Santorum: Iran is 'enemy of our generation'...("no nuclear Iran -- There is no option here")

HARRISBURG -- Islamic fascism is the "greatest threat we'll ever face," and Iran and its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, are the driving forces behind a movement bent on destroying the United States, Sen. Rick Santorum said Monday. He said America needs to aggressively provide access to its oil reserves to decrease reliance on Middle East supplies.

In a speech to the Pennsylvania Press Club, the Penn Hills Republican portrayed Iran as a country intent on getting nuclear weapons.

"The principal leader of this Islamic fascist movement is Iran," Santorum said. "I believe this is the greatest enemy we will ever face. This is the enemy of our generation. It is the challenge of our time. And yet, we tend to play politics with it here in America -- sadly."

Santorum is seeking re-election to a third six-year term. He is trailing Democratic state Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr. in polls.

"We cannot have a nuclear Iran -- we cannot," Santorum said. "There is no option here. A nuclear Iran changes the world forever. The life you lead today is not the life you'll lead a day after Iran gets a nuclear bomb."

Santorum "clearly thinks it is better for him to talk about this than to talk about Iraq or gas prices," said Jack Treadway, a political science professor at Kutztown State University in Berks County.

Thomas Baldino, a political science professor at Wilkes University in Wilkes-Barre, agreed that Santorum is trying to create a diversion from issues such as the war in Iraq, which is divisive and unpopular in polls. His rhetoric borders on "fear-mongering," Baldino said.

It's not good for any additional nations to obtain nuclear weapons. There are already too many nuclear weapons and too much weapons-grade fissile material in the world. The best situation would be if only the true democracies in the world had nuclear weapons, because democracies have the best nuclear security and the greatest restraint about the use of nuclear weapons. But as a practical matter, Russia, China, and Pakistan already have nuclear weapons and once a nation obtains them it is almost impossible to take them away without a nuclear war. So the nuclear threat from those countries already exists and we can't eliminate that threat, but the existence of this theat doesn't justify extending that threat to more countries.

Iran would be a particularly dangerous country if it obtains nuclear weapons because many people in Iran have a strong belief in martyrdom and top Iranian leaders have made some statements in support of the idea of national martyrdom. So deterrence through mutually assured destruction will not necessarily work with Iran, and there lies the greatest danger with Iran.

If Iran is allowed to build those first few nuclear weapons, then the cost of stopping them from building a large nuclear arsenal increases exponentially. If they get those first few nukes, then it would take a nuclear war to stop them from building a huge nuclear arsenal that directly threatens the survival of the US and Europe. It's difficult to imagine Western leaders making a decision to have a nuclear war with Iran, so if Iran gains any nuclear weapons then they will immediately be a future theat to the survival of the United States. This is why Bush, Cheney, Blair, Merkel, other Western leaders, and Israel will not allow Iran to build nuclear weapons under any circumstances.

This may raise the question about why Pakistan was able to build nukes. I believe the answer for why this happened is that the US has much more influence in Pakistan than in Iran and the US and Pakistan are watching their nuclear weapons like hawks to make sure they don't fall into the wrong hands. The Pakistani military and the Pentagon probably also have an emergency plan to deal with a fundamentalist revolution in Pakistan and prevent revolutionaries from seizing the nuclear weapons. There's no way for us to provide nuclear security and do the same thing in Iran, because thanks to peanut-head we have little influence inside Iran at this time. So if Iran builds a few nukes, then they would become a huge threat to continue building a large nuclear arsenal and ship-launched cruise missiles that could deliver those nuclear weapons to American cities in a devastating nuclear first strike.

In conclusion, Iranian nuclear weapons aren't going to happen while Bush is President and I don't think he will hand this situation off unresolved to the next President. So get ready, the next 18 months are likely to be very eventful in Iran.

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.