By Jules Witcover

President Obama, to demonstrate his total commitment to Israel, has said he is not "bluffing" over use of American military action against Iran if necessary to prevent its development of a nuclear weapon. Beyond that, he has now declared that U.S. policy "is not going to be one of containment," but of prohibiting such acquisition.

The policy of containment, it should be remembered, proved itself both wise and prudent for nearly half a century after World War II. Throughout the ultimately successful Cold War, it kept the world devoid of a nuclear exchange between the United States and the Soviet Union.

This devoutly sought and achieved outcome occurred despite Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev's blunt promise that "we will bury you" during that long confrontational period that ended only with his own empire's demise in 1991.

There were close calls, to be sure. In the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, Khrushchev put deadly missiles 90 miles from American shores. But when President John F. Kennedy imposed a naval block on the communist-controlled Caribbean island, they were withdrawn peaceably.

That nerve-shattering October face-off was perceived at the time as a clear Kennedy victory in which Khrushchev blinked. However, the world learned later that the missiles were removed as part of a secret deal, in which Kennedy agreed to take out U.S. missiles in Turkey aimed at the Soviet Union.

It was said thereafter that the United States had planned all along to take that step and so the action was not a real concession. Nevertheless, the episode was a confirmation of the effectiveness of the policy of containment. The dismantlement began quietly about five months later, and in December 1991 the Soviet Union itself collapsed.

About a dozen years after that, in 2003, the policy was foolishly, and under the United Nations Charter illegally, abandoned by President George W. Bush. He launched an unprovoked invasion of Iraq on grounds of suspected possession of weapons of mass destruction that were not there. The action was called a policy of pre-emption, and when Bush was reminded there was nothing found to be pre-empted, his response was essentially: So what?

It was an answer not likely to win acceptance from the families who lost loved ones in that misadventure. Nevertheless, it had to stand as a defense for ignoring the Constitution's requirement that Congress declare war, and the American tradition that this country should resort to war only in self-defense. The ramifications for the United States and the Middle East for that essentially unilateral action are still being endured in both places.

Now another American president is saying that containment -- keeping a bloodthirsty lion in its den -- is not a sufficient demonstration of commitment to one of America's greatest allies. As the government of Israel has announced time is running out on preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Obama seems to feel it imperative to suggest that the United States will not simply stand by if Israel acts militarily, but will join in if necessary.

In all this, it's not that Israel, clearly threatened by an Iranian regime that refuses to acknowledge its right to exist, is not capable of acting on its own. For years, it has demonstrated that ability, with huge military aide from this country. Why, then, should Obama even hint at abandoning containment for pre-emption?

In the midst of the Republican fight for the 2012 presidential nomination, three of the four remaining contenders are arguing that Obama is not being tough enough in threatening Iran with annihilation if it builds a nuclear weapon. Only Ron Paul, the isolationist libertarian completely off his party's reservation, seems to see any merit in getting America out of the pre-emptive war business after all the chaos it has cost us.

In advocating continued reliance on diplomacy to induce Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons quest, Obama will be fulfilling the U.S. commitment to Israel's independence and security. As long as the Israelis have the wherewithal to act on their own against the Iranian threat, Obama should not have announced disavowal of containment in favor of saber rattling, enough of which is coming from the Republicans who want his job.

 

Twitter: @ihavenetnews

 

Copyright © Tribune Media Services

What's Wrong with Containment | Global Viewpoint