IRAN A MENACE - THE SUNDAY COMMENTARY
Iran has been in the news in the past several days as much or more than even Barack Obama. In a Presidential election year with a candidate who is a media darling and promoted by the liberal media as much as Obama is that is saying quite a bit .
Last week Iran test launched nine medium to long range missiles that have been verified while claiming to test launch more in the following days. This saber rattling move by Iran was designed to prove to The United States that if attacked Iran would retaliate.
The world community immediately reacted to this saber rattling by Iran and again the talk of military intervention in the on going Iran nuclear problem and their continued attempts through their radical Islamic regime to become the dominating country in the Middle East.
So the question arises, "is Iran an extreme threat that must be dealt with swiftly and with military measures?" This is the dilemma facing The United States and neighbors of Iran especially Israel who has been repeatedly threatened with extinction by Iran's radical President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Do I believe that Iran is a threat ? Absolutely, but how much of a threat is the key to how and when action must be taken by Iran. After all let's face facts. In a military confrontation with Iran The United States could annihilate Iran many times over without suffering much if any damage in return.
The problem here is that this is NOT the way that we as a Nation handle difficult situations even when an extremely radical regime like that of Iran threatens both us and our allies like Israel. We have historically been a Nation that uses our military as a last resort and only after all diplomatic measure have been exhausted except in the case when we are either attacked first or are coming to the immediate aid of an ally who request our assistance.
The major threat that Iran poses now is the fact that they are developing the capability of nuclear weaponry despite the claim of peaceful purposes only. This in itself actually increases the dilemma faced by The United States and our allies. While Iran would not stand a snow balls chance militarily against The United States, all it takes is ONE nuclear weapon on top of a medium range missile and Tel Aviv, Israel and its population of more than three million is history well BEFORE any defensive action can be taken by Israel or The United States.
This is the main reason why this rogue regime CANNOT be allowed to become nuclear and why this standoff with a rather insignificant country in the grand scheme of world politics. It is obvious that unlike other nuclear nations Iran and its radical regime WILL use nuclear weaponry as quickly as it is available and without hesitation.
Iran has been a thorn in the side of The United States since the late seventies when Jimmy Carter failed to back the Shah of Iran which allowed the rise of the Ayatollahs with Ayatollah Khomeini stepping in after the fall of the Shah. Now don't get me wrong the Shah was not an ideal leader. In fact he was very much a little despot but he was pro West and pro United States.
The Ayatollahs see the West and especially The United States as infidels with the US being the, "great satan," and enemy of all Islamic fanatics. In the last few years the thorn in the side known as Iran has increased its rhetoric and also it move toward becoming nuclear as well as actively threatening Israel and The United States.
They also are a thorn concerning Middle East oil as their country borders the Eastern side of the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf where 40% of all the worlds oil is shipped through to open waters. They have attempted through feeble means with relatively small boats to move against the Strait as well as continually threatening to close it down. A move that will never be allowed and in itself will most likely spark some sort of military action possibly even war.
I am reminded of another petty dictator who saber rattled, sponsored terrorism like Iran and even contributed in a terrorist attack against a civilian airline resulting in the death of all on board. Lybia's Muammar Qaddafi. In the later seventies and eighties Qaddafi was a threatening loud mouth who acted on his words much like Iran's Ahmadinejad.
Diplomatic measures had been tried and tried again to no avail and Qaddafi continued to act like the big man on campus so to speak. That is until President Ronald Reagan decided to shut him up after the downing of the civilian airplane. Reagan ordered strategic bombing of Gaddafi's palaces and some of his military and command and control. Qaddafi not only backed off of his threats but has remained quiet ever since.
Some may say to this approach that Lybia in its attack on the civilian airliner created a situation where military action was, "justified," while Iran has not. To this I respond with Iran's continual proven assistance both in weaponry and man power attacking our soldiers and Iraqi interests in an attempt to continue to stir up sectarian problems in Iraq.
Reagan's solution to Lybia may be the answer to the Iran problem. A strategic attack against all nuclear facilities, Iran's command and control as well as selected military targets with precision bombing. While it may not completely shut Iran up as it did Lybia, it will at least eliminate the threat of nuclear development and calm if not end this menace to the world.
Diplomatic measures alone have not only failed but actually allow Iran to continue on its course uninterrupted. Sanctions have proven as always to be a joke and the naive approach of direct talks as proposed by a certain liberal Democrat Presidential candidate are not only doomed to failure but will give a massive credibility to the radical Iranian regime and Ahmadinejad.
Though a petty dictator and minimal nation on the world stage it only takes one nuclear attack to change the entire Middle Eastern dynamic, fragile as it is, and take that region of the world into all out war. Maybe the Reagan approach offers the best and most effective short term or if like the case of Lybia in 1986, long term solution to the Iran menace.
