Posted on 10/26/2007 2:26:10 PM PDT by blam
We must bomb Iran, says US Republican guru
By Toby Harnden in New York
Last Updated: 7:28pm BST 26/10/2007
A senior foreign policy adviser to the Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani has urged that Iran be bombed using cruise missiles and "bunker busters" to set back Teheran’s nuclear programme by at least five years.
Iran threatens 'decisive strike' if US attacks Analysis: Iran and US in political flux US elections coverage in full The tough message at a time of crisis between the United States and Iraq was delivered by Norman Podhoretz, one of the founders of neoconservatism, who has also imparted his stark advice personally to a receptive President George W. Bush.
Podhoretz is a founder of neoconservatism
"None of the alternatives to military action - negotiations, sanctions, provoking an internal insurrection - can possibly work," said Mr Podhoretz.
"They’re all ways of evading the terrible choice we have to make which is to either let them get the bomb or to bomb them."
In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Mr Podhoretz said he was certain that bombing raids could be successful.
"People I’ve talked to have no doubt we could set it back five or 10 years. There are those who believe we can get the underground facilities as well with these highly sophisticated bunker-busting munitions."
Although Mr Podhoretz said he did not speak for Mr Giuliani, the former New York mayor whom he briefs daily appears to have embraced at least the logic of his hard-line views.
During a visit to London last month, Mr Giuliani said Iran should be given "an absolute assurance that, if they get to the point that they are going to become a nuclear power, we will prevent them or we will set them back five or 10 years".
Mr Podhoretz said: "I was very pleased to see him say that. I was even surprised he went that far. I’m sure some of his political people were telling him to go slow ... I wouldn’t advise any candidate to come out ands say we have to bomb - it’s not a prudent thing to say at this stage of the campaign."
But Mr Podhoretz’s 77 years and his position as a pre-eminent conservative foreign policy intellectual means he can not only think the unthinkable but say the unsayable.
"My role has simply been to say what I think," he said, explaining that he takes part in weekly conference calls and is in daily email contact with the Giuliani campaign.
He is the most eminent of a clutch of uncompromisingly hawkish aides assembled by Mr Giuliani. They include Daniel Pipes, who opposes a Palestinian state and believes America should "inspire fear, not affection", and Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon official who has argued that Condoleezza Rice’s diplomacy is "dangerous" and signals American "weakness" to Teheran.
"Does Rudy agree with me?" Mr Podhoretz asked rhetorically. "I don’t know and I don’t wish to know." But he added that "Rudy’s view of the war is very similar to mine."
Mr Podhoretz’s thesis is that the war on terror is in fact World War Four and that the 42-year-long Cold War should be more properly described as World War Three.
Awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, America’s highest honour, by President George W. Bush in 2004, Mr Podhoretz later sought a rare one-on-on audience with the US commander-in-chief. They met in New York’s Waldorf Astoria Hotel in the spring.
The author of the recent World War IV: the Long Struggle Against Islamofacsism spent about 35 minutes outlining his case for air strikes against Iran as Mr Bush’s then chief adviser Karl Rove took notes.
"Whether I had any effect on him I truly don’t know but I sure tried my best to persuade him," he said.
"He was very cordial. He was warm. He listened. He occasionally asked a question as I made the case but he was truly poker faced."
Mr Podhoretz left the meeting unshaken in his belief that Mr Bush would attack Iran before he leaves office.
"The spirit of the questions was not to try to refute or contradict what I was saying. I didn’t get any negative vibes."
He said that now "the debate [over Iran] is secretly over and the people who are against military action are now preparing to make the case that we can live with an Iranian bomb".
Neither Mr Bush nor Mr Giuliani, however, would countenance Teheran acquiring a nuclear weapon and either one would authorise military action once they were convinced Iran had passed the point of no return with its uranium enrichment programme.
"Unlike a ground invasion where you’ve got to mass hundreds of thousands of troops, it takes six months and everybody knows you’re mobilising, with air strikes, we’ve got three carriers in the region and a lot of submarines," Mr Podhoretz said.
"I would say it would take five minutes. You’d wake up one morning and the strikes would have been ordered and carried out during the night. All the president has to do is say go."
Regime change by arming internal elements might not be a bad follow up.
He says we have 3 carriers in the region? That’s news to me. I’d say that the clear signal of our intention to strike would be the arrival of a 2 more carrier groups into the Middle East.
There were only four Neocons. This is one of them. It’s like beatniks: there were only four of them but an entire generation was labelled because of them.
I think these so-called “neo-cons” should give it a rest for a while. Their prognostications about Iraq were so utterly off-base that they don’t have any credibility left to render opinions on U.S. foreign policy anymore.
once they were convinced Iran had passed the point of no return with its uranium enrichment programHow can we know when that point is reached? It's impossible to know for sure. If we're going to do this at all, it should be yesterday. Or today. Next week at the latest.
Fmail me a history lesson on the prognostications when you have time. I’m serious, not kidding. Thanks AC.
Your May Day Parade invitation is in the mail and you should expect a Christmas card this year from your pal Vlad Putin. And maybe even that speaking engagement at the next ANSWER convention and a date with the member of your choice from Code Pink (maybe she’ll shave for ya!)
Sang this same song just before Christmas 1979. The Iranian kidnapping of the hostages started in November.
Norman Podhoretz is exactly right; no other options will be successful except force. They should have been taken out years ago. Let Iran bluster; if they move in Iraq, they will be annihilated.
The conflict will not end with the taking out of the nuke facilities... but it will move things along. This ‘Islamic Problem’ will linger until it either reforms... or destroyed like a rabid dog.
Maybe you should stay in Canada....and STFU about American business..
We need to destroy their Army and special forces. We need to sink their Navy’s surface vessels and submarines. We need to catch their Air Force and civil aircraft on the ground and destroy them and their airports. We need to destroy their only gasoline refinery. We need to destroy their secret police and their political leaders. And most importantly, we need to completely destroy ALL of their nuclear facilities to include the support infrastructure for same. We need to seize all of their offshore oil facilities and start filling up American oil tankers to pay for all the trouble THEY have caused.
This is a tall order but we need to do this and soon!
If I were a Canadian you might have a point, fella.
Then quit talking like one, or get the hell over to the DUMMY board where you belong...if you believe Iran can be swayed by “diplomacy” you are an idiot...plain and simple, period!
What a load!! you have a nice short term memory!! If I might add!! Can you count the democrats that led the charge along side the alleged Neo-cons and do you really know who the real neo-cons are?? check your facts, they are all Scoop Jackson Democrats
my post was directed to Blam, sorry to offend anyone else
“One way or the other, we are determined to
deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass
destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That
is our bottom line.”
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use
force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously
diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass
destruction program.”
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what
happens there matters a great deal here. For the
risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us
or our allies is the greatest security threat we
face.”
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction
again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“We urge you, after consulting with Congress,
and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws,
to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect
Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat
posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass
destruction programs.”
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI),
Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998
“Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on
building weapons of mass destruction and palaces
for his cronies.”
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
“There is no doubt that .. Saddam Hussein has
invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate
that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War
status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine
delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of
a licit missile program to develop longer-range
missiles that will threaten the United States and
our allies.”
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob
Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam
Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and
stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate
of the United Nations and is building weapons of
mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of
biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction
has proven impossible to deter and we should assume
that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam
Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass
destruction.”
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in
October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam
Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked
on a crash course to build up his chemical and
biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear
weapons...”
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam
Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear
weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within
the next five years ... We also should remember we
have always underestimated the progress Saddam has
made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
“He has systematically violated, over the
course of the past 11 years, every significant UN
resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any
nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.”
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be
compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has
had for a number of years, a developing capacity for
the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction.”
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec.! 8, 2002
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam
Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading
an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly
grievous threat because he is so consistently prone
to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating
America’s response to his continued deceit and his
consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction...
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real.”
