The Washington Post: War with Iran could be the best option for us

The Washington Post: War with Iran could be the best option for us

March 15, 2015 8:47

Independent / follow-up / – called the newspaper “Washington Post” to adopt the military option is to be the best solution for dealing with Iran’s nuclear program rather than a bad deal, could undermine the stability of the Middle East. The newspaper likened the Iranian Bnaza and the communist regime because of ideological and expansionist tendency that controls the system.

This came in an editorial for the Washington Post writer Jashiw Muravchik, titled “War with Iran could be the best option for us,” I followed (Independent), which raised a lot of interaction on the newspaper site; it exceeded the responses of readers to this article thousands.

The author said: It was the logical flaw in the indictment against the nuclear deal “very bad”, which is on the horizon with Iran, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called on Congress this month by saying we can secure a “good deal” through pressure on Iran, and the imposition of sanctions more stringent.

He said: Iranian regime that Netanyahu described clearly Baniv, greedy and deceitful, and messenger of hatred against Israel and the United States, it is imperative that he will continue his quest for nuclear weapons through the rejection of any “good deal”, or by circumventing these deals.

He explained: This gives strength against cynicism Rejoinder for the Obama administration against Netanyahu’s speech by saying: what is the alternative? War? But the administration’s position also contains a flagrant contradiction; as national security adviser Susan Rice announced in the Commission – the American Israel Public Affairs Conference before Netanyahu’s speech that “a bad deal is worse than no agreement.” So saying whether Iran will only accept a “bad deal” What is the alternative to President Obama? War?

He added that Obama’s position means that we have no choice but to accept the best offer from Iran – whatever it is, to use the term Rice, “we have succeeded” – because the alternative is unthinkable.

He asked: You should have found alternative “war”? What if that force is the only way to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons? It is, in fact, and perhaps also a fact, that ideology is the reason for the existence of the Iranian regime, which is why legitimize its rule, and also inspires their leaders and their supporters.

He said in this sense: they are closer to communism, fascism and Nazism, which are systems that aim to transform the world. Iran aims to transfer the Islamic revolution throughout the Middle East and beyond. Iran’s nuclear arsenal, even if it just waved, that will greatly enhance Iran’s power limit to achieve this goal.

He continued: this fictional systems do not trade power for good Neil foreign goods. Materialism is not a priority for them. They often sacrifice flourish stuck ideology. Of course it needs some wealth to enhance their strength, but only in limited quantity.

Impoverished North Korea has been soiled and exercise of faith, “Joshi”, and self-reliance, but they still exist and create resources to build nuclear weapons.

And Abizaid: Yes, the sanctions have forced Iran to enter into negotiations, but did not persuade it to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Saying: As The harshest penalties were not also called Netanyahu they will not bring a different result.

He continued: sanctions can succeed if they cause the fall of the regimes. Such as the end of communism in Ukraine and Kazakhstan, and the fall of apartheid in South Africa. The sanctions also led to the abandonment of nuclear weapons in those countries. But since 2009 there has been little sign of a revolution in Tehran.

And went on: otherwise, in reference to the alternatives, only – military action by Israel against Syria and Iraq, and by the specter of US forces against Libya – these countries were forced to shut down its nuclear programs. Stressing said: Sanctions nuclear programs did not stop anywhere.

He concluded saying: Does this mean that our only option is a war? Yes, adding: “Although the air campaign would target Iran’s nuclear infrastructure that will result in less need of boots on the ground, in reference to the” soldiers on the ground. ” It is less of a need Obama’s war waged against Daash, which is much smaller than the threat of Iran’s threat.

Could the attack cause Bahchad ordinary Iranians behind the regime? Perhaps, but the military losses also managed to undermine systems, including Greek and Argentine dictatorship, the Russian Tsar and the Russian Communists.

He also asked: Is the destruction of much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure would only delay to get it? Maybe, but we can hit Iran whenever necessary. Of course, Iran is trying to hide and defend elements of its nuclear program; therefore imperative that we may find new ways to detect and attack. To be sure, the United States has the advantage of Iran in such a technological race.

He said the same thing can be said often in response to objections to the air strikes. It may not reach all the important facilities, and that Iran would go ahead to manufacture a nuclear weapon. Replying to the United States to be clear that they will bombard these facilities wherever and whenever necessary to stop Iran’s nuclear program.

He concluded: Finally, do you Iran will respond using its forces or agents to attack the Americans, as it did in Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, with the ferocity of the new weapons?

And he replied, perhaps, we can try to deter this threat by warning that the United States would respond by targeting non-nuclear facilities, and will target military installations and infrastructure of Iran.

mustaqila.com