Ken Taylor
Last week Iran test launched nine medium to long range missiles that have been verified while claiming to test launch more in the following days. This saber rattling move by Iran was designed to prove to The United States that if attacked Iran would retaliate.
The world community immediately reacted to this saber rattling by Iran and again the talk of military intervention in the on going Iran nuclear problem and their continued attempts through their radical Islamic regime to become the dominating country in the Middle East.
So the question arises, "is Iran an extreme threat that must be dealt with swiftly and with military measures?" This is the dilemma facing The United States and neighbors of Iran especially Israel who has been repeatedly threatened with extinction by Iran's radical President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Do I believe that Iran is a threat ? Absolutely, but how much of a threat is the key to how and when action must be taken by Iran. After all let's face facts. In a military confrontation with Iran The United States could annihilate Iran many times over without suffering much if any damage in return.
The problem here is that this is NOT the way that we as a Nation handle difficult situations even when an extremely radical regime like that of Iran threatens both us and our allies like Israel. We have historically been a Nation that uses our military as a last resort and only after all diplomatic measure have been exhausted except in the case when we are either attacked first or are coming to the immediate aid of an ally who request our assistance.
The major threat that Iran poses now is the fact that they are developing the capability of nuclear weaponry despite the claim of peaceful purposes only. This in itself actually increases the dilemma faced by The United States and our allies. While Iran would not stand a snow balls chance militarily against The United States, all it takes is ONE nuclear weapon on top of a medium range missile and Tel Aviv, Israel and its population of more than three million is history well BEFORE any defensive action can be taken by Israel or The United States.
This is the main reason why this rogue regime CANNOT be allowed to become nuclear and why this standoff with a rather insignificant country in the grand scheme of world politics. It is obvious that unlike other nuclear nations Iran and its radical regime WILL use nuclear weaponry as quickly as it is available and without hesitation.
Iran has been a thorn in the side of The United States since the late seventies when Jimmy Carter failed to back the Shah of Iran which allowed the rise of the Ayatollahs with Ayatollah Khomeini stepping in after the fall of the Shah. Now don't get me wrong the Shah was not an ideal leader. In fact he was very much a little despot but he was pro West and pro United States.
The Ayatollahs see the West and especially The United States as infidels with the US being the, "great satan," and enemy of all Islamic fanatics. In the last few years the thorn in the side known as Iran has increased its rhetoric and also it move toward becoming nuclear as well as actively threatening Israel and The United States.
They also are a thorn concerning Middle East oil as their country borders the Eastern side of the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf where 40% of all the worlds oil is shipped through to open waters. They have attempted through feeble means with relatively small boats to move against the Strait as well as continually threatening to close it down. A move that will never be allowed and in itself will most likely spark some sort of military action possibly even war.
I am reminded of another petty dictator who saber rattled, sponsored terrorism like Iran and even contributed in a terrorist attack against a civilian airline resulting in the death of all on board. Lybia's Muammar Qaddafi. In the later seventies and eighties Qaddafi was a threatening loud mouth who acted on his words much like Iran's Ahmadinejad.
Diplomatic measures had been tried and tried again to no avail and Qaddafi continued to act like the big man on campus so to speak. That is until President Ronald Reagan decided to shut him up after the downing of the civilian airplane. Reagan ordered strategic bombing of Gaddafi's palaces and some of his military and command and control. Qaddafi not only backed off of his threats but has remained quiet ever since.
Some may say to this approach that Lybia in its attack on the civilian airliner created a situation where military action was, "justified," while Iran has not. To this I respond with Iran's continual proven assistance both in weaponry and man power attacking our soldiers and Iraqi interests in an attempt to continue to stir up sectarian problems in Iraq.
Reagan's solution to Lybia may be the answer to the Iran problem. A strategic attack against all nuclear facilities, Iran's command and control as well as selected military targets with precision bombing. While it may not completely shut Iran up as it did Lybia, it will at least eliminate the threat of nuclear development and calm if not end this menace to the world.
Diplomatic measures alone have not only failed but actually allow Iran to continue on its course uninterrupted. Sanctions have proven as always to be a joke and the naive approach of direct talks as proposed by a certain liberal Democrat Presidential candidate are not only doomed to failure but will give a massive credibility to the radical Iranian regime and Ahmadinejad.
Though a petty dictator and minimal nation on the world stage it only takes one nuclear attack to change the entire Middle Eastern dynamic, fragile as it is, and take that region of the world into all out war. Maybe the Reagan approach offers the best and most effective short term or if like the case of Lybia in 1986, long term solution to the Iran menace.
Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 12:38 PM
6 Comments:
Let me point out a couple of major fallacies in your post:
1. "The United States could annihilate Iran many times over without suffering much if any damage in return."
