WASHINGTON, March 24, 2013 — President Obama has assured the American public that he will do whatever it takes to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The Administration’s official policy is that all options are on the table, but that first diplomatic efforts should be made to convince Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions.
In a report released on November 10, 2003, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) wrote, “It is clear that Iran has failed in a number of instances over an extended period of time to meet its obligations … with respect to the reporting of nuclear material and its processing and use, as well as the declaration of facilities where such material has been processed and stored.”
In September 2012, the IAEA received information from four foreign intelligence agencies that Iran was calculating the destructive power of an atomic warhead through a series of computer models that it ran from 2009-2012.
There is credible information that Iran is building a nuclear weapon. There is also evidence that President Obama is bluffing when he tells the world he will do anything and everything to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
At the time of the Iraq invasion, many Democrats and almost all Republicans agreed with Western intelligence agencies that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD). President Obama, who was a Senator in the months before the Iraq invasion, was one of the few leaders who opposed the invasion of Iraq.
Some leaders are now questioning whether intelligence assessments are again inaccurate. President Obama does not want to repeat history and preemptively attack a country that is not actively building nuclear WMD.
Another key to President Obama’s thoughts are that out of all the potential candidates for Secretary of Defense, President Obama chose Chuck Hagel, the one person who is more opposed to taking diplomatic or military action against Iran than any of his peers in Congress.
If President Obama were truly willing to do whatever it takes to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, then why would he appoint Hagel as Secretary of Defense knowing he is personally opposed to using diplomatic and military resources to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon?
Presidents choose Secretaries of Defense who share their vision of the world. President Obama did not choose Secretary Hagel because their world views are incompatible. He chose Hagel because Hagel opposes military action even more than Obama does himself.
In addition to Obama’s choice for Secretary of Defense, there is other evidence that this administration is bluffing when it threatens military action if Iran attempts to build a nuclear weapon.
President Clinton, a hero to many liberals in this country, also promised to peacefully resolve a rogue nation’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. When it was clear that a 1990s North Korea had been lying about its nuclear program, Clinton promised to use diplomatic resources to resolve the situation while still “leaving all options on the table.”
A series of agreements were struck between the U.S. and North Korea that guaranteed North Korea would end its pursuit of nuclear weapons in return for oil and food aid.
In October 2006, North Korea detonated a nuclear weapon making it clear that North Korea had never ended its nuclear weapons program. The American intelligence community now estimates that North Korea has a handful of nuclear weapons.
Since acquiring nuclear weapons, North Korea is acting more belligerently. On March 26, 2010, a North Korean submarine attacked and sank a South Korean navy ship, killing 46 South Korean sailors. While this attack was an obvious act of war, South Korea did not respond militarily. North Korea’s arsenal of nuclear weapons mean it would be suicidal for a non-nuclear South Korea to engage militarily against North Korea.
Obama echoes President Clinton’s 1990s sentiments claiming that Iran is “at least a year away” from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The American people are supposed to be reassured that one of the most belligerent, anti-human rights regimes in the history of the world is approximately one year away from acquiring the most destructive weapon in the history of the world.
In a visit to Israel last week, Obama advised Israeli leaders not to preemptively attack Iran. He told his Israeli counterparts that diplomatic action has not been exhausted.
There is a clear pattern, however, of Iran signing agreements only to break them.
The IAEA reported in 2003 that Iran had not declared sensitive enrichment and reprocessing activities.
In 2004, the IAEA compiled a list of Iran’s breaches of its safeguards agreement.
In 2005, Iran suspended the Additional Protocol agreement that allowed inspectors to monitor and visit Iran’s nuclear facilities. That same year, Iran decided to continue enriching uranium, which was a breach of the Paris Agreement it had signed with France, England, and Germany.
In February 2006, IAEA Director Mohammad El-Baradei announced that Iran had agreed to give up industrial-scale enrichment and instead limit its program.
In April 2006, however, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that Iran had successfully enriched uranium, thereby breaking the agreement they had made only two months earlier.
Iran is stringing the world along just like North Korea did in the 1990s. Iran is building a nuclear weapon while convincing the world that it wants to negotiate over its nuclear program.
Iran does not believe the U.S. has the willpower to attack it. President Obama, who will not even provide lethal aid to the Syrian rebels, cannot be trusted to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities @ WashingtonTimes.com. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING TWTC CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.