Posted on 02/07/2006 10:57:50 AM PST by Tolik
To think clearly about the looming crisis with Iran, close your eyes and imagine that youre standing outside your childrens school. Its 2:55pm, and youre chatting amiably with other parents while waiting for the 3pm bell to ring. Suddenly you see a man running toward the school, holding a hand grenade and shouting: I hate kids. I welcome death.
Now, what do you propose to do?
One option is to engage your fellow parents in a dialogue about the serious and complex questions raised by the running man with the grenade.
For instance, you might try to calculate precisely how long it will take him to reach the school. When he does reach the school, will he stop or go inside? If he does go inside, will he run toward the basement, or toward the auditorium where the third and fourth grades have been brought to watch a video? (Its probably about safe sex but what the schools teach our kids is another subject for another day.) Is the hand grenade real, or might it be a fake? If the grenade is real, does the man really know how to pull the pin? And if he does, how big will be blast radius be and whats the potential number of casualties?
And why is the man doing this? Is he really a vicious killer? Or is he a harmless but mentally disturbed individual who didnt take his medication today and slipped out of the house without being noticed by his wife? Or is this just a case of a well-meaning but very misguided protester whos mad at the Bush administration for not signing the Kyoto accords, or whos upset because dolphins are still getting caught in tuna nets? Oh, and is it possible that in addition to the hand grenade hes got a gun inside his coat pocket?
Should you try to talk with the man? Or would it be better to notify the schools principal, and perhaps suggest he call the police?
And rememberwhile you and your fellow parents debate all this, the distance between the man holding the grenade and your kids is narrowing.
The Option to Act
Your other option is to take the man down now, this minute, however you can and to sort out the mess later.
If you go for this option, its because you believe that anyone who runs toward a school with what appears to be a live grenade while shouting I hate kids. I welcome death forfeits all rights to a cautious, comprehensive inquiry about his motives and real capabilities. If it turns out that the grenade was a fake, or that the man is a harmless nut who really wouldnt hurt a fly too bad. And if the man or his family sues you or the school district for injury or wrongful death so what.
If you choose this option, its because you understand that when someone puts your childrens lives at risk, the instinct for survival trumps the analytic process. Take too long to think, and you may lose the opportunity to act and its impossible to accurately project when this line will be crossed until youre already over it.
Okay, now lets turn our attention to Iran.
The country is led by individuals who are proven, ruthless killers. Several of them most especially the countrys president, Mahmoud Amadinejad are visibly insane. They have launched huge programs to develop nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them, and Iran has both the money and talent to pull it off. They have pledged to wipe at least one country off the map Israeland they dont like us, either.
In response, our diplomats are fanning out to engage our allies in frank and comprehensive consultations about the looming, potential crisis. They are even struggling mightily to bring non-allies including France, Russia and China into the dialogue. Our State Department is cautiously optimistic that the issue will eventually be brought to the U.N. Security Council.
Meanwhile, members of Congress are demanding to know how much time we have before it will be too late to act. Just last week the Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee that in the judgment of our countrys intelligence experts, Iran probably hasnt yet built a bomb or gotten its hands on enough fissile material to build one. Over in Vienna the International Atomic Energy Agency estimates that it will be several years, at least, before Irans mullahs have a nuke.
What Can We Do?
Based on public comments by officials of the Bush Administration and of various European and Asian governments, there are four options on the table for dealing with Iran: First, do nothing since Iran wont actually have nukes for several years and hope that the mullahs really arent serious about using them. Second, engage the mullahs diplomatically in hopes of dissuading them from pursuing their present course. Third, help trigger a revolution by providing as much covert support as possible to those within Iran students and a growing range of worker organizations, for example who are already demonstrating against their hated regime. And fourth, launch a military strike on Irans nuclear facilities to destroy, or at least delay, that countrys weapons programs.
Alas, none of these options is any good. The first is feckless, and the second is hopeless. The third helping support a revolution is terrific, but even under the best possible circumstances would take a long time to bear fruit. And the fourth option taking out the nuclear facilities with military force is extraordinarily difficult to execute, runs the real risk of igniting a political explosion throughout the Moslem world, and in any case it isnt imminent.
Meanwhile, with each day that passes the distance between Irans mullahs and nuclear weapons is narrowing. And remember: Take too long to think, and you may lose the opportunity to act and its impossible to accurately project when this line will be crossed until youre already over it.
Indeed, we may already be over the line. While it may be correct, as Director Negroponte has testified, that Iran probably hasnt yet built a bomb or gotten its hands on enough fissile material to build oneit also may not be correct. Given our intelligence communitys recent track record, it would be foolhardy to place much confidence in this judgment. Generally, countries trying to build nuclear weapons succeed sooner rather than later usually to the great surprise of Western intelligence services. And isnt it possible that Iran already has a bomb or two that it bought rather than built itself? When the Soviet Union fell apart in 1991 there were the so-called loose nukes that the Soviet military wasnt able to account for. Make a list of those countries with the money and desire to get its hands on one of these weapons and Iran tops the list.
It Isnt Only Nukes
Most worrisome, while everyone in Washington is focusing on nuclear weapons, no one has uttered so much as a peep about the possibility that Iran may be developing chemical or biological weapons. These weapons are far less costly than nuclear weapons, and the technology required to develop them is more widely available. And since a cupful of anthrax or botulism is enough to kill 100,000 people, our ability to detect these weapons is zilch. So why wouldnt the mullahs in Teheran order the development of chemical and biological weapons? If they really do plan to wipe Israel or us off the map, these will do the job just as well as nukes. And if reports are true that Saddam Hