Biden Reported Stating Israel Must Accept A Nuclear Iran

Did Joe Biden say it or not?

I think he said it.  I think a guy who has generally been considered a friend of Israel said what he thought Israel needed to hear.

Biden denies having made the statements.  And given the nature of the way they were reported, we certainly can’t claim that he made them for sure.

But we can examine what he is alleged to have said, consider the possibility that he said it, and then jump into the larger issue as to just how an Obama-Biden administration would go about ensuring that Iran not develop nuclear weapons.

I believe that I can demonstrate that, regardless of what did or didn’t come out of Joe Biden’s mouth, an Obama White House would grudgingly allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapons stockpile.

The article from the Israeli paper Haaretz says:

U.S. vice presidential candidate Senator Joe Biden’s press secretary vehemently denied on Monday a report that the Democratic candidate had said that Israel would have to reconcile itself to a nuclear Iran.

According to an unsourced report by Army Radio, the senator made the remarks to senior Israeli officials behind closed doors, adding that he opposed “opening an additional military and diplomatic front.”

Biden, chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has long been considered strongly pro-Israel. His nomination as U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama’s running mate had been expected to shore up the Democrats’ strength with U.S. Jewish voters.

“It’s doubtful if the economic sanctions will be effective, and I am against opening an additional military and diplomatic front,” Army Radio quoted him as saying.

One of the things that has most intrigued me given Barack Obama’s opposition to the war in Iraq is how he would be able to justify a war against Iran.

Was it wrong to go into Iraq if they were developing weapons of mass destruction, which could be used either against the United States or one of its key allies?  While a few may answer yes, the overwhelming majority of Americans would agree that an attack would be necessary.

But then comes the obvious question when we consider Iran: how will we be able to know for sure that Iran is about to develop nuclear weapons?  Given the limited nature of intelligence gathering in a closed totalitarian state like Iraq or Iran, how will we get that “smoking gun” that proves beyond any doubt that such a country is on the verge of weapons of mass destruction?

Barack Obama, although he was only a state senator at the time, opposed the war.  Joe Biden, as a U.S. Senator, voted for the war, but then went back on a very previously-strong position favoring an invasion of Iraq to criticize the war.  Interestingly, Joe Biden, who voted for the war in 2003, actually voted against the 1991 action to force Iraq out of Kuwait.

Will Barack Obama go to war with an Iran that is much more powerful than Iraq if there is less than certain evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons?

Freedom Agenda supplies statements from many Democrat and international figures, as well as UN documents, showing the evidence and view of leaders prior to the war.  Snopes also has a compilation of Democrats’ statements leading up to the invasion.  I have also written a three-part series attempting to document both the compelling evidence of Iraqi WMD as well as a conspiracy at the international level to prevent the United States from obtaining any meaningful sanctions against Iraq.

Iraq War Justified: Lessons from Saddam’s History (Part 1)

Iraq War Justified: What the Chronology Reveals (Part 2)

Iraq War Justified: Paralysis, Corruption at U.N. Made Truth Impossible (Part 3)

In his acceptance speech August 28, 2008, Barack Obama said:

I will build new partnerships to defeat the threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear proliferation, poverty and genocide, climate change and disease.

What if he finds himself as unable to secure the cooperation from Europe, Russia, China, and the United Nations as President Bush was?  There is already ample reason to believe that nothing has changed at the international level.  Europe voted against the United States to allow Georgia membership in NATO – which would have protected it from Russia.  And neither Europe or the UN are doing ANYTHING to deter Russia from essentially eradicating the democracy from a democratic society.

This is a typical headline that President Bush has faced: “China, Russia to oppose any threats against Iran.”  They have been consistently opposing any meaningful sanctions against Iran for years, just as Russia also led the effort to oppose any sanctions against Iraq.  And both Russia and China have been continued to remain absolutely unyielding in preventing any sanctions against Iran.

Why should anyone believe that Barack Obama will be able to persuade either Russia or China to end their blockade of international sanctions?  Why should anyone believe that Europe will stand up with the United States and significantly participate in a non-UN-approved war with Iran simply because Barack Obama is the President?  Why should we expect the Europeans – who desperately need both Russian oil – to stand with the United States under Barack obama or anyone else?  Meanwhile, Russia is becoming closer to Iran all the time.

Iran, for its part, is determined to pursue a nuclear weapons program.  Even as they fiercely claim that their program is completely peaceful, they are equally fierce in their determination to continue their efforts to develop what experts overwhelmingly believe is a nuclear weapons program.

