Posted on 01/26/2006 2:38:37 PM PST by Dark Skies
THE UNIMAGINABLE but ultimately inescapable truth is that we are going to have to get ready for war with Iran. Being of a free-speaking, free-thinking disposition, we generally find in the West that hand-wringing, finger-pointing and second-guessing come more easily to us than cold, strategic thinking. Confronted with nightmarish perils we instinctively choose to seize the opportunity to blame each other, cursing our domestic opponents for the situation they’ve put us in.
The rapidly intensifying crisis with regard to Iran exemplifies the phenomenon. On the right, it is said that the decision to let the Europeans play nuclear footsie with the mullahs in Iran for more than two years was a terrible blunder. Pacifist evasion is what the world has come to expect from continental Europe, but the decision by Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, to become an enabler to their procrastinations was of a different order of strategic error. An emboldened Tehran seized the chance to play them all along while advancing its ambitions in great leaps.
On the left the hands are being wrung over Iraq. It is argued that the decision to invade the wrong country has made our situation intolerably worse. Iran was always the bigger threat. While we were chasing phantom nuclear weapons in Mesopotamia, next door Iran was busy building real ones. Now we are enfeebled, militarily and politically, our diplomatic tools blunted beyond repair by the errors in Iraq.
I tend to side more with the former crowd (though let it not be said that the latter do not have a point) but it is important for all of us to understand that this debate is now for the birds. All that matters now is what we do.
The unavoidable reality is that we now need urgently to steel ourselves to the ugly probability that diplomacy will not now suffice: one or way or another, unconscionable acts of war may now be unavoidable.
Those who say war is unthinkable are right. Military strikes, even limited, targeted and accurate ones, will have devastating consequences for the region and for the world. They will, quite probably entrench and harden the Iranian regime. Even the young, hopeful democrats who despise their theocratic rulers and crave the freedoms of the West will pause at the sight of their country burnt and humiliated by the infidels.
A war, even a limited one, will almost certainly raise oil prices to recession-inducing levels, as Iran cuts itself off from global markets. The loss of Iranian supply and the already stretched nature of production in the Arab world and elsewhere means prices of $150 per barrel are easily imaginable. Military strikes will foster more violence in the Middle East, strengthen the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan, fuel anti-Western sentiment among Muslims everywhere and encourage more terrorism against us at home.
All true. All fearfully powerful arguments against the use of the military option. But multiplied together, squared, and then cubed, the weight of these arguments does not come close to matching the case for us to stop, by whatever means may be necessary, Iran from becoming a nuclear power.
If Iran gets safely and unmolested to nuclear status, it will be a threshold moment in the history of the world, up there with the Bolshevik Revolution and the coming of Hitler. What the country itself may do with those weapons, given its pledges, its recent history and its strategic objectives with regard to the US, Israel and their allies, is well known. We can reasonably assume that the refusal of the current Iranian leadership to accept the Holocaust as historical fact is simply a recognition of their own plans to redefine the notion as soon as they get a chance (“Now this is what we call a holocaust”). But this threat is only, incredibly, a relatively small part of the problem.
If Iran goes nuclear, it will demonstrate conclusively that even the world’s greatest superpower, unrivalled militarily, under a leadership of proven willingness to take bold military steps, could not stop a country as destabilising as Iran from achieving its nuclear ambitions.
No country in a region that is so riven by religious and ethnic hatreds will feel safe from the new regional superpower. No country in the region will be confident that the US and its allies will be able or willing to protect them from a nuclear strike by Iran. Nor will any regional power fear that the US and its allies will act to prevent them from emulating Iran. Say hello to a nuclear Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia.
Iran, of course, secure now behind its nuclear wall, will surely step up its campaign of terror around the world. It will become even more of a magnet and haven for terrorists. The terror training grounds of Afghanistan were always vulnerable if the West had the resolve. Protected by a nuclear-missile-owning state, Iranian camps will become impregnable.
And the kind of society we live in and cherish in the West, a long way from Tehran or Damascus, will change beyond recognition. We balk now at intrusive government measures to tap our phones or stop us saying incendiary things in mosques. Imagine how much more our freedoms will be curtailed if our governments fear we are just one telephone call or e-mail, one plane journey or truckload away from another Hiroshima.
Something short of military action may yet prevail on Iran. Perhaps sanctions will turn their leadership from its doomsday ambitions. Perhaps Russia can somehow be persuaded to give them an incentive to think again. But we can’t count on this optimistic scenario now. And so we must ready ourselves for what may be the unthinkable necessity.
