As Iran announced the construction of 10 new enrichment facilities, each to be at least as large as the current one at Natanz, the magnitude of the “Iran problem” has been significantly ratcheted up. How should the world respond?
I have no problem with questions having many possible answers, but when all of them are lousy, I get concerned. And in this case, all of the answers really stink, unless of course you are painfully naïve or dangerously apocalyptical.
Short of pretending that a nuclear Iran is of no concern, which is hard to do in light of the ranting of President Ahmadinejad, the ferocity of the Ayatollah’s repression of alternate political views, and the honor-driven posturing which dominates a foreign policy supported by both of them, it’s hard not to be concerned. On the other hand, short of looking to start World War III, it’s not like any kind of military response is so practical or desirable either. So what to do? And more to the point, what is Israel to do?
It’s not that I value Israel’s response more than that of either the US or the collective voice which includes the British, French, Germans, Russians and Chinese, but there is no country more immediately threatened and no country whose national narrative is as deeply rooted in earlier attempts to obliterate it’s entire people. That is precisely the kind of combination which leads people to make choices, which no matter how understandable, may be deeply regrettable.

So what to do? Do you feel safe with a nuclear Iran? Is it possible that nuclear power can be separated from nuclear weapons? Would that satisfy those who are most concerned, or are there forces at work which are simply chomping at the bit to take on what may well be the world’s most militarily formidable Islamic state?
More questions that answers today, but why should I be different from the offices of either Prime Minister Netanyahu or President Obama?