Will Obama or a Romney administration accept a nuclear Iran?
Eric LaMont Gregory
Iranian Nuclear facility photographed from space
The standoff over Iran’s nuclear ambitions has escalated promting the US to increase significantly its military stance in the Persian Gulf including attack aircraft capable of striking deep into Iran.
The US has stated, without reservation, that any attempt on Iran’s part to close the Strait of Hormuz to the free flow of shipping will be met with sufficient force to prevent such an eventuality and the effect it would have on the movement of 20% of the world’s oil supply that passes through the Strait.
The US and Iran are but two of the three significant parties in this growing
act of trilateral brinkmanship.
Israel whose national interests are most directly affected by a nuclear
Iran may be poised to make the first and decisive move in this master game of
Diplomatic initiatives to simultaneously halt Iran's nuclear program and curtail a pre-emptive Israeli airstrike have not been successful, while Iran continues without hesitation to enrich uranium for its nuclear weapons program.
There are some rather important decisions to be made by each of the entrenched parties, and those decisions will be made on the best available evidence that they have. First, there is the question as to the full extent of Iran's nuclear program, where has Iran gotten to and where are they going?
Once that assessment is made security as well as political issues surface and here we have to look into the various parties national motivations.
Whether or not the current Obama administration can accept a nuclear Iran is high on the list of questions that demand clarification.
If Romney becomes president will his administration accept an Iran armed with a nuclear arsenal? There should be no doubt on the part of Iran that one administration’s policy will be carried through into the next, or a dangerous game that could propel Israel to strike now would surely ensue.
Remembering, that Israeli intelligence sources estimate that Iran can not only acquire the bomb, but that Iran may have the ability to make one quickly, that is, within the next year.
Four of Iran’s ranking nuclear scientists have been assassinated in the last two years, which should have signaled to that regime that all necessary means are being employed to delay and give Iran pause to re-think its rather blind ambition to join the nuclear club of nations. Iran has used news of these assassinations to blame Israel, Britain as well as the United States for the killings as a propaganda tool for its own internal use and as a means to recruit internationally more adherents to its terror campaign against the west.
The number of suspected Hezbollah members that tried to enter the US across our southern border with Mexico is particularly worrisome, as well as the recently foiled Iranian backed attempt to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington and assassinate a Saudi envoy to the US.
If there is a sense that Washington's policy on the Iran nuclear issue is not steadfastly in opposition, and Israel strikes, what would the world look like then? Is Iran in a position to respond with a terrorist level radiological, biological or chemical weapon of some kind?
If Iran is attacked, will there be a spike in oil prices, and what are the implications for the dollar, other currencies and the commodities markets?
As the election for the presidency approaches the American people must demand that the two principle contenders state what they are doing and will do as the Iran nuclear crisis reaches fever pitch.