THREE COUNTRIES TAKE THE LEAD ON STOPPING IRAN FROM GOING NUCLEAR -- NONE ARE THE U.S.
Weakness in Washington making more war likely.
Joel C. Rosenberg
(Washington, D.C., November 30, 2011) -- Guess who is leading the world towards a tougher policy towards Iran? Not the U.S. It's the French, the British and our Canadian friends to the north.
Last week, France, Great Britain, Canada and the U.S. imposed new economic sanctions on Iran. The goal: to try to force Iran's economy to its knees, with the hopes that Iran's current government -- or a new one -- will be forced to give up its nuclear weapons ambitions to get its economy growing again. But French President Nicolas Sarkozy, British Prime Minister David Cameron, and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, to their credit, took a tougher stance that President Obama. They imposed sanctions on Iran's Central Bank. They also called all nations of goodwill to follow their lead.
President Obama, however, has thus far refused to impose sanctions on Iran's Central Bank. What's more, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says, "The United States is committed to engagement." Engagement with the current mullahs in Tehran? Mullahs building nuclear weapons? Such nonsense would be laughable if it wasn't so dangerous. The Washington Post slammed the White House in an editorial for pursuing "more half measures" against Iran rather than a serious, principled policy to stop the Iran regime from building nuclear weapons, noting: "The result is that President Obama is not even leading from behind on Iran; he is simply behind."
The danger, of course, is that by refusing to show strong, decisive leadership to neutralize the Iran nuclear threat, the Obama administration is actually increasing the chance of a major new war in the Middle East. We must, therefore