Momentum in the Mid-East

If the Bush Administration told you that Iran is developing WMD would you
believe them? After all it could all be a deception, an excuse to start a
war against Iran, just as the left accuse Bush of having done in Iraq. But,
Iran has officially confirmed that it is developing enriched uranium, after
twice being caught out by the IAEC. And furthermore, the IAEC, the EU and
the UN have warned Iran to stop this process, that is contrary to its
international obligations (also sounds familiar from Iraq). So why should
we believe the Bush Administration? But, if Iran is indeed doing this, then
the world will not take any action, only the US can take the lead in
bringing sanctions against Iran.
A similar situation exists with regard to North Korea, where the Bush
Adminstration has used the 5-power talks, including China and Japan, in
order to bring pressure on N. Korea, rather than get into a direct
confrontation with a very unpredictable regime that could easily send
rockets containing uranium (dirty bombs) into S. Korea, and which has
already sold rockets to Iran.
Given Bush's handling of the post-9/11 and Iraq situations, where he refused
to be deflected by the opposition of our traditional allies, such as France
and Germany (?), and our new allies Russia and China (??), it would seem
that Bush is capable of handling these terribly dangerous situations. Can
anyone see Kerry really doing this, is there any evidence that he can? Is
there any evidence that France would be more cooperative with the US under
Kerry, unless he allows Jacques Chirac to direct US policy? To allow US
policy to depend on a wide coalition of allies would be tantamount to
accepting inaction in response to any threat.
On Iran, Kerry would certainly waiver and declare that there is no
conclusive proof that Iran has WMD's. On N. Korea, Kerry wants to have
direct talks, thus giving in to Kim Sung Il's demand. And on Iraq he would
probably declare the whole "adventure" "a wrong policy in the wrong place at
the wrong time" and withdraw US forces, leaving Iraq in a civil war between
the weak interim Government and the well armed pro-Saddam and terrorist
forces, and between the Shia and the Sunni. So under Kerry the whole
situation in Iraq and the Middle East would likely go into melt-down.
If given a second term the Bush Administration is likely to follow up the
recent UN and Congressional criticisms of Syria over its occupation of
Lebanon, and bring sanctions against Damascus. If this is done it will be a
salutary action, showing that Bush does not intend to lose the momentum, but
will press the advantage, that brought Qaddafi of Libya around. If they
believe that Bush is for real, and they have every reason to do so, Assad of
Syria, and his allies the Mullahs of Iran, will be taking a very careful
look at their policy of supporting terrorism and ignoring the US and the
international community. If the momentum is lost with a new and less
hard-nosed Kerry administration then we can predict that the anti-Western
forces in the Middle East will first celebrate, and then renew their
anti-Western policies with renewed vigor.