We would suffer no physical damage, but our economy would be destroyed. Iran is the #2 oil producer within OPEC. Only the Saudis produce more.
If Iran is attacked they will close the Strait of Hormuz (17 million barrels of oil per day flow through the Strait). Even if our Navy is able to open routes, it will be extremely expensive and there is no doubt that terrorists will disrupt oil supply at ports and through the Persian Gulf.
Unless you are willing to pay $10/gallon, we are not going to launch an attack on Iran. It is not an option.
2. India, China, Russia, and many European nations all have significant business and energy deals in Iran. They are not going to stand idly by if we attack Iran.
3. Ken, you really should read about the torture and secret police of the Shah. I find it completely ridiculous that you want to bash Jimmy Carter for not supporting the Shah. He was a horrible leader who created the opportunity for the mullahs and Ayatollah with his brutality. So, are you for dictators and human rights violations as long as those dictators are friendly to the U.S.? Where is the morality in that?
4. The latest NIE reported that Iran had given up its nuclear weapons program.
We are not going to attack Iran. They have too much leverage. They are just waiting for a more lucrative deal than the one Bush has proposed. Bush is willing to have the U.S. build a nuclear power plan - maybe they want 5 plants. I don't know what they are holding out for, but they saw how quickly the Bush Administration caved and gave up to North Korea after their missile tests and nuclear detonations.
Rob,
1. I understand that the economic impact would be great. My reference was to only military.
2. While each country you mentioned does have financila interest in Iran, if Iran was to get into a war with the west, I do not believe any of those countries would come to the aid of Iran from a military stand point. They may take the UN route but not a military confrontation to defend Iran.
3. Rob, I understand and mentioned that the Sha was not a desirable Despot. He was very much a dictatorial leader who was NOT one in whom any country would want. Much Hugo Chavez is today but with more absolute rule over his country than Chavez.
The difference is that he was pro west and US. Unfortunatly in this world we out of necessity at times have undesrable allies because of that necessity. Need I mention Stalin and the USSR in WWII ?
While the Shah's reign brought much of the dicontent that gave way to the Ayatollahs, he would not have collapsed had Carter even in a remote way stood by him if for nothing else but to prevent Islamic radicals from taking over. That was a very real part of the failure and naive aspect of Carter's foreign policy as Presidetn and he follows much of that same thought today which has caused problems because of his ridiculous interference.
4. Of course you are refering to the NIE report that refutes the previous report that refutes the report before that etc. the NIE has also backed away from the last report to an extent. Truth is the NIE has no clue as to how advanced Iran's program truly is.
Also Rob face facts. To you really beleive that a regime like Iran who readily admits to nuclear development is actually doing ONLY for peaceful purposes. Not a chance. The only purpose for such an oil rich nation to have nuclear technology especially in light of the regime if for weaponry period!
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ken,
1. No credible policy analyst or serious Administration would consider an attack without considering the economic impacts. The economics are such that we won't attack Iran and we will prevent Israel from doing so.
2. Those countries don't have to go to war against us militarily, they can threaten us with economic consequences. They are not going to stand by and allow a major oil disruption to the world markets. Again, for this reason we won't attack Iran.
3. I have no idea what kind of support you wanted Carter to supply to the dictatorial and ruthless Shah. I don't think Americans would have accepted sending American soldiers to fight and die in Iran. If you would have rather sent covert CIA death squads into Iran to kill off the resistance to the brutal Shah, I don't see the moral authority to do that. Perhaps you are talking about something else when you are talking about supporting the Shah, but I just can't tell. What do you think Carter should have done? If you could be more specific, it would help me understand what you are complaining about.
4. There is a very simple reason why Iran is developing nuclear power plants - they don't have the refining capacity to make their own fuel. While they produce oil, they cannot make gasoline. They have to import all of their gas. Also, they don't have the proven oil reserves of the Saudis or even Iraq, so they have limits to their oil production. It is only prudent for them to look at alternative energy solutions. This is why they are working with India. The funny thing is that we are going to give nuclear energy technology to India - and I can guarantee you that within 6 months of India getting that technology, Iran will have it also.
FYI, the NIE is the best intelligence we have.
Here is the bottom line - we aren't going to attack Iran. There is no way it is going to happen. There are estimates that if there is an attack and the close the Strait of Hormuz, gasoline in the U.S. would jump to $12/gallon overnight. It just is not going to happen!
There is only one truth to be understood about Iran -- that the Bush Administration will do whatever it can to exaccerbate tension in the middle east to the advantage of the GOP. Remember the color-coded terror alert system? Nothing but a load of crap that they used to create fear. The sad thing, as it reflects on the collective intellect of this country, is that it worked.
John McCain helped instigate the conflict between Russia and Georgia! Thats pretty kewl leadership!
Post a Comment
<< Home