, February 09, 2010

Where But the New York Times?

Where but on the opinion page of the New York Times would you find an article that suggests:

Believe it or not, there are some potential benefits to the United States should Iran build a bomb.


The author is Adam B. Lowther, a defense analyst at the Air Force Research Institute, which says a lot, too, about American military thinking. It seems he is a nuclear abolitionist, or favors it.

The reasons, and please, don't laugh:

First, Iran’s development of nuclear weapons would give the United States an opportunity to finally defeat violent Sunni-Arab terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Here’s why: a nuclear Iran is primarily a threat to its neighbors, not the United States...

...Second, becoming the primary provider of regional security in a nuclear Middle East would give the United States a way to break the OPEC cartel...

...Third, Israel has made clear that it feels threatened by Iran’s nuclear program. The Palestinians also have a reason for concern, because a nuclear strike against Israel would devastate them as well. This shared danger might serve as a catalyst for reconciliation between the two parties...

...Fourth, a growth in exports of weapons systems, training and advice to our Middle Eastern allies would not only strengthen our current partnership efforts but give the American defense industry a needed shot in the arm.

...Last, the United States would be able to stem the flow of dollars to autocratic regimes in the region...


Now you want to ask a question, right? Well, he does it for you:-

What about the downside — that an unstable, anti-American regime would be able to start a nuclear war? Actually, that’s less of a risk than most people think. Unless the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameini, and his Guardian Council chart a course that no other nuclear power has ever taken, Iran should become more responsible once it acquires nuclear weapons rather than less...



"Unless"?

Doesn't he believe in the concept of probability?

Nope:-

Iran may think its enrichment plans will put fear into the hearts of Americans. In fact, it should give us hopes of a renaissance of American influence in the Middle East.


Aaaaaargh.


UPDATE


Now found this:

Lowther’s article is hard to take seriously, but the fact that it appears in our leading newspaper and is written by a government employee is sure to lead many in the conspiracy-mad Middle East to imagine that it represents the views of the U.S. government. That will only further encourage Iran and discourage its neighbors. Not that Iran needs much outside encouragement. Its leaders are plainly convinced that the U.S. is not going to do anything substantive to stop its nuclear program. And they are probably right. But that is hardly cause for celebration.

5 comments:

yoni said...

i'm so glad we have you, mr. medad, to wade through the idiocy for us so we don't have to do it. it must be tiring sometimes. :)

YMedad said...

The comments of my readers, you and others, makes it all worthwhile

yoni said...

yr much too kind :)

Anonymous said...

So according to the conclusion we should help all countries in the middle east acquire nuclear weapons so that it will make them all more responsible. Well then why don’t they supply Al Qaeda as well, maybe that will transform them from a terrorists organization into a responsible stabilizing force in the middle east. Aren’t we luck that there are such sharp analysts in American research institutions and even more lucky that there are newspapers that will publish their opinions. We can all sleep much more easy at night knowing that the world’s security is in the capable hands of the great United States of America.

MF

comprar puertas metalicas said...

Thank you for your article, quite effective information.