"The Opening of the Fifth Seal of the Apocalypse" by El Greco, (1608-1614), Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York (Princeton University erroneously attributed to Metropolitican)
UPDATE: "I'm announcing officially that Iran has now joined the countries that have nuclear technology," Ahmadinejad said in a carefully staged speech carried live across Iran. "This is a very historic moment, and this is because of the Iranian people and their belief. And this is the start of the progress of this country."
"We are saying again that the nuclear technology is only for the purpose of peace and nothing else," Ahmadinejad said
As I have said before we are Out Of Time. It has become increasingly obvious that when (not if) Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad fails to comply with United Nations demands to freeze their uranium enrichment program, a strike will indeed become necessary, and assessing the consequences of such an action becomes imperative. Now mid way through the 30 day period the UN has given Iran to cease all work toward enrichment, we get this announcement. It's pretty much obviously too late for diplomatic efforts or sanctions for that matter. ElBaradei is off to 'inspect' this week, and I am dying to know what his 'findings' will be, against such a backdrop of blatant defiance. Perhaps we'll have to take 'The Firm Stand Against Iran: "No More Trips to The Paris Collections"' Yeah right.
The West Can't Let Iran Have The Bomb.
With each week that passes, Iran's ayatollahs move closer to their goal of building an atom bomb.
This is not misinformed propaganda pumped out by trigger-happy yahoos on the wilder fringes of America's Republican Party. This is the opinion of the dedicated teams of nuclear experts attached to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna, whose task it is to sift through the highly complex science surrounding Iran's nuclear program and to provide a considered judgment to the UN Security Council on the Iranians' ultimate objectives.
During three years of painstaking negotiations with Iran, Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel peace laureate who heads the IAEA, went out of his way to play along with the charade that Iran's nuclear ambitions were entirely peaceful and designed to develop an indigenous nuclear power industry. This, after all, is a country with known oil reserves in excess of 90 billion barrels, more than enough to meet its energy needs well into the next century.
Mr ElBaradei was even prepared to accept at face value the Iranians' shame-faced admission that their failure to disclose the existence of their massive nuclear enrichment plant at Natanz was no more than a bureaucratic oversight.When the inspectors were finally granted admission, they were dumb-founded to find themselves in a 250,000-acre complex containing two vast underground bomb-proof bunkers designed for enriching uranium to weapons grade.
Mr ElBaradei is now prepared to concede that the Iranians have run out of excuses, and Teheran has been given until April 29 to implement a total freeze on its nuclear enrichment activities at Natanz and its other key plants, or face the wrath of the Security Council.
Well, I don't know what ElBaradei was playing at, but the astonishing admission of one of Iran's top officials, that they were playing games with the IAEA so as to gain more time to complete their true nuclear ambitions, namely the acquisition of a nuclear bomb, as I revealed exclusively already in February, is something that ElBaradei certainly cannot deny anymore. I have never trusted that man, and his image as the Director General caught sleeping at the wheel grow more suspicious every day.
It does not make us look particularly good when in August last year a major U.S. intelligence review projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years, according to government sources with firsthand knowledge of the new analysis.
Now we are told, that the Iranians have started creating the plutonium in the 1990's, with the help of the Russians no doubt, some sixteen years ago, rather than three years ago, as we originally thought.
Mark Steyn as you all know is one of my favorite writers, and I love to have any excuse for featuring his articles whenever possible. It just so happens that we have another brilliant one today on the looming danger of Iran:
"[...] If we’d understood Iran back in 1979, we’d understand better the challenges we face today. Come to that, we might not even be facing them. But, with hindsight, what strikes you about the birth of the Islamic Republic is the near total lack of interest by analysts in that adjective: Islamic. Iran was only the second Islamist state, after Saudi Arabia—and, in selecting as their own qualifying adjective the family name, the House of Saud at least indicated a conventional sense of priorities, as the legions of Saudi princes whoring and gambling in the fleshpots of the West have demonstrated exhaustively. Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue—though, as the Royal Family has belatedly discovered vis-à-vis the Islamists, they’re somewhat overdrawn on that front. The difference in Iran is simple: with the mullahs, there are no London escort agencies on retainer to supply blondes only. When they say “Islamic Republic,” they mean it. And refusing to take their words at face value has bedeviled Western strategists for three decades.
