Printer-Friendly Version

Once again, the U.N. is demonstrating how useless it is. Now that Iran has defied the U.N.'s demand to stop enriching uranium - or face serious consequences - the U.N. has decided that the "serious consequences" will be more talk about what to do. All the while, Iran continues to enrich uranium, saying that it is for peaceful use, to provide energy.

Well, maybe. No one wants war. Russia and China are both deeply involved in economic relations with Iran, and do not want to jeopardize their own economies by supporting sanctions. France - well France is France. The only thing that is certain about the French is that the U.S. cannot count on them. The two remaining permanent members of the Security Council, Britain and the U.S., even with Germany, could not impose economic sanctions with enough bite to slow Iran's enrichment processing.

No one wants war, but what are the options?

The U.S. could adopt the view that we should take Iranian President Ahmadinejad at his word, and believe that Iran is developing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes only. This policy would certainly win the approval of the international community, as well as the anti-war forces at home. But then, would we not also have to take Ahmadinejad at his word when he says that Israel will be wiped off the map; that the U.S. should bow and surrender to Iran; that there will be cataclysmic events to remove Zionism from the face of the earth?

The U.S. could adopt the view that Ahmadinejad is a masterful liar who publicly proclaims to the U.N., and to the world, that Iran seeks peace - while privately supplying weapons to terrorists in Lebanon and Iraq. Iran is a present threat to peace in Iraq, and Israel. Ahmadinejad's public vows to destroy Israel, and his steadfast refusal to honor the U.N.'s demands to stop enriching uranium present a serious threat to world.

The Bush administration has adopted this latter view; Bush critics want public policy to reflect the former view.

It is, indeed, ironic that when it comes to environmental threats, these same critics race to embrace the precautionary principle:

"Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."

In the face of a very real threat of catastrophic, irreversible nuclear degradation, by the hands of people who, daily, demonstrate their absolute indifference to human life, Bush critics want no part of preventive measures.

There are no simple solutions to the conflict between Islamic rule, and freedom. This conflict is the root cause of the terrorist attacks around the world. Ahmadinejad, and others, claim that the daily deaths in Iraq occur because the U.S. is occupying a foreign nation. It is this invasion and occupation, however, that prevents Islamic rule, and gives the hope of freedom for the people.

>> Continued -- Page 1 2