Day by day, Iran’s behavior grows more menacing. It is pushing forward with a nuclear-weapons program, threatening havoc in oil markets and launching assassination attacks in several countries.
In response, counsels of appeasement fill the air like so many bleating sheep.
From Europe to America, supposed sophisticates echo the willful ignorance with which Neville Chamberlain greeted Herr Hitler. Turning reality upside down, they warn not of the dangers of Iran but of the dangers of confronting Iran.
Some insist the thugocracy is growing more hostile because it really wants to find a way to pull back from the brink of war.
It’s an optimistic thought based on, well, hope. And hope, it is said, makes a good breakfast but a poor supper.
It is very late in the day to hope Iran is doing anything other than what the evidence says it is. The enriching of uranium, the hiding from international inspectors, the threats of Armageddon against Israel and America — they point to one conclusion.
To assume anything else is foolish and dangerous.
Look at how Iran is acting. Now imagine it with a nuclear weapon. Does anyone honestly believe it would be a better neighbor and global citizen with a nuke than without one?
It is probably true that an Israeli strike will launch a regional war, and thus should be avoided if possible. Clearly, finding another solution is Israel’s goal as well as America’s. Otherwise, an attack would have happened.
But an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities is almost certainly better than the alternative of waiting until Iran gets a nuke and seeing what it does. As Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak said, later could be too late.
What would the Chamberlains say then?
Click for Michael Goodwin's complete column in the New York Post
Get the recap of top opinion commentary and original content throughout the week.