GRAHAM: GOP concern over Iran isn’t ‘casual’

Obama’s weak policy encourages terrorist regime to seek nukes

Question of the Day

Is it still considered bad form to talk politics during a social gathering?

View results

President Obama says Republicans are engaging in “casual” talk about war with Iran. Actually, Mr. President, it’s not casual talk, it’s frustration. It was extremely frustrating for us to see the Obama administration try to water down sanctions against the Central Bank of Iran. The Senate forced the issue with a unanimous 100-0, vote, and the administration responded by seeking waivers to lessen the blow.

Another frustration was the administration’s early decision to reach out to the Iranian ayatollahs and ask them to “unclench” their fists. The Iranians met this well-intentioned gesture by rigging the 2009 elections and engaging in the wholesale slaughter of the Iranian people when they raised their voices in objection. The Persian Spring came and went with virtual silence on our government’s part. A great opportunity in Iran was wasted.

The president now accuses Republicans of not doing a cost-benefit analysis regarding action against Iran, a charge with which I strongly disagree. We know the price of undertaking military action against Iran is high, but the costs of Iran obtaining nuclear-weapons capability are greater.

American military action against Iran will open Pandora’s box, but Iran with nuclear-weapons capability empties Pandora’s box.

Any attack on Iran will immediately place thousands of American troops in the region under even greater threat and likely prompt Iran to unleash terrorist activities against the American homeland.

However, Iran with nuclear-weapons capability could hold the world hostage as it sees fit. The Iranians likely would share nuclear materials with terrorist organizations, and Sunni Arab nations in the region would seek nuclear programs to counter the Iranians.

The equation for our Israeli allies is much simpler: Iran with nuclear-weapons capability is simply unacceptable.

The Israelis are clear-eyed that an attack on Iran could result in a situation in which some Israelis may perish. An Iran with nuclear weapons, in their view, means all may perish.

If Israel attacks Iran, Israel will be targeted for retribution. If the United States attacks Iran, Israel also will be targeted for retribution. Either way, the state of Israel and its citizens likely will suffer the greatest blows from Iran. This is why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made clear that Israel must remain the master of its own fate.

Over the past three years of American engagement with Iran, we have seen an all-too-familiar pattern emerge. We talk, the Iranians enrich. We sanction, they enrich. Start process over. Repeat.

It is indeed frustrating that after three years of engagement and sanctions, all we have to show for them is an Iranian regime in possession of more enriched uranium than ever, enough to make 1.5 nuclear bombs.

I would like to remind Mr. Obama that when he was a presidential candidate, he never hesitated to criticize U.S. policy in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was a right to which he was entitled and one he freely exercised. Our criticisms today are based on frustration with policy, not personality.

Many Republicans remain gravely concerned that sanctions and engagement will not stop the Iranian regime, which seems hellbent on obtaining nuclear-weapons capability. Sanctions and engagement may work only if serious military consequences lie ahead.

American intentions are less clear when top intelligence officials from the Obama administration say they are uncertain about Iranian intentions to obtain a nuclear weapon.

Would Iran suffer through economic devastation if it were not trying to produce a nuclear weapon? Why build peaceful nuclear facilities in underground bunkers? Why create clandestine enrichment facilities and hide them from the international community?

Story Continues →

View Entire Story

© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

blog comments powered by Disqus
TWT Video Picks
You Might Also Like
  • Maureen McDonnell looks on as her husband, former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, made a statement on Tuesday after the couple was indicted on corruption charges. (associated press)

    PRUDEN: Where have the big-time grifters gone?

  • This photo taken Jan. 9, 2014,  shows New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie gesturing as he answers a question during a news conference  at the Statehouse in Trenton.  Christie will propose extending the public school calendar and lengthening the school day in a speech he hopes will help him rebound from an apparent political payback scheme orchestrated by key aides. The early front-runner for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination will make a case Tuesday Jan. 14, 2014, that children who spend more time in school graduate better prepared academically, according to excerpts of his State of the State address obtained by The Associated Press. (AP Photo/Mel Evans)

    BRUCE: Bombastic arrogance or humble determination? Chris Christie’s choice

  • ** FILE ** Secretary of State Hillary Rodham testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 23, 2013, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the deadly September attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador J. Chris Stevens and three other Americans. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File)

    PRUDEN: The question to haunt the West

  • Get Breaking Alerts