It was almost a foregone conclusion that Iran would break the nuclear agreement negotiated this year, and I think the President knows it.
That doesn’t mean the President is in cahoots with Iran or that he wants to see the country with a nuclear weapon.
Rather, he understands the options for preventing it are few, and the agreement gets him out of the responsibility of acting on it for now.
In the past week, it was reported that Iran tested its medium-range ballistic missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead in violation of UN Resolution 1929.
Russia and China expressed doubts about that claim; meanwhile, Iran defiantly rejected any attempts to limit its conduct as a sovereign state.
In the same manner, Iran breaking the nuclear agreement is not a matter of if but when.
Iran Tests Short-Range Ballistic Missile
Ballistic missiles capable of carrying a nuclear warhead are designed for one thing: carrying a nuclear warhead.
Granted, it is possible to do other things with it, but just because you can hit someone upside the head with your rifle doesn’t mean it wasn’t built for the intended purpose of shooting the enemy.
The only thing missing from the formula is the actual nuclear weapon that was supposed to be prevented by the nuclear agreement.
The U.S. agreed to lift sanctions, and Tehran agreed to limit its stockpiles of uranium and centrifuges and to allow inspections.
The nation signed the deal, and then weeks later, its leader and people were chanting “death to America” in the streets.
Then they tested a ballistic missile built for and capable of carrying the nuclear warhead that they just said they would never pursue to get the sanctions relieved.
The momentum behind the deal is too strong, and the President couldn’t get the international powers to derail it right now if he wanted to.
Western, Russian, and Chinese business interests are lining up to get a piece of the Tehran pie, and this ultimately means one thing…
Iran Will Have a Nuclear Weapon in the Next 20 Years
Or less, really.
Of course they want one; I would if I were them.
It makes too much sense, grants you too much leverage, and almost assuredly prevents American military action once you have one.
And to be honest, I think the administration has resigned itself to this fact.
Consequently, the policy is no longer to prevent but to engage and contain what is sure to be a major regional player over the next 50 years.
That said, as frightening as it may be that Iran will get the bomb, it doesn’t mean this is necessarily a bad strategy.
Military action against Iran would be a massive undertaking.
There is no three-week march to Tehran like there was a three-week march to Baghdad.
Once we strike Iran, the region goes up in flames — which is saying something considering it seems to already be burning everywhere you look right now.
For all of Iran’s tough talk, they are not suicidal as a people.
It will be made clear that a nuclear strike on Israel is a strike on America.
Plus, Israel has a few nukes of its own. Thus, containment is the key.
Iran now holds the strings in Baghdad, and the only regional power capable of keeping them at bay, Saudi Arabia, looks to have plenty of problems on its own right now in Yemen.
The future of the Middle East and Southwest Asia will flow through Tehran, and America is lining up to deal with that reality.
And one such reality that will happen sooner rather than later is that Tehran will be a nuclear power in this uncertain but inevitable future.
