Saturday, February 03, 2007

Edwards: 'Iran must know world won't back down'

It's stories like this that scare the shit out of me when it comes to possible attacks on Iran and what the Democrats would do to prevent Bush carrying out such a lunatic action.

In a speech at a conference in Herzliya, Israel, former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) took aim at Iran, warning that the "world won't back down." The 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee, who recently launched a new presidential campaign, also said that Israel should be allowed to join NATO.

Although Edwards has criticized the war in Iraq, and has urged bringing the troops home, the former senator firmly declared that "all options must remain on the table," in regards to dealing with Iran, whose nuclear ambition "threatens the security of Israel and the entire world."

"Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons," Edwards said. "For years, the US hasn’t done enough to deal with what I have seen as a threat from Iran.
As my country stayed on the sidelines, these problems got worse."

Edwards continued, "To a large extent, the US abdicated its responsibility to the Europeans. This was a mistake.
The Iranian president’s statements such as his description of the Holocaust as a myth and his goals to wipe Israel off the map indicate that Iran is serious about its threats."

"Once Iran goes nuclear, other countries in the Middle East will go nuclear, making Israel’s neighborhood much more volatile," Edwards said.

Edwards added, "Iran must know that the world won’t back down. The recent UN resolution ordering Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium was not enough. We need meaningful political and economic sanctions. We have muddled along for far too long. To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep
ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table."

Now I know that all US politicians go slightly loopy when the subject of Israel comes up, and I am bearing in mind that Edwards made these remarks inside Israel itself. However, what's worrying is that he seems to be falling over himself to stress that war is still an option.

That is a simply insane position to hold considering the quagmire that the US are currently bogged down in in Iraq.

I expect such nonsense from neo-con lunatics, but when it's coming from a Democratic candidate for the 2008 Presidency, it's enough to make you despair.

But then I recently read Nancy Pelosi saying:
"There are those who contend that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is all about Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza," Pelosi said as she rallied AIPAC loyalists. "This is absolute nonsense. In truth, the history of the conflict is not over occupation, and never has been: it is over the fundamental right of Israel to exist."
When it comes to the subject of Israel, the Democrats are every bit as deluded as the Republicans are, and they certainly - with the notable and much derided exception of Carter - insist on viewing this conflict through an Israeli prism.

However, when we are talking about any future conflict with Iran we must never forget that, like the war with Iraq, the security of Israel is as central to the war as any other issue.

Neither Edwards nor Pelosi's remarks convince me that the Democrats will do enough to stop Bush from the insane course that he is currently heading on where an attack on Iran seems to be inevitable.

Certainly Perle and Netanyahu are already in full throttle as they demand action. Edwards has sadly now added his voice to that cacophony of warmongering.

I find that incredibly bloody depressing.

UPDATE:

Glenn Greenwald has a very good article that might explain why Edwards is banging this particular drum at this particular time:
New York is the ATM for American politicians. Large amounts of money come from the Jewish community," he said. "If you're running for president and you want dollars from that group, you need to show that you're interested in the issue that matters most to them."
Click title for full article.

tag: , , , , , ,

4 comments:

Sophia said...

John Edwards, if elected, will turn out to be an isolasionnist.

Kel said...

What makes you say that Sophia?

Sophia said...

Kel,
After the extremes to which the Bush presidency went there is a temptation for isolationnism for the next US president, either Democrat or Republican. Edwards will be more tempted than others because he has a vision for America based only on domestic policy. That's not a bad thing and I like Edwards. The remaining question is what kind of isolationnism it will be ? It will depend on the president. Isolationnism will be logical because during six years Bush has done nothing for his country...The next president will be all busy working to rebuild the US. People often think that the US is igniting civil wars in the mE and that's true but one of the feature of Bush's foreign policy is to hide the internal civil war in the US, the rich against the poor, the arms industry against the public...External wars play a role in hiding the internal malaise. New Orleans is quite paradigmatic for this new malaise. The US is busy with the Iraq war but when all this will be gone, someone will need to take care of the civil malaise that more than six years of inefficiency in domestic matters have created. Edwards is sensible to that aspect of American politics.

Kel said...

I can well understand why he would want to be more isolationist given the mess Bush has made on the international scene.

However, when I hear him saying things like the above in Israel, I worry that such isolationism may in fact be simply a green light for Israel to do as she wishes in the occupied territories.

Not dissimilar to the way Bush allowed Sharon free reign when Bush first came to power.