Twenty-seven years ago, because Islam didn’t fit into the old cold war template, analysts mostly discounted it. We looked at the map like that Broadway marquee: West and East, the old double act. As with most of the down-page turf, Iran’s significance lay in which half of the act she’d sign on with. To the Left, the shah was a high-profile example of an unsavory U.S. client propped up on traditional he-may-be-a-sonofabitch-but-he’s-our-sonofabitch grounds: in those heady days SAVAK, his secret police, were a household name among Western progressives, and insofar as they took the stern-faced man in the turban seriously, they assured themselves he was a kind of novelty front for the urbane Paris émigré socialists who accompanied him back to Tehran. To the realpolitik Right, the issue was Soviet containment: the shah may be our sonofabitch, but he’d outlived his usefulness, and a weak Iran could prove too tempting an invitation to Moscow to fulfill the oldest of czarist dreams—a warm-water port, not to mention control of the Straits of Hormuz. Very few of us considered the strategic implications of an Islamist victory on its own terms—the notion that Iran was checking the neither-of-the-above box and that that box would prove a far greater threat to the Freeish World than Communism.
But that was always Iran’s plan. In 1989, with the Warsaw Pact disintegrating before his eyes, poor beleaguered Mikhail Gorbachev received a helpful bit of advice from the cocky young upstart on the block: “I strongly urge that in breaking down the walls of Marxist fantasies you do not fall into the prison of the West and the Great Satan,” Ayatollah Khomeini wrote to Moscow. “I openly announce that the Islamic Republic of Iran, as the greatest and most powerful base of the Islamic world, can easily help fill up the ideological vacuum of your system.”
Today many people in the West don’t take that any more seriously than Gorbachev did. But it’s pretty much come to pass. As Communism retreated, radical Islam seeped into Africa and south Asia and the Balkans. Crazy guys holed up in Philippine jungles and the tri-border region of Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay who’d have been “Marxist fantasists” a generation or two back are now Islamists: it’s the ideology du jour. At the point of expiry of the Soviet Union in 1991, the peoples of the central Asian republics were for the most part unaware that Iran had even had an “Islamic revolution”; 15 years on, following the proselytizing of thousands of mullahs dispatched to the region by a specially created Iranian government agency, the Stans’ traditionally moderate and in many cases alcoholically lubricated form of Islam is yielding in all but the most remote areas to a fiercer form imported from the south. As the Pentagon has begun to notice, in Iraq Tehran has been quietly duplicating the strategy that delivered southern Lebanon into its control 20 years ago. The degeneration of Baby Assad’s supposedly “secular” Baathist tyranny into full-blown client status and the replacement of Arafat’s depraved “secular” kleptocrat terrorists by Hamas’s even more depraved Islamist terrorists can also be seen as symptoms of Iranification.[...]
What’s the difference between a hothead and a moderate? Well, the extremist Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be “wiped off the map,” while the moderate Rafsanjani has declared that Israel is “the most hideous occurrence in history,” which the Muslim world “will vomit out from its midst” in one blast, because “a single atomic bomb has the power to completely destroy Israel, while an Israeli counter-strike can only cause partial damage to the Islamic world.” Evidently wiping Israel off the map seems to be one of those rare points of bipartisan consensus in Tehran, the Iranian equivalent of a prescription drug plan for seniors: we’re just arguing over the details.
So the question is: Will they do it?
And the minute you have to ask, you know the answer. If, say, Norway or Ireland acquired nuclear weapons, we might regret the “proliferation,” but we wouldn’t have to contemplate mushroom clouds over neighboring states. In that sense, the civilized world has already lost: to enter into negotiations with a jurisdiction headed by a Holocaust-denying millenarian nut job is, in itself, an act of profound weakness—the first concession, regardless of what weaselly settlement might eventually emerge.[...]
Once again, we face a choice between bad and worse options. There can be no “surgical” strike in any meaningful sense: Iran’s clients on the ground will retaliate in Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, and Europe. Nor should we put much stock in the country’s allegedly “pro-American” youth. This shouldn’t be a touchy-feely nation-building exercise: rehabilitation may be a bonus, but the primary objective should be punishment—and incarceration. It’s up to the Iranian people how nutty a government they want to live with, but extraterritorial nuttiness has to be shown not to pay. That means swift, massive, devastating force that decapitates the regime—but no occupation.
The cost of de-nuking Iran will be high now but significantly higher with every year it’s postponed. The lesson of the Danish cartoons is the clearest reminder that what is at stake here is the credibility of our civilization. Whether or not we end the nuclearization of the Islamic Republic will be an act that defines our time.
A quarter-century ago, there was a minor British pop hit called “Ayatollah, Don’t Khomeini Closer.” If you’re a U.S. diplomat or a British novelist, a Croat Christian or an Argentine Jew, he’s already come way too close. How much closer do you want him to get?"
Gina Cobb reminds us that in December ElBaradei claimed that once Iran resumed nuclear enrichment, it would be only months away from producing a nuclear bomb. She is now naturally wandering why we are all still dithering?
Naked Agonist bravado: "The Politics of fear (linking to my post) I don't buy it. Period."
Eh? It sounds like the short and meaningless liberal stand which basically says absolutely nothing, and just repeats the 'I am not afraid' mantra. Yeah that sounds like a solution. OK so you are not afraid, good for you, and? That should send Ahmadinejad running for cover, and make Mullah Kerry the leader of the fearless brigade. What is it that makes the liberals so brave all the time, I guess it must be utter oblivion.
More @ Michelle Malkin, Hugh Hewitt, Captain's Quarters, Stop The ACLU Gateway Pundit, Wizbang, Slate, Neo-Neocon, The Counterterrorism Blog, Riehl World View, Ace of Spades, Atlas Shrugs, Samurai Soapbox (all the way from Japan), Below The Beltway, Decision 8, Flopping Aces, Carol Platt Liebau, BrothersJudd Blog, American Future, The Sundries Shack, Cold Fury, Peaktalk, The Moderate Voice, JunkYardBlog, American Future (2), In the Bullpen, A Daily Briefing on Iran, Publius Rendezvous, Freedom For Some, Okie On The Lam, The Real Ugly American. Confederate Yankee Big Lizards, The Glittering Eye
Related on ATB:
Out Of Time
The Bitter Truth
The Angel Of Death
Iran Is Building A Nuclear Weapon
MSM Ignores Iran's Admission Of Guilt
Crimson Tide
Face Off
An Islamic Caliphate? No It's About The Oil Stupid
Europe's Appeasement Policy - Islam's Prodigal Son
The Effect Of Our Holy Trinity Of Multiculturalism, Moral Equivalence And Relativism On The War Of Destiny
The Firm Stand Against Iran:'No More Trips To The Paris Collections'
It's All About The Oil Stupid
The Rules Of Engagement
The Unexploded Bomb Of Global Politics
Stop Or I'll Say Stop Again
Iran Prepares For Nuclear Jihad
Has Israel Persuaded Washington?
If Israel Is The Tumor Then Iran Is The Metastasizing Cancer Part II
If Israel Is The Tumor Then Iran Is The Metastasizing Cancer Part I
Thankyou, Alexandra.
The Troll has left the building. (Exits stage left). I did want to shred his last "on-topic" point, that which finally gave him away to me as a Troll.
He/She reasons as follows: We mustn't dream of hitting the oilfields (nukes are not necessary for that. Heck good ole C4 would do nicely if delivered by hand...) because that would spike oil prices, which is bad 'cause we're addicted to oil, so we should get off the oil addiction.
Our rebuttal: How do we get off oil? The answer is obvious. By a spike in oil prices! Only when it becomes economically attractive will we actually get around to serious marketing of alternative fuels. Taking out the oilfields is truly twisted strategy. I'll bet that would completely unhinge the mullahs. Classic "SunTzu", fighting the enemy on your terms. Hey if it stops Ahmageddon-mad, I'm all for it.
Does anyone else out there agree that relying on nuclear retaliation against Iran is a false premise: that the West would definitely not have the stomach to wipe out Teheran in retalitation for a nuclear attack on Tel Aviv? I just get the sense the left would talk us out of that option pretty fast.
Posted by: Crusader.NoRegrets. | Thursday, April 13, 2006 at 08:02 PM
incontrolados,
I have had enough of your constant threats. On YOUR LIST? You obsessive creep. Your are indeed repeatedly trolling as you threatened you would, and your comments will be deleted from now on, no matter what you call yourself or how many times you change your IP address. Period.
You can carry on cooking your rabbits elsewhere.
Posted by: Alexandra | Thursday, April 13, 2006 at 04:14 AM
Gringoman,
You're making sense. This is a job for old fashioned imperialism. Er, excuse my faux pas, I meant to say an international multi-lateral cooperative mandate. IMCM.
Posted by: igout | Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 12:27 PM
Igout,
No need to excuse honesty by calling it a "faux pas." Of course it's "old-fashioned imperialism." You had it right the first time, as long as we understand that nothing can be totally "old-fashioned," not even religion. It's not just blogs that must be updated. What we need, in the interests of global sanity (and probably survival) is an updated imperialism, embraced by today's great states (which precludes most of the hopelessly corrupt and degenerate UN.) Even the great states are corrupt too, of course, but arguably not hopelessly so. The world is desperate for what in effect would be a Pax Americana, but the very name would drive the white socialists and most of the non-white demogogues crazier and nastier than they already are. The American ruling class, by and large, was not molded on the battlefield, so it doesn't have the skill and authority to handle the world's thugs and angry adolescents, which makes the upstart adolescents even more vicious. The USA today clearly lacks the Roman toughness and discipline for such a profound and noble task. The fact that a psychopathic Congresswoman can get away with slugging a cop who was asking for I.D., playing the race card with national security, already tells you more than you want to know about the state of the nation. The U.S. today would have to enter into some kind of entente, if not true alliance, with other great, or not-so-great states. This may be nearly, but not totally impossible. In any case, it's likely the only way to stave off the coming cataclysms.
Posted by: gringoman | Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 03:28 PM
epaminondas, I think you are onto something: the way in which the future will unfold with the mullahs in place, and nukes in their hands.
As usual I see a lot of fluffy thinking from the left, as they assume the world order has not changed. It has. Permanently. It is absurd that they agree that "yes, Iran must not be allowed to develop nukes", yet they offer no tangible plan that prevents that. The "infiltration" model is dangerous, and awfully cavalier with Israeli lives. It is also futile to rely on Iranian "sanity" to prevail, for that is based on the following two false premises: one, that Iran is a regular state, like Cold-War Russia, or 1930's Germany, in the sense of its view of its place in the world, and two, that there is a credible Western nuclear deterrant. There isn't.
Be honest with yourselves: if you won't nuke Iran now, when it is easy and relatively painless for the West, what makes you think you'll respond to the annihilation of Tel Aviv by nuking Iran later, when the retaliation is really gonna hurt. I simply don't buy into the M.A.D. model, for the West's resolve has shattered into dust in the last 20 years, and the mullahs know it. We're cowards as a civilisation (or worse).
Mark Steyn has it bang on: our credibility as a civilisation is at stake. History will judge the next 10 years of Western behaviour without mercy, and with no brownie points for finishing last, but nicest.
Posted by: Crusader. NoRegrets | Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 03:12 PM
Sorry, but I don't see much clear thinking here.
There is nothing which will deter these people from getting a nuke, IN AS LITTLE AS 16 DAYS (Bloomberg)http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000100&sid=aduNTcpDuDd4&refer=germany
btw...
Their leaders statements have been seemless in their inimical venom for a generation and more. They have said things no other nation has said, THAT LONG.
Ideas that if we use nuclear bunker busters this guarantees a nuclear attack against us are absurd. If we do NOT eliminate this threat, THIS guarantees a nuclear attack. Iran is about being hte leader of the Islamic world, caliphate or not, and establishing their bona fides by eliminating Israel for Islam, and the best way to do that is to face us with enough risk (Hassan Abbassi) to get us to LEAVE the ME and stay in our own borders (for starters). Imagine a Russ Feingold being told that Hizballah has placed a weapon in Philadelphia, and it's time to cut Israel off. Think they wouldn't do that? It's EXACTLY what bullies do, to those they see as weak.
All the rest is rationalization.
We need to eliminate the nuclear threat from Iran. To do this we have to take out the whole lot. The mullahs can NOT be left in control. The Pasdaran has to be obliterated. Any halfway measure will result in american losses. We WILL be attacked here. All should be aware that the reason HST used nukes was to SPARE american lives. If by using ALL our might including nuclear bunker busters (which don't hit the atmosphere) we can achieve this end, we will have saved millions of lives (probably a minimum of scores of millions) compared to the alternative.
Sorry, but these are my observations. Not what I'd like.
The idea that oil has any part in this is ludicrous head in the sand wishful thinking. It gives some peopel the idea that they have some control over this. The mullahs have hte control. They make action compelling.
Are these courses of actions reprehensible?
YOU BET THEY ARE.
So what? They are none the less compulsory
Posted by: epaminondas | Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 02:17 PM
Crusader.NoRegrets,
Are you espousing the Roman Protectorate method of rule yourselves? Don't cause trouble and you can do what you want inside your borders.
For example, if you do not do what I want I will send in the Legions to crush your military and infrastructure and then immediately leave (King Philip and the Macedonians). I will let you rebuild, and if you still don't do what I want, I will return to crush you again and again until you come up with something I like (never spent the time administering the protectorates directly). I know this is an oversimplification and it was administered differently for various client states over time.
Posted by: Patrick | Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 01:34 PM
Actually I don't think anyone in their right mind should be considering sanctions. Ever. Can anyone point to a scenario in which they did more good than long-term harm? I can think of many cases in which sanctions (and armaments inspections) failed miserably at all levels. Nazi Germany, the Empire of Japan, Iraq. In fact I suspect that sanctions will give the Mullahs time to consolidate their political position, and continue their "Iranianisation" (as Mark Steyn puts it) of much of the Islamic movement. And as they've said, they'll retaliate economically anyway, and possibly militarily, while all the time making much of the fact that they were pushed to attack international shipping in the Gulf, and are true heroes to their countrymen.
We must smash the infrastructure (of nuclear research) now. Do it fast, clean and thoroughly, and then go home just as fast. This sends a powerful message to the mullahs around the globe. We are still in the fight, we can hurt you badly, and we have the will to do it.
I can't see how sanctions and inspections will do anything other than hurt the very people in Iran we would like to see rise up and kick out the mullahs.
Posted by: Crusader.NoRegrets | Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 12:59 PM
Gringoman,
You're making sense. This is a job for old fashioned imperialism. Er, excuse my faux pas, I meant to say an international multi-lateral cooperative mandate. IMCM.
Posted by: igout | Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 12:27 PM
Crusader, just a technical point. A neutron bomb is a nuke. The neutron devices we produced topped out around 5 kilotons.
As to the possibility of a nuclear strike against Iran, it would follow one of three basic models. 1) A demonstration strike, perhaps not even against a military or leadership target. For example, we set off a nuke in the Dasht-e Kavir, along with a warning that the next time we pound their nuclear and military infrastructure, unless they capitulate. 2) We conduct a counter-force attack, hitting all known nuclear infrastructure sites. Then we get to deal with the probable collapse of Iran, the death of millions (some of the nuclear infrastructure sites are near major population centers, including Tehran) the cessation of oil and natural gas shipments for an economically significant period of time and some downwind fallout, including on allied nations (not to mention the political fallout). 3) An EMP attack, designed to cripple Iran without setting off weapons on Iranian soil. This would definitely have the effect of causing a cessation of energy shipments for an economically significant period of time and would possibly cause the collapse of the Iranian state. It is also not guarenteed to cripple all elements of Iran's nuclear infrastructure.
The only nuclear option that would be guaranteed to satisfy our policy goals would be the second one, a comprehensive strike. Whatever one's visceral feelings, does it seem at all likely that any Administration would launch an attack that would kill millions, destabilize the global economy, create an extensive failed state region in the heart of the Middle East, spread radioactive fallout on our allies, and cause a massive refugee problem in states that are less than stable right now?
Iran does have to be prevented from progressing with its nuclear program. Diplomacy will not work. Comprehensive economic sanctions might, if we had buy-in from all of Iran's major trading partners, which we do not. So, it looks like force is the only option left.
However, since it is a given that we do not want to be in the position to have to occupy Iran, any military option that caused the Tehran government to fall, without some idea of what - if anything - would replace it, is problematic. We do not want a failed state replacing Iran, even an Iran under the current government. Further, we would like a military option that would keep the oil and natural gas flowing (a long term disruption in energy exports would play merry havoc with the global economy) and minimize the likelihood of increased Tehran-backed terrorist activity, particularly against the US homeland.
Probably the best option would be a "black ops" campaign, hitting the weakest link in Iran's nuclear, military and political infrastructure, its people. If Iranian nuclear scientists start turning up dead, if Iranian diplomats and government leaders and their families suffer mysterious accidents, if the Iranian military finds its new weapon systems (like the Russian Kilo subs) suffering from equipment failures or catastrophic accidents, we could push back the date when Iran will have the bomb indefinitely and destabilize the regime enough to force a change in behavior. This would not be easy. Nor would it be quick. And, it would require us to get our hands very dirty, engaging in actions that many might define as terrorism. We would also have to face up to possible blowback; the first time a US SpecFor team was killed or captured trying to carry out an assassination or sabotage operation, the consequences could be severe. Some of this could be offset by using regional assets, for example, enlisting Israel (and other nations concerned about Iran) to provide field personnel while we provide resources, intel and access.
These sort of operations have been carried out successfully in the past. Gerald Bull, the man working on Saddam's Supergun was assassinated, probably by the Israelis. And, in the run up to the 90-91, there is anecdotal evidence that the CIA - or some other member of the US intel community - managed to get a computer virus into the Iraqi air defense network.
It would have the virtue of allowing us to escalate, if it proves unsuccessful. I'm not certain where you go from an extended air campaign if that fails. And, it would attack the most vulnerable part of Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Centrifuges can be rebuilt. More uranium can be mined. Buildings can be reconstructed and hardened. But, there is only a limited supply of technically proficient, trustworthy individuals.
And, while countries like Iraq might be reluctant (particularly under Shi'ite government) to support a highly visible extended air campaign from their territory, a relatively quite, "light weight" black ops campaign could be conducted with no public scrutiny (or even awareness).
The main drawback is that it might not work. Iran might take some losses and still be able to push forward. But that would still leave us with more robust options. But, the inherent negatives - things like unleashing Hezbollah on the US, vastly increasing support for terrorists in Iraq, or the destruction of the Iranian oil industry (which could occur even without one bomb being dropped on an oil field; if the ports are damaged, pipelines hit, power grid destroyed, the Persian Gulf closed down for an extended period, etc. the effect will be the same), immediate political fallout - that are part of the most likely over use-of-force option - the air campaign - are not present.
Of course, there is no perfect solution. Thanks to years of neglect, Iran has gotten close to having the capacity for serial production of nuclear weapons and has grown bolder, due to the lack of consensus on what to do or willpower to take the lead and neutralize Iran. I do think, however, that, if we are to use force, a few well placed bullets and C-4 charges could have a more positive outcome than fleets of bombers.
Posted by: Jeff Durkin | Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 11:51 AM
Of course it's all about oil, but now that every international punk and UN drone has learned his litany of socialist slogans--such as we all learned as sophomores-- and also owns a shiny deck of race cards, who is going to be forthright and decisive about it? 'Imperialism' is a dirty word (if it connotes 'Western imperialism.') 'White Man's Burden" is out---never mind that blacks and browns flee, with every chance they get, their new brown and black masters who "liberated" them from the Western imperialists. Every white Libstream yuppie from J-School will snicker at his betters, like Rudyard Kipling. If the U.S. would just go and seize the oil, or otherwise deny it to the obnoxious mullahs, the Anti-American agitprop would scream at diva level, sure. Uh-oh, there goes Whitey again. But what about Japan and China, desperate for that oil too? If the actual world powers, U.S., U.K. China, Russia, Japan, India, maybe a few others agreed on some kind of Joint Mandate, what muslim demogogue or pale comrade rabble rouser of the World Megaphone could stop them? Could even Reuters or the AP help the "oppressed freedom fighters"? Could white trust fund babies like NY Times' "Pinch" Sulzberger do anything more than another editorial about the stupid Plame affair?
Posted by: gringoman | Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 11:43 AM
Olivia,
I think you're touching on the real game here. Control the oil. Nukes give Iran protection while it pursues its actual strategy: bit by bit, grab by grab, to dominate all the mid-east oil. And then choke the Great Satan dead. Allah akbar! Russia and China each have motives to aid and abet here. Russia, bear in mind, can neutralize Europe at any time, because it is so dependant on Russian energy imports. While I have no moral objections to seeing the mullahpath regime vaporized, I'd sure feel better if we got a nod and a wink from Moscow and/or Pekin beforehand. Everybody's looking at WW2 as a precedent and a warning; I'm looking at 1914, and we all know how fast that got out of hand.
Posted by: igout | Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 10:40 AM
"The cunningly mad mullahs, of course, are certain that no one will stop them. The certainty with Europe is 100%. They see that the "powerful" nuclear French can't even stop their mobs of Liberty, Fraternity and Freeloaders"
According to your logic, the same goes for the US due to all those immigrant protestors.
===================================================================
Congratulations. You got it right. You were logical. Well, almost. The Koran Korps understands that the European dhimmis-in-waiting will not prevent the Mullah Bomb. They are 100% certain, whereas, with the American version of Western Will, they can only be 99% certain. They are also observant enough to notice that the USA is tolerating an alien invasion which is largely Christian. Europe, on the other hand, is suckling an invasion of third-world muslims who understand that their infidel hostess can and will submit. She even feels a certain masochistic frisson---dare we say pleasure?---from these exotics at her breasts. The "sophisticated" non-cowboy Jacques Chirac--biologically of the male gender--- just gave them yet another lesson as he caved to the great welfare mob in the streets of Paris, assuring La Belle France of further national stagnation.
Posted by: gringoman | Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 10:26 AM
"The cunningly mad mullahs, of course, are certain that no one will stop them. The certainty with Europe is 100%. They see that the "powerful" nuclear French can't even stop their mobs of Liberty, Fraternity and Freeloaders"
According to your logic, the same goes for the US due to all those immigrant protestors. I always find it funny when some extreme nationalistic people diss Europe: It is completely obvious they have no idea what they are talking about. They have just one 'argument': Europe is not capable of doing anything. That is their entire policy towards Europe. Maybe I could make two out of that, but they are very much connected: "Europeans are appeasing socialists. All of them".
That sums their line of thinking up imo.
That line of thinking is just as ridiculous as saying "all americans are weird, racist and shooting cowboys. They live all their lives on the ranch and get scared when they hear anything about the outside world - so they just nuke those countries they're afraid of".
support swift, overwhelming anihilation, including the use of nuclear weapons. I support the simultaneous destruction of the North Korean regime. We can but hope that the decision makers (Bush, et al) have the fortitude to strike soon, overwhelmingly and with utmost skill and surprise. The equation has simply become "eliminate them before they nuke us."
Uhm. Let me ask, just to be sure, are you advocating the total destruction of Iran / Tehran? With, possibly, the use of nuclear weapons?
Posted by: Michael van der Galien | Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 05:08 AM
Why do we keep on ranting about Iran and the nuclear bomb? Lets say Iran did develop one and had the capability of delivering it anywhere they wanted. Can anyone really believe that they would? If they did, the result would, without question, be the complete destruction of all of Iran by a retaliatory nuclear strike from the west. Give them a little credit for some intelligence. The only thing having the nuclear bomb would do for Iran is preclude an unwarranted strike from the US. Nuclear deterrence may have been MAD when the USSR was still the evil empire ... but it did work.
Posted by: Peter Brooks | Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 02:08 AM
The oil fields are located in the southwest part of Iran which has a sizable Arab minority. It is also where the Iranian regime has had countless problems and even dissuaded Amedinejad from a visit a few months back becasue fo worries of unrest and for his personal safety.
Maybe we should fess up to our need to keep an industrial society and that means having to dominate the sources of oil in the world? Is it feasible to perhaps take control of the Ahvaz area and set up an independent Arab government on the basis of preventing Iranian persecution of Arabs?
Of course I mean, can we get control of the area and the oil?
In any event, Alexandria you are wonderful. You inspire me.
Posted by: olivia clemens | Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 12:22 AM
The cunningly mad mullahs, of course, are certain that no one will stop them. The certainty with Europe is 100%. They see that the "powerful" nuclear French can't even stop their mobs of Liberty, Fraternity and Freeloaders. With Americans they calculate it's a bit dicier. This is due to the Cowboy Infidel in the White House. But the mullahs know too that the U.S. dhimmis-in-waiting will do all in their power to stop or even sabotage the Fortunate Cowboy---the Libstream anger and talent amply demonstrated by relentless journo jihad and dedicated denial of Saddam's previous terror threat. In other words, the mullahs can only be 99% certain that the U.S. today is a paper Satan, too bogged down in Iraq and therefore will not apply sudden and overwhelming force to the nuke-happy Koran Corps next door.
Posted by: gringoman | Tuesday, April 11, 2006 at 11:55 PM
Alexandra, as always, it's great to see you on top of things.
1) The use of nuclear weapons, even as bunker-busters, must be out. The only thing their use could do is guarantee us nuclear terrorism against an American city later down the road.
2) The preferred approach must be to get the Iranians to remove this government. The question is whether that's possible.
3) If the alternative to #2 is airstrikes, then Ralph Peters would seem to be right: we need to pretty much take out everything--the whole Iranian army, navy, airforce, together with all the nuclear installations.
4) A very interesting idea posted over at Tigerhawk is to take out...the oilfields. Right: obviously that will spike oil prices. But without the oilfields, Iran won't have the money to rebuild the nukes. Nor will it have the money to subsidize Hezbollah and other terrorist groups. This needs careful consideration, but a spike in oil prices might in the long run be a small price to pay for less terrorism.
Posted by: GrenfellHunt | Tuesday, April 11, 2006 at 10:50 PM
- Dear Slavic beauty,
I'm afraid it’s déjà vu all over again: following the “success” of their Iraqi ventures, the Neocon Neros of Washington are now toying with the idea of expanding their flourishing business eastward into the highly promising Persian market.