Would a President Barack Obama be willing to go to war with Iran if he is unable to secure strong international backing?  Would he be willing to go to war with Iran if the evidence of its nuclear weapons program is less than overwhelming?  You remember Secretary of State Gen. Colin Powell’s “slam dunk” case against Iraq, don’t you?

Furthermore, would Iran believe that a President Barack Obama would be willing to “go it alone” in an attack against them?  Would they think that the man who so opposed not only the war against Iraq, but the surge strategy that later followed, would vigorously go to war against them?

I hope you see the problem.

Obama’s opposition to the Iraq War may be a selling point with voters, but it will undermine his credibility with the Iranians, who won’t believe he will be willing to go to war with them, either.  And Barack Obama’s committment to internationalism may likewise be a selling point with voters, but again, it is more likely to keep him from being willing to act alone.  And against Iran, he will almost certainly have to act virtually alone.

So I think that, yeah, Joe Biden – who clearly is NOT an anti-Semite, and who clearly doesn’t want Iran to have nuclear weapons – nonetheless told Israel that it would have to just deal with Iran developing nuclear weapons because he doesn’t see how Iran could be prevented from obtaining them short of a war his administration would not be willing to wage.

John McCain, as President, can tell Iran, “I was willing to go to war with Saddam Hussein and Iraq because I believed he possessed weapons of mass destruction.  And I will go to war with you unless you abandon your nuclear program.”  And Iran will know that a President John McCain, who was initially nearly completely alone in his call for the troop surge in Iraq, will follow through on what he says.

The only thing that will deter Iran from continuing its nuclear program is the clear recognition that it WILL face a war with the United States if it does not abandon its program.

I cannot state this forcefully enough: a nuclear Iran is unacceptable.  If Iran is allowed to develop nuclear weapons, it will be nearly impervious to genuine retaliation as it conducts terrorism both directly and via proxies.  It will be nearly impervious to genuine retaliation as it sends the global price of oil skyrocketing at will.  And, ultimately, I believe that it will cause World War III by using those nuclear weapons to strike Israel.

Under a President John McCain, Iran may blink and abandon its nuclear program.  Or it may not.  But either way, if we do not stop them now, we will deeply regret our indecision and weakness in the coming years.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “Biden Reported Stating Israel Must Accept A Nuclear Iran”

  1. P. hemmatian Says:

    I think that Joe is a clever politician and he well knows that an atomic Iran is not against US interests but also it can be a good freind of US , look at the mess republican politicians have made by their wrong judjments about Iran, why an agressive Isreal should by alowed to change US policy maker judgments about a powerful stable Iran that could act as a barrier to Arab and Algaede extreimist throug Mid Eats, look at Pakestan political situation , Afganestn is still a potential danger for the rest of the world , Saudi arabia is the hot pot of extermist Wahabis that can erept any time against US interests , Iraq is still unstable by many wrong reasons, and of course S.arabia can not do much to stop its terrorist making idiology of being Wahabis, Isreal is now more that 60 years that wage bloody war against its nigbors by uncondition support of Americans, look how they distroy Lebonan several time under the pretext of stop plaestinain terorisem while they are the biggest terorist in the world today, no country we can see like isreal to be so sabage and criminal against human rights, and all they do to destroy Americans face before the world people, if you take a look among the arabs you can see their massive hate toward the US because of unconditioanl support of helping a cremianl regim of Isreal , please don not forget the crisis in Gorgia that isreal had some hand in it by supplying arms and provocation of Gorgian un-experinced president to wage a stiuped war with Big Bear Russia that lead to distruction of a new democrat country and humilation of american, if US politicians can stop isreal big ambitions for expansion which always threatening other countries with distruction although it does not have common border it will be a great help to US interests aroud the world, therfore, Joe had a right judgment of a powerful stable Iran in mideast that is surronding by extermist in Afgan, Pakestan S.arabia and Iraq and most important Big Bear Russia.

    With Best Regards

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    You’re right. The terrorists who have deliberately – in thousands and thousands of separate acts – murdered innocent women and children are FAR more moral than the democratic state of Israel. How DARE Israel try to protect the lives of its citizens!

    The thing I want liberals to notice is how incredibly similar you sound to the radical Islamic position expressed here.

    Ordinarily, I would ridicule your poor use of English; but I can readily see that you are not an English speaker, and actually applaud your taking it upon yourself to learn English. I hope, in addition to learning a language, however, you take it upon yourself to learn why the culture that made English the most important in the history of the world is far more right than it is wrong, while Islamic culture today (note: I do not insult historic Islam in saying this; only what has become of a culture that now inspires terrorists by the millions) is far more wrong than it is right.

    Iran is a known perpetrator of international terrorism. If it gets nuclear weapons, the world’s days are numbered. It’s as simple as that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: