Syria Backs Nuclear Iran

Syria yesterday backed Iran in its nuclear confrontation with the West as their leaders met in Damascus in a defiant show of solidarity.

The Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, welcomed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and said the Iranian leader had the right to acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. In turn, Mr Ahmadinejad asserted his host's right to freedom from foreign interference.

Both men face confontations with the United Nations Security Council. The West is pushing for the International Atomic Energy Agency to refer Teheran to the council over its work on enriching uranium, which Europe and America fear is intended for use in nuclear weapons.

Mr Assad's regime is under intense scrutiny after a UN report implicated senior figures in the assassination last year of the former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri.

The meeting came as Mr Ahmadinejad's government warned the West that the world would face an oil crisis if Iran was referred to the council and sanctions followed. "One of the consequences will be the unleashing of a crisis in the oil sector and particularly a price hike," said Davoud Danesh-Jafari, the oil minister.

No, he wasn't. Because he hadn't just invaded Iraq to install a Shia-dominated government. For your idea to begin to be feasible we would have reverse course 180 degrees and install a new Sunni strongman in Iraq. Or should we just break Saddam out of his cell and put him back in his palace?

We are where we are. You're right that Iran is in a stronger position now than it was before we invaded Iraq. But let's talk about realistic moves to deal with them, not told-you-so, woulda-coulda-shoulda fantasies.

Because he hadn't just invaded Iraq to install a Shia-dominated government.

We invaded Iraq to destroy its WMDs. We never invaded in order to bring democracy, least of all a democracy that puts Shia Islamists allied with Iran in charge of the heart of the Arab world.

Treader wanted a solution to the problem, I gave him one. It's an ugly solution, but only because we've allowed it to become an ugly problem. If Patton had gone on to Russia, we could have avoided the Cold War and the threat of MAD. Despite the rhetoric, the reality is that we're settling in for a long Cold War with Iran that could have been avoided, too.

Ultimately, this war is about democracy and whether or not it can take root in Iraq, and the Middle East. Why did we do invade? To remove the threat of WMD attacks and to install a democratic regime. Because democracies don't attack other democracies and terror-producing radicalism is defused by an open political system.

Obviously Dick Cheney, Rummy and the President must have been aware that if they installed a democracy in Iraq, it would become Shia-dominated and likely to come under Iran's influence. I think they expected the insurgency to be less intense and prolonged, and that we would have more troops available to deal with Iran.

We are in a tricky situation, and there are lots of variables. I'm not sure how the endgame will play out. Military action against Iran is not off the table. Airstrikes would delay their nuclear program, and the situation in Iraq can improve.

Ultimately, we and the Israelis would have to ask ourselves, can we live with a nuclear-armed Iran? Would the Mullahs be willing to sacrifice their regime and millions of Iranian lives in exchange for the destruction of Israel, or an attack on the United States?

Would using a terrorist outfit as a proxy protect them? I doubt it. There are ways to tell who made what. We would take them out, regardless.

Ahmadinejad seems like a dangerous fanatic, but I'm not sure if he would be willing to turn all of Iran into a suicide bomb. But a nuclear-armed Iran as a regional superpower would be a disaster for us all.

"You haven't a clue what you are talking about..."

Unfortunately, you are wrong.

I find him to be very credible, as much as I don't like it.

What would be needed is to send in a crack team of commandos. Not simply to bomb the reactor. Equipment damage in that area steels an enemy's resolve as long as it has the brain trust in place. Kill all the scientists and technicians working on the bomb, and any components substantially related to it, destroy design schematics as well as destroy the equipment. That should set them back a minimum of 10-15 years...

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.