Frankly, I wonder what they’ve been smoking lately, and I simply can’t conceptualize the fact that George Bush’s followers still believe the Pentagon-produced infomercials showing complacent cum generously breasted Baghdad girls throwing rosewater, lukums and champagne at our troops on Apr 9, 2003! … How on earth can’t they see Teheran’s mullahs were the only winners here?
As for the Neocon’s belated anti-Persian posturing, it should be taken for what it is: just another hollow gesticulation from a lame-duck administration trying desperately to rebuild the Arab/Iranian geopolitical balance that it had deliberately destroyed in the first place!
And those ungrateful Ayyranians should be mighty satisfied and thankful for el Chimpresidente nukular supreme de la White Casa knocked their secular archenemy for them and handed them (via their SCIRI cum Da’awa party Islamist stooges) two thirds of Iraq on a silver plate!
Plus the Persians got all that for free: future generations of infidel American taxpayers will generously pick the estimated 2 trillion dollars tab- George W’s contribution to the Koranic jurisprudential concept of “Jiziyah”…
As a seasoned Sassanid sophist might have said: With foes like these, who needs friends?
As for Saddam Hussein, with all his alleged faults, at least he was a staunchly secular nationalist, a disciple of professor Mitchell Aflaq, the French-educated Orthodox Christian philosopher. And, if anything, Christian minorities and women were generally overrepresented in Saddam’s government: Vice-President Tareq Hanna Aziz was actually Catholic and so were Saddam’s Chief of Staff and many of the senior civil servants working at the presidential palace.
President Reagan’s administration and “Old Europe’s” foreign policy establishment both viewed the Iraqi Baath party essentially as a strong bulwark against Persian-Khomeinist fundamentalism and Wahhabi-Afghan terrorism.
The Israelis and Washington’s Neocons thought otherwise: now we have to deal with the strictures of Sharia Law in Afghanistan, the rise of Hamas and the pro-Iranian Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) which they have deliberately brought to power…
Posted by: Dr Victorino de la Vega | Tuesday, April 11, 2006 at 09:17 PM
T.J.
Let's go one better. In the words of Russel Crowe's character in 'Master and Commander: the Far Side of the World':
"Let Fly!"
Although we don't really need Nukes. The Daisy Cutters and Neutron Bombs will do nicely. It's time to do a Dresden on Iran...Once and for all. The impotence of the Iranian regime at stopping it will go a long way to overthrowing their government. Remember what happended to Goering's political fortunes after the RAF started pounding the Germans but good. And the Germans weren't by nature nearly as fratricidal as Iranians...
Posted by: Crusader. No Regrets | Tuesday, April 11, 2006 at 03:40 PM
The Steyn city-journal article is outstanding. I would observe that the Iranians' strategy and thinking over the past quarter century has been almost flawlessly consistent. They know what they are doing. Steyn asks, assuming we know what they are doing, do we know what we are doing? I would say the only "miscalculation" the Iranians have made is not to have imagined the occupant of the White House to be George W. Bush, who has amply demonstrated he possesses a backbone. One of the most chilling sentences in Steyn's piece states, "Nor should we put much stock in the country’s allegedly “pro-American” youth." Indeed, the question of how nutty a government they wish to live with is up to the Iranian people. I support swift, overwhelming anihilation, including the use of nuclear weapons. I support the simultaneous destruction of the North Korean regime. We can but hope that the decision makers (Bush, et al) have the fortitude to strike soon, overwhelmingly and with utmost skill and surprise. The equation has simply become "eliminate them before they nuke us." Send the link to the Steyn piece to everyone you know. Sorry for the long-ish comment ... but I want to close with some very American words ...
Major T. J. "King" Kong: Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones. You sure you got today's codes?
Major T. J. "King" Kong: Well, boys, I reckon this is it - nuclear combat toe to toe with the Roosskies. Now look, boys, I ain't much of a hand at makin' speeches, but I got a pretty fair idea that something doggone important is goin' on back there. And I got a fair idea the kinda personal emotions that some of you fellas may be thinkin'. Heck, I reckon you wouldn't even be human bein's if you didn't have some pretty strong personal feelin's about nuclear combat. I want you to remember one thing, the folks back home is a-countin' on you and by golly, we ain't about to let 'em down. I tell you something else, if this thing turns out to be half as important as I figure it just might be, I'd say that you're all in line for some important promotions and personal citations when this thing's over with. That goes for ever' last one of you regardless of your race, color or your creed. Now let's get this thing on the hump - we got some flyin' to do."
Posted by: T. J. | Tuesday, April 11, 2006 at 01:05 PM