Nuclear-Armed Terrorists

Four years after terrorists slaughtered 3,000 innocent Americans it should go without saying that the “international community” would not let a terrorist-sponsoring nation acquire nuclear weapons.

But it does not go without saying. On the contrary, the rulers of Iran, who subscribe to an ideology not appreciably different from Osama bin Laden's, are moving closer than ever to getting their own nukes.

And they are not bothering to disguise the uses to which the weapons may be put. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has infamously threatened to wipe Israel “off the map.”

Less well known: He promises a “world without America,” adding recently that such a goal is “attainable, and surely can be achieved.”

Europeans who hear such statements and think: “Oh well, too bad for those Israelis and Americans, but not my problem,” need to think again. “The message of the [Islamic] Revolution is global,” Ahmadeinejad also has said. “Allah willing, Islam will conquer what? It will conquer all the mountain tops of the world.”

Hassan Abbassi, “intelligence” advisor to the Iranian president, has been more specific: “We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization,” he boasted. “We must make use of everything we have at hand to strike at this front by means of our suicide operations or by means of our missiles.”

In response to all this: Nothing serious has been done. It does now appear that what British Foreign Minister Jack Straw calls Iran's “history of concealment and deception” regarding its nuclear programs finally will be referred to the U.N. Security Council. That could lead to economic sanctions against Iran.

Or not. China and Russia are both Security Council members and both enjoy lucrative trade ties with Iran. China relies on imports of Iranian oil. Russia has long been selling its nuclear expertise to the Iranian theocrats.

“If the Russians and the Chinese, for reasons that would be abominable, do not join us,” Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican, said recently, “then we will have to go with [a coalition of] the willing."

Sen. Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat, agrees, arguing that the administration needs to tell the EU-3 -- Britain, France and Germany -- that “the time has come for them to join us in imposing economic pain on Iran. Trade sanctions, freezing assets and an embargo on refined petroleum, which Iran imports, would get the Iranians' attention.”

He proposes that American diplomats begin persuading our European allies that if Iran doesn't change course immediately, ambassadors be withdrawn from Tehran, while their Iranian counterparts are sent packing.

Nelson also wants the U.S. to insist that Lebanese authorities disarm Hezbollah, the Iranian- and Syrian-backed terrorist organization that is second only to al-Qaeda in number of Americans it has murdered. An added benefit: A disarmed Hezbollah is a necessary pre-condition for full Lebanese sovereignty and freedom.

Nelson recommends, too, that the U.S. make every effort to shut down al-Manar, Hezbollah's satellite television station which broadcasts incitement to terrorism around the world day after day. Why the U.S. Treasury Department has not yet placed al-Manar on its Specially Designated Global Terrorist list – which would help choke off the financing that keeps it on the air – is a mystery.

Adopting these and other measures would isolate Iran diplomatically, cause it economic pain and weaken its primary transnational terrorist proxy.

I would add this: There should be a significant effort to assist – overtly or covertly or both – Iran's pro-freedom dissidents in their efforts to bring about regime change.

Finally, military options – particularly those aimed at destroying as many of Iran's nuclear facilities as possible – must remain on the table.

“To say under no circumstances would we exercise a military option,” McCain noted, “that would be crazy." He added: "There is only one thing worse than the United States exercising a military option -- that is a nuclear-armed Iran."

Anyone else think meaningfull sanctions are ineffective and impossible to impose? I know where this is going and it's going to be ugly. Democrats may soon get their wish of pulling out troops from Iraq.

They could may well be deploying to Iran.

I always thought that Iraq was going to be our training groung/step off point for Iran.

This is the official placard for Iran's infamous "World Without Zionism" conference. It appears they're angling for a world without America, and possibly before a world without Israel.

Never forget these images:

4 posted on 01/19/2006 10:44:35 AM PST by Dark Skies ("A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants." -- Churchill)

Since France is now threatening to use nuclear weapons, can we treat them like a terrorist nation?

5 posted on 01/19/2006 10:46:13 AM PST by Casekirchen (The Iranian mullahs did something right when they banned (Country &) Western music)

Anyone else think meaningfull sanctions are ineffective and impossible to impose?

I would imagine serious people are planning an attack at this moment...and any talk of sanctions is window dressing or diversion. Sanctions are the equivalent of telling a rabid pit-bull to behave or you will spank him with a newspaper.

6 posted on 01/19/2006 10:53:39 AM PST by Dark Skies ("A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants." -- Churchill)

IMHO, Iraq was not the end game, Iran is.

Iraq gives us a strategic air base that I don't think we will give up regardless of what the Iraq's want. It's too important, especially in light of what Turkey and Saudi Arabia did to us tactically when we struck Iraq.

Our Intel may have been shaky on Iraq, but we definitely know the plans of Iran and their allies.

I suggested to the hubby that Troops would be withdrawn from Iraq because we did not want to subject unnecessary harm by virtue of a nuclear attack. Those that will stay in Iraq will be SF, knowing what the end game is in terms of the War on Terror.

Furthermore, Afghanistan air bases are ready for action. I think we have a couple of huge ones there now. Herat and Bagram?

We are fully justified in vaporizing Iran. They want nukes? Give em nukes!!!

11 posted on 01/19/2006 1:13:31 PM PST by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestu s globus, inflammare animos)

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.