a nuclear Iran is primarily a threat to its neighbors, not the United States. Thus Washington could offer regional security — primarily, a Middle East nuclear umbrella — in exchange for economic, political and social reforms in the autocratic Arab regimes responsible for breeding the discontent that led to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Oh It's so nice and convenient to shrug off US responsibility for the rise of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. It's the Autocratic leaders responsibility. And "nuclear umbrella"? Someone has been playing too much Missile Command.
Until now, the Middle East autocracies have refused to change their ways because they were protected by the wealth of their petroleum reserves. A nuclear Iran alters the regional dynamic significantly, and provides some leverage for us to demand reforms.
Demand? Of course! The west gets to demand all manner of stuff from other people. It's a nice arrangement isn't it?
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. Forcing an end to the sorts of monopolistic practices that are illegal in the United States would be the price of that nuclear shield, bringing oil prices down significantly and saving billions of dollars a year at the pump. Or, at a minimum, President Obama could trade security for increased production and a lowering of global petroleum prices.
Break? Oh those pesky sand niggers! Hoarding all that oil and having the gall, the unmitigated GALL to demand we pay for it. Don't these A-rabs know that we take what we want? That old gunboat diplomacy. You will sell oil at this price or we'll let Iran slip a few nukes through that umbrella.
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, leading to the peace agreement that has eluded the last five presidents. Paradoxically, any final agreement between Israelis and Palestinians would go a long way to undercutting Tehran’s animosity toward Israel, and would ease longstanding tensions in the region.
I've said it before. Only a person who's drinking the Vodka laced Kool Aid actually thinks that Iran would drop a nuke on Palestine. The nukes they want are the nukes that keeps idiots like GWB from being dumb enough to send troops into Iran or otherwise implement "regime change". Trust me. The day Iran announces a working nuclear missile capable of reaching middle America a whole lot of things will change.
In any case what will change the situation in Israel is for the US to stop selling arms to that country. You can't seriously be upset about Iran's actions after the election there and then let the Gaza invasion go by with a Kanye shrug(tm).
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.
More money for "defense"? Yeah that should deal with unemployment.
Last, the United States would be able to stem the flow of dollars to autocratic regimes in the region. It would accomplish this not only by driving down the price of oil and increasing arms exports, but by requiring the beneficiaries of American security to bear a real share of its cost. And in the long run, a victory in the war on terrorism would save taxpayers the tens of billions of dollars a year now spent on overseas counterinsurgency operations.
Yeah they can have the real share cause, you know, people getting blown to bits while going about their business and having streets filled with bomb craters and shot up or bombed out buildings isn't cost enough.
Personally I think if they're going to let this kind of nonsense end up in the Op-Ed, then Farrakhan or Rev. Wright ought to get a piece of Op-Ed action.
