|
|
|
|
The Holocaust declaration |
|
|
|
Charles Krauthammer
|
|
01.05.2008 |
On Tuesday Iran announced it was installing 6,000 more centrifuges —
they produce enriched uranium, the key ingredient of a nuclear weapon —
in addition to the 3,000 already operating. The world yawned.
It is time to admit the truth: The Bush administration's attempt to
halt Iran's nuclear program has failed. Utterly. The latest round of U.N.
Security Council sanctions, which took a year to achieve, is comically
weak. It represents the end of the sanctions road.
At home, the president's efforts to stop Iran's nuclear program were
irreparably undermined by November's National Intelligence Estimate, whose
"moderate confidence" that Iran has not restarted nuclear weaponization
— the least important of three elements of any nuclear program — has promoted
the illusion that Iran has given up the pursuit of nuclear weapons. Yet
uranium enrichment, the most difficult step, proceeds apace, as does the
development of nuclear-capable ballistic missiles.
The president is out of options. He is going to hand over to his successor
an Iran on the verge of going nuclear. This will deeply destabilize the
Middle East, threaten the moderate Arabs with Iranian hegemony and leave
Israel on hair-trigger alert.
This failure can, however, be mitigated. As there will apparently be
no disarming of Iran by preemption or by sanctions, we shall have to rely
on deterrence to prevent the mullahs, some of whom are apocalyptic and
messianic, from using nuclear weapons.
This will be even more difficult than during the Cold War, when we
were dealing with rational actors. We will, nonetheless, have to use the
Cold War model in which deterrence prevented the Soviets from engaging
in nuclear aggression for half a century — long enough for regime change
to make deterrence superfluous. (No one lies awake today worrying about
post-Soviet Russia launching a nuclear attack on the United States.) We
don't know how long the mullahs will be in power, but until they are replaced,
deterrence will be an absolute necessity.
During the Cold War, we were successful in preventing an attack not
only on the United States but also on America's allies. We did it by extending
the American nuclear umbrella — i.e., declaring that any attack on our
allies would be considered an attack on the United States.
Such a threat is never 100 percent credible. But it was credible enough.
It made the Soviets think twice about attacking our European allies. It
kept the peace.
We should do the same to keep nuclear peace in the Middle East. It
would be infinitely less dangerous (and therefore more credible) than the
Cold War deterrence because there will be no threat from Iran of the annihilation
of the United States. Iran, unlike the Soviet Union, would have a relatively
tiny arsenal incapable of reaching the United States.
How to create deterrence? The way John Kennedy did during the Cuban
missile crisis. President Bush's greatest contribution to nuclear peace
would be to issue the following declaration, adopting Kennedy's language
while changing the names of the miscreants:
"It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear attack
upon Israel by Iran, or originating in Iran, as an attack by Iran on the
United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon Iran."
This should be followed with a simple explanation: "As a beacon of
tolerance and as leader of the free world, the United States will not permit
a second Holocaust to be perpetrated upon the Jewish people."
This policy — the Holocaust Declaration — would not be tested during
the current administration, because Iran is not going to go nuclear before
January 2009. But it would establish a firm benchmark that would outlive
this administration. Every future president — and every serious presidential
candidate — would have to publicly state whether or not the Holocaust Declaration
remains the policy of the United States.
It would be an important question to ask because it would not be uncontroversial.
It would be argued that the Holocaust Declaration is either redundant or,
at the other extreme, provocative.
Redundant, it would be said, because Israel could retaliate on its
own. The problem is that Israel is a very small country with a small nuclear
arsenal that is largely land-based. Land-based retaliatory forces can be
destroyed in a first strike, which is precisely why, during the Cold War,
both the United States and the Soviet Union created vast submarine fleets
— undetectable and thus invulnerable to first strikes — that ensured a
retaliatory strike and, thus, deterrence. The invulnerability and unimaginably
massive size of this American nuclear arsenal would make an American deterrent
far more potent and reliable than any Israeli facsimile — and thus far
more likely to keep the peace.
Would such a declaration be provocative? On the contrary. Deterrence
is the least provocative of all policies. That is why it is the favored
alternative of those who oppose a preemptive attack on Iran to disarm it
before it can acquire nuclear weapons. What the Holocaust declaration would
do is turn deterrence from a slogan into a policy.
It is, of course, hardly certain that deterrence would work on the
likes of Ahmadinejad and other jihadists. But deterrence would concentrate
the minds of rational Iranian actors, of whom there are many, to restrain
or even depose leaders such as Ahmadinejad who might sacrifice Iran's existence
as a nation to vindicate their divine obligation to exterminate the "filthy
bacteria" of the Jewish state, a "disgraceful stain [on] the Islamic world."
For the first time since the time of Jesus, Israel (known as Judea
at the time) is the home of the world's largest Jewish community. An implacable
neighboring power has openly declared genocidal intentions against it —
in clear violation of the U.N. Charter — and is defying the international
community by pursuing the means to carry out that intent. The world does
nothing. Some, such as the Russians, are literally providing fuel for the
fire.
For those who see no moral principle underlying American foreign policy,
the Holocaust Declaration is no business of ours. But for those who believe
that America stands for something in the world — that the nation that has
liberated more peoples than any other has even the most minimal moral vocation
— there can be no more pressing cause than preventing the nuclear annihilation
of an allied democracy, the last refuge and hope of an ancient people openly
threatened with the final Final Solution.
© 2006 WPWG
Jewish World Review April
11, 2008 / 6 Nissan 5768
Russian version
|
|
|
|
Materials of the Analytical Group MAOF site in English |
|
|
|
An introduction to MAOF
Haim Goldman
Dear Friends,
Would you believe that the undersigned has anything in common with
-- Professor Victor Davis Hanson (Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University),
-- Dr Charles Krauthammer, (Washington Post, Time, The Weekly Standard),
-- Caroline Glick (Deputy Managing Editor of the Jerusalem Post),
-- Jonathan Tobin (Executive Editor of the Philadelphia Jewish Exponent).
Amazingly, the editors of the MAOF website decided that the missives of the undersigned are worthy of translation and posting along the articles written by these distinguished authors.
The first letter was published without the consent of the undersigned.
However, after thorough examination of the laudable attitude of MAOF and of the excellent contents of the website, the undersigned had most graciously granted his permission for publication of his missives in both English and Russian.
“Analytical Group MAOF” [1] is an organisation founded about ten years ago by Russian-speaking Jewish intellectuals. The attitude of MAOF is definitely pro-Zionist -- unambiguously and unapologetically.
One of MAOF’s primary purposes is providing information and analysis about Middle-Eastern and world affairs as well as about Israel’s history, values and dilemmas. In addition to extensive publication activity in various media, MAOF also organises excursions and seminars. While the vast majority of the contents of the MAOF website is in Russian, texts originally written in English are provided in the original [2] as well as in Russian.
There are arguably about 250 millions of Russian-speakers worldwide and many of them do not read English. The indisputable motivation for the author’s permission was to grant those millions of disadvantaged people the grand benefit of reading the author’s ruminations. If the author is ever maliciously accused that his tacit motivation for authorising the publication was his craving to be listed along with the above-mentioned distinguished writers, his plea will definitely be “nolo contendere”.
The editors of MAOF expressed their gratitude by granting the undersigned a privilege that no other author got – the opportunity to review and correct the Russian translation before publication. The original letters of the undersigned are at [3] and their Russian version is at [4]. At of today, only two letters are posted but several other letters are pending translation.
You are kindly ENCOURAGED TO RECOMMEND the MAOF website to your friends and colleagues worldwide, particularly those who speak Russian. Those who do not enjoy the benefit of proficiency in the exquisite Russian language can find many thought-provoking and inspiring articles about Middle-Eastern and world affairs in the English section [2].
Sincerely,
Haim Goldman
28.10.2006
REFERENCES:
[1] http://maof.rjews.net
[2] http://maof.rjews.net/section.php3? sid=37&num=25
[3] http://maof.rjews.net/authorg.php3? id=2107&type=a
[4] http://maof.rjews.net/authorg.php3? id=2166&type=a
|
|
|