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Instead, he questioned the urgency and scope of the problem -- based on the faulty intelligence we had on Iraq. Or, at least, we think it was faulty...we can't be sure.
His position is a valid one. Before we do what's being proposed, we've got to be absolutely sure that it's necessary.
Personally, I believe that it will become necessary to take military action against Iran -- some time in the intermediate-term. But, without access to the nature (and quality) of the intelligence, we've no way of knowing that for sure.
Personally, I also disagree with AC on whether the invasion of Iraq was justified. Even in the absence of WMD, I believe it was.
Nonetheless, his position on Iran is arguable, legitimately conservative and should be respected.
“I think these so-called “neo-cons” should give it a rest for a while. “
Could you elaborate? By ‘give it a rest’, do you mean the U.S. should not attempt to stop Iran from building a nuclear bomb? If not by military means, how would you suggest Iran be stopped from this endeavor?
“Their prognostications about Iraq were so utterly off-base that they don’t have any credibility left”
It’s the naysayers that have no credibility left. The success of the surge proves this.
And now, even Iran may be prevented from having nukes to threaten Israel.
It’s that old “stability” meme, keeping the headchoppers off our arse means letting them roam the globe (and Israel), murdering innocents in the marketplace, with impunity.
Curios, in light of our massive nuclear submarine fleets that sail under the seven seas, our superior air power, world class navy etc...Not to mention Israels 400 + nuclear weapons and delivery systems...If they did build a bomb, what do you think they'd do with it?
You don't suppose they might find some way to ... use it, perhaps?
Leave him alone, he's a great FReeper.
Nice quotes
And I guess the nuke facility that Israel took out in the 80s (and all the world condemned them) was for peaceful use
Every body seems to forget about that fact
You don't suppose they might find some way to ... use it, perhaps?
Oh, OK...But in light of the above, how exactly would they "use it" without being completely eliminated? The Iranians might be a lot of things, but I don't think they are hoping for their own instant demise.
If you could be specific. Thanks.
More likely they'd produce far more than one, and since Iran is Terrorist Central it wouldn't surprise me if a few ended up in the hands of one of their terrorist proxies. ...like Hezbollah. Nuclear proliferation among terrorist orgs would assuredly end up in disaster for the West.
Secondly, if Iran gets nukes then the entire Arab world (especially Saudi Arabia) will race to counter the Iranian threat by attempting to becoming nuclear themselves. Needless to say, a nuclear arms race among Islamic nations isn't exactly desirable. ...and if Iran is allowed to proceed that is precisely what'll happen.
And lastly, mutally assured destuction (MAD) only works when all the nations involved are sane. Folks who believe in 12th Imams and 72 virgins awaiting them in the afterlife for killing infidels don't qualify.
I remember that day. It was a Sunday. I was at home watching a football game when that happened (New England Patriots versus someone—I was stationed at Otis ANGB on Cape Cod at the time) and they broke into the game to announce the hostage taking. I went into the bedroom at put on my uniform, and prepared to leave for the base. My girlfriend asked what I was doing...
I told her, “Taking our embassy is an act of war. This is not a drill. We will be at war today!” So I left and went back to base, only to find everyone on watch sitting around watching the game. No day shifters. No word from Jimmy Carter. Over the next several days and weeks we saw how that turned out. I also remember the debacle at Desert One in April of 1980.
I’ve been waiting for some payback to Iran since that day. Hope it comes soon.
More likely they'd produce far more than one, and since Iran is Terrorist Central it wouldn't surprise me if a few ended up in the hands of one of their terrorist proxies.
Well it Iran gave a nuke to their Hezbollah buddies, and they used it, wouldn't that be cause for their instant elimination? And say Iran had 10 nukes, and decided to use them against, say Israel...Would they, (the Iranians) not know that they would be instantly eliminated?
Communist China has a bunch of nukes, but ya notice they don't use them? I would guess they don't because they prefer breathing.
It appears you need to read the last paragraph of my post #29 again.
I just posted the 'damn' article...why would you want to offend me?
