In a rare moment of candor on the subject of a pre-emptive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, United Arab Emirates Ambassador to the United States Yousef al-Otaiba indicated he would prefer that to the threat of a Middle East nuclear armament race (“U.A.E. diplomat mulls hit on Iran’s nukes,” Web, News, Tuesday).
Mr. al-Otaiba believes the decision to strike Iran is a cost-benefit decision, meaning the long-term threat of a nuclear-armed Iran is worse than the short-term consequences of the regional fallout from such an attack.
This makes good sense. The ambassador defies the normal penchant of diplomats to bow down to political correctness and makes the blunt and realistic assessment that a strike against Iran’s nuclear assets would be best for the Middle East. When the facts are examined, the outcome for Israel most likely would be either a blunted Iranian nuclear threat based on a pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear assets or a nuclear threat of “mutually assured destruction” between it and Iran, plus a Middle East nuclear arms race. As the ambassador states, it’s a cost-benefit decision.
North Las Vegas, Nev.
© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
By Jay Sekulow
The left's outrage over the IRS turns to a plea to 'move on'