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.
The 'you' was generic. Not saying you were.
Yes, i think all followers of Mohamad and his culture of convert-or-die are criminal and should be eliminated. You have a good point, but not all of Iraq is muslime.
I fully support the WOT. Pull back or inaction waiting for concensus among those who have no vision of the consequences of inaction is not an option. That is exactly what muslimes want. It's not just to defend Israel.
But if they do, then we'll blow them to smithereens.
"If they do" is too late. Standing by and letting these Islamofascists develop nuclear weapons would be unforgivable. But I agree that we're certainly not showing any signs of "invading", but we've got plenty of bombers...
Well, my only response to that is that we did not have that reaction when the Soviets got the bomb, when Pakistan got the bomb, when China got the bomb, or when North Korea got the bomb. If we did not attack then, I can't see why we'd change course now, absent an actual use of the bomb by Iran, or perhaps a clear signal that they were going to use it, and that we therefore needed to pre-empt.
I think that there are really two possible outcomes of a conventional attack on Iran: 1) failure, or 2) victory, but only at the cost of a large number of American lives.
I don't see any President choosing to go the conventional route for that reason. And we're not going to attack them with nukes just because they might get a nuke. That leaves as the only remaining strategy that we will do nothing but rattle our sabre until they actually use the bomb, and then we won't feel compelled to restrain ourselves.
The only other possibility I can see is a stealth action, such as if the bird flu suddenly became an epidemic in Iran, or maybe if they met with an "accident" where an atomic bomb apparently went off prematurely at their key nuke facility, killing most of their nuke scientists.
The majority of Iraq are Shia muslims, Iran is pretty much hallowed ground for them.
My granddaughter thinks the world should get rid of all nukes. I explained about the cold war. Horrible as they are, we need them as a powerful deterrent (the WOT enemy movers and shakers can hide out, but their supporters all can't) and we may eventually have to use them if we haven't totally wimped out by then. No thanks, keep our nukes, the more the better, hope that cool heads prevail. I don't buy this peace at any price, and if we are going to get nuked, we'd better fire some serious stuff back.
That's one of their strategies, get us in such as a way that we won't know who did it. By that time, I'm not sure I would care as I'd have a pretty good idea who didn't do it.
I don't like wars, but if we have to fight, we'd better fight to win or deliver a punch such that anybody would think twice before messing with us again.
Our social structure is so unstable, I don't know if we are going to survive anyway, but we'd better give it our best shot. Oh well, I've said enough on that.
No, not all of Iraq is Muslim, but many Muslims there support us. That is not to say they aren't being fair-weather friends and will turn on us down the line. I truly believe some appreciate what we have done for them and won't soon forget it. Their courage in the face of the insurgency should inspire us here at home. I'm not going to be consumed by hatred of them as a whole, even though I think the religion is a cancer on the planet. Too bad so many are being taken in by it.
Better no religion than that one as far as I am concerned.
Russia, spread out such as it is had some advantages and had built shelters for some of their people. We made a half-hearted attempt, and some people built their own, then it all petered out, as usual.
Um, we didn't fight the French at all in WWII.
Dustin' off my DCU's........
I understand your points, however:
1) The Soviets were already tested subscribers to M.A.D. (Cuban Missile Crisis)
2) Pakistan is checked by India, and isn't a threat to our oil supply.
3) North Korea also isn't a threat to our oil supply, and would probably vaporize Tokyo if we attacked.
4) China subscribes to M.A.D., at least as far as we can tell.
Iran is completely different. This is Hitler with a nuclear weapon, and willing to give up Tehran to fulfill an eschatolgical prohecy. The swift diplomatic condemnation of Iran by limp-wristed countries like France should be proof that this is not anything like the aforementioned situations around the globe. And if, God forbid, this clown was able to get control of Saudi oil... Do you think he didn't recognize Saddam's blunder in not taking the Saudi oil fields during the First Gulf War?
"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."
I DISAGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT. SLOBODAN MILOSOVIC WAS NOT EMBOLDENED BY THE NATO AIR STRIKES ON SERBIA, IN FACT SHORTLY AFTER THE STRIKES HE WAS TOPPLED FROM POWER BY YOUNG FREEDOM SEEKING IDEALSTS. I REMEMBER WATCHING BROADCASTS ON FOX SHOWING YOUNG SERBIANS STORMING GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS IN BELGRADE DEMANDING MILOSOVIC AND HIS HENCHMEN'S OUSTER. MAYBE I'M WRONG, BUT I THINK THE YOUTH OF IRAN MAY BE ROOTING FOR US QUIETLY.
Well, the Soviets and the Chinese were not subscribers to MAD right after they got the bomb.
I think the reason we don't attack NK is that we know that it will prompt the madman to use the bomb, which is the very thing we're trying to head off. Why did we not atack before he got it? Probably because we were afraid of taking on China.
I guess the reason we did not do anything about Pakistan is that Clinton was President.
The only thing that causes me any hesitation in my conclusion that we are not going to do anything is that we all know very clearly that if Iran gets the bomb, then Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Libya, Turkey, and half the rest of the middle east will not be far behind. I suspect that prospect may tempt us to act, but my gut still tells me we won't.
Maybe we'll get lucky and Iran will do something stupid, like attack us first. Then of course we'd respond.
War now or nuclear war later. I think the choice is obvious.
Then we should use the tactical nukes. Its either that or they nuke us.
The first army we fought in WWII was the Vichy French Army in North Africa.They didn't hold up too well and then we collided with the Germans.
Troop deaths would NOT be that high. Yes there will be fatalities as in every war. But it is better than the alternative. Economies will heal over time. However, nuclear weapons must not be allowed to get in the hands of suicidal mullahs.
Agree. And yep Persian women are absolutely lovely :)
Ah, right. I just don't normally think of a puppet government of Nazi collaborators as the French. My mistake.
But like I said in my earlier post, the same argument could have been made when the Soviets got the bomb, when China got the bomb, when NK got the bomb, when Pakistan got the bomb.
Yep. The Navy and Air Force. We will not need ground troops for a country we do not intend to occupy.
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.