Below is an excellent response by David Harris to former
United States President Jimmy Carter for anyone who still had
doubts about his, to say the least, animosity against . The
good news is that the relevant actors all over the world are on a different
Have a great week!
Jimmy Carter Does It Again
Article re-posted from TheJerusalemPost.com
When it comes to the Middle East, the former president never ceases to amaze.
In an interview published in Time, he was asked: "What do you think it means that
seems to have its first nuclear fuel rod?" Iran
His complete answer: "Well, of course, the religious leaders of
have sworn on their word of honor that they're not going to manufacture nuclear
weapons. If they are lying, then I don't see that as a major catastrophe
because they'll only have one or two military weapons. Iran probably
has 300 or so." Israel
There you have it. In 51 words, Carter demonstrates convincingly why he should stay out of the business of
Not that he was much better at it while in the White House.
Remember his famous expression of confidence in the Shah -- "an island of stability" -- when one year later the Iranian leader was ousted and had to flee the country?
And the catastrophic
attempt, under Carter, to free
the 52 American hostages taken by the Shah's successors, that failed for the
lack of a working helicopter? U.S.
And the fact that those hostages languished in Iranian hands for 444 days, only to be released the very first day Carter's successor, Ronald Reagan, took office?
Carter did not understand
then. Judging by the Time interview,
he still doesn't. Iran
First, how could any serious observer begin a response by mentioning that "the religious leaders of
have sworn on their word of
honor that they're not going to manufacture nuclear weapons"? Iran
Of what possible relevance is such a comment, other than to suggest that Carter may actually give it credence?
A regime that has been found to lie about everything else -- its leaders claimed there were no nuclear enrichment facilities, that there were no homosexuals in the country, that its women were the freest in the world, that the Holocaust never took place, and that its 2009 elections were transparent -- is actually given the benefit of the doubt by the former president.
He begins the next sentence with the phrase, "If they are lying."
Again, he himself isn't sure.
Perhaps he thinks, in contradistinction to the International Atomic Energy Agency, UN Security Council, Obama administration, European and Gulf leaders, and
that all the Iranian leaders really want is peaceful nuclear energy, nothing
And then comes the clincher. Even if the Iranians by some chance are lying, he said, "then I don't see that as a major catastrophe because they'll only have one or two military weapons."
How could anyone possibly know how many bombs
build, if left unchecked? This year, it might be one or two; next year, ten or
twenty; and so on. Iran
Second, at the end of the day, the real issue is not how many bombs
would have, but the very fact that it possessed the weapon. Iran
That would change everything in its relations with its neighbors and beyond.
Third, one of the most ominous changes could well be a new arms race in the region, already the most volatile in the world.
What countries might, in response, move towards nuclear-weapons programs of their own, driven by fear (think
Saudi Arabia) or "prestige" (think )? Turkey
Then the risk of catastrophe by design, miscalculation, or accident goes up exponentially.
So, too, does the chance of a further spread of the weapons. Remember A.Q. Khan, the Pakistani scientist who ran the Walmart of nuclear-weapons technology?
Impossible to conceive of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez seeking nuclear help from his Iranian friends to achieve the same position in Latin America that
aspires to in its neighborhood? Not in my book. Iran
Fourth, Carter should go back and read the words of Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former Iranian president, who said: "[T]he use of even one nuclear bomb inside
For Carter to imply that Israel is safe and secure from Iranian nuclear designs by dint of having more bombs is, well, naïve, all the more when Iran's defining eschatology is added to the picture. If religious fervor should trump rational behavior in
all bets are off. Tehran
And finally, Carter once again displays his misreading of
something he has regrettably made a habit of in recent years and also,
incidentally, on vivid display in the same Time interview. Israel
A leader set forth a plan to establish a 1,000-year Reich and destroy the Jewish people. Few took him seriously. Indeed, there were those at the time -- all titled, confident and credentialed -- who sounded very much like Carter in his assessment of present-day
They were dead wrong, and the world paid a horrific price for failing to grasp Hitler's intentions earlier.
Of one thing we can be certain:
will not place its trust in Carter's reading of . Nor should anyone else. Iran
For more information, visit ajc.org/iran.