Ya ever notice that the leaders of these countries never strap on bomb belts and blow *themselves* up?
Look, nuclear proliferation throughout the entire Muslim world (which is precisely what would happen if Iran were allowed to produce nukes) is completely unacceptable to any sane Westerner. ....and we’re not going to allow it to happen, period. Best to prepare for the inevitable. Don’t worry though, we won’t be occupying the stinking joint. It’ll all be over before you can spit out “quagmire” and “damn neocons.”
Funny how someone you’ve never heard of suddnely becomes a “GOP guru” when he makes some silly remark...
Curios, if this is really all about the entire Muslim world getting nukes if Iran is allowed to, and since Iran has already made direct threats against Israel, wanting them destroyed and all that, and since Israel is the close target...Why doesn't Israel just go ahead and take out their nukes?
Secondly, the U.S. is in a far better position than Israel to get the job done, having Iran surrounded on three sides -- Iraq to the east, Afghanistan to the west, and our Naval fleet in the Persian Gulf to the south.
And lastly, the entire Muslim world in a nuclear arms race (which as I mentioned earlier would be the direct result of Iran being allowed to produce nukes) is obviously a major concern to the U.S. and entire civilized world, not just to Israel.
Contrary to what many would like to believe, this isn't all about Israel.
Sorry, that's Iraq to the west and Afghanistan to the east..
They would attempt to:
1. Turn Israel into a cinder.
2. Insert one (or more) devices into the U.S. for incinerating one (or more) major targets.
I remind you that our nuclear deterrance (and Israel's) may not be a factor in Iran's thinking. We're dealing with people that seem to be intent on launching Armageddon (in our terms), thus bringing about the return of the 12th Imam.
The Soviets, at least, were rational. They had no interest in seeing their own country incinerated.
You can't count on these guys reacting that way.
If every 5 years, we can set them back 10 years, that’s progress!
Here's an interesting quote from Irving Kristol, who -- along with Podhoretz -- was considered one of the grandfathers of the neo-conservative movement:
"The historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be . . . to convert the Republican Party and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy."
Pardon my language here, but I would never trust these f#ckers in a million years. And some @sshole who would convert to Islam before he would even dream of putting on a military uniform (a description that fits the entire "neo-conservative" movement to a T) has no business weighing in on U.S. foreign policy under any circumstances.
If any of this makes me a DUmmy in any way, then so be it. I'll stack my conservative credentials up against anyone on this site.
:-)
They need to be surrounded on three sides to take out their nuke facility site? I don't think so.
“If they did build a bomb, what do you think they’d do with it?”
The Iranian regime has already explained that they would suffer only ‘damages’ in retaliation to a nuclear attack against Israel, whereas Israel would be annihilated. (Thus making the attack worth it).
[One of Iran’s most influential ruling clerics called on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them “damages only”.]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/593966/posts
I agree. I believe that the reason force needs to be used against Iran has less to do with their nuclear program than with the clear ACTS OF WAR they have perpetrated against us by arming and actively supporting the insurgency in Iraq. By not treating these actions as what they are, we have already emboldened the Mullahs further in their quest for nuclear weaponry.
Any action we take should be framed as retaliatory and thus punitive, instead of pre-emptive. Since they are killing our soldiers, a retaliation could be justified far more convincingly than a pre-emptive strike on their nukes, though potential nuke sites could conveniently be included as targets.
It would then be much easier for those in the region, and in the West to justify, and makes it infinitely less likely that an attack on Iran would be interfered with by others.
lol...
lol...their "site." Iran as dozens of such sites spread out throughtout the entire country. Try to stay informed.
The U.S. is in a far better tactical position to get the job done so it makes far more sense that we take care of it.
...which as I mentioned, will indeed happen.
Yeah, me too. I'm extremely busy and lazy and don't have time to hit the Google button for myself; would much prefer that you do my research for me. Thanks so much in advance.
P.S. By the way could you do some stock research for me as well? I'm wondering about my investment in high tech.
Sheesh.
In the 1930s, people laughed at Hitler’s stated ambitions as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.