Because in the end, preparation for war, by which I mean not military feasibility planning, or political and diplomatic manoeuvres but a psychological readiness, a personal willingness on all our parts to bear the terrible burdens that it will surely impose, may be our last real chance to ensure that we can avoid one.
Do we have a treaty with them? We can't use that as a sole excuse to go to war with Iran. That article wasn't about that, but what will they tell us why WE have to do it?
That's my gut reaction today. If other countries won't lend significant support. Forget it. Take care of business at home.
Many years ago said the big war would be fought over the strait of Hormuz.
"I think if its a stand up fight it will be over in about ten minutes!!!"
No it won't. How many teams do you think they have in this country? We'll get hit here for sure. Iran isn't like Iraq, I don't think they'll be giving up that easy.
Once Iran masters manufacture of nucs, tactical or strategic, do you think they will not disperse that technology to other groups? Then together attempt to muggle them into the 'Big Satan', or anchor them off-shore?
No, I'm just suggesting the other poster made a point. No, they can get one into the US maybe, probably, it depends.
Secure the borders as best we can first, then I'll talk going to war with Iran. It's just going to get more Muslims mad at us.
We also have to worry about Pakistan and France. If the Muslims get ahold of their nukes, it's a threat. Iran is a threat. Hamas is a threat. North Korea is probably a threat. China could be a threat. Who knows what Russia would do? I'm looking at things long range.
Let's be realistic. This could turn into a conflagration. If we aren't going to use all we've got, forget it. Fighting these insurgent wars at our troop strength levels is not going to work.
What are we going to do in the next twenty years every time somebody is a threat? We have to keep our heads.
Whether we go to war with Iran or not, somebody could get a few nukes over the border. If not Iran, somebody else. It's too early to call it.
My mind's not made up either way; I'm just not keen on rushing into another country unilaterally if the rest of the free world and the Dems are going to make political hay out of it. Which they will do just like they have done with Iraq.
Interesting. I've read all the way to post # 171 wondering if anybody would remember the Chinese and where they fit in all of this. Took a long time, but you're the only one who got there, Thunder.
Kerry wanted to nix them per his filibusters during the election, but to hear Col. Hunt (I think it was Hunt) last week we have learned well from bombing Iraq and will be much better when we go after Iran.
Someone was saying the very same thing to Michael Savage Monday evening.
"This impacts the operational forces available for iran i assume."
BS - We have less than 10% of our ready & active troops in Iraq. We are far from stretched thin as the liberal MSM is pushing in the news these days.
I expect you'll be correct. It will be next to impossible to keep the strait open,closing it will be the only way Iran can get the other oil producing states oil off the market. Then, they'll go after our domestic supplies, the SPR, refineries, piplines and etc.
We can reduce the impact of that plan by each of us having our own private small supply of gasoline. I have about 100 gallons on hand.
Many years ago NIXON said the big war would be fought over the strait of Hormuz.
Forgot Nixon.
"In other words, we have to fix the problem Jimmy Carter caused."
I'm glad you mentioned this point, which should be repeated over and over again; this is the fault of that inept hypocritical fool Jimmy Carter, contender with Bill Clinton for the title of the worst US president of modern times.
And no, domestic blame games don't change anything. War is up to Iran, not us. They force it, it happens, as sure as if they attacked us directly. It only takes one side to start a war.
You live in a world with dangerous crazy people who want wars and don't try to avoid them. You always have, and you always will, and so will your children's children. Deal already.
The thing to do is make sure we win.
Time for stocking up again.
It was inevitable that they both had to be taken out. It was only a question of which first. And, if you believe as I do, that Bush firmly believed that Saddam had WMD, Iraq was the honestly perceived more immediate threat. It was a good call under the circumstances. Look at it this way. We now have a nucleus of battle-hardened troops, but how is the nation's backbone?
how many soldiers are in iraq? What are the total *deployable forces* available?
"I can't see us invading a country like Iran with conventional forces. Hundreds of thousands of US soldiers would die, and would cost trillions of dollars. The price of oil would shoot up to $200 a barrel."
Huh??? - maybe you need a new screen name. Hundreds of thousands of US soldiers would die??? Balderdash! This was not a 'brilliant' statement on your part. The # would be about the same as Iraq, maybe less.
I did not say we'd lose. I just said it would be very costly in lives. There is no question about that in my mind. That's why the US is steering clear of military engagement with Iran.
Of course, you'll never hear us admit it.
If we ever do get to a point of considering an invasion, though, I predict you will see some Pentagon projections of casualties that will make your eyes pop. They are going to want to say "we warned you."
I feel the same way sometimes.
There are folks on FR who will tell you none of those things will happen, though darned if I know where they are buying their geopolitical crystal ball telling them exactly what iran can and/or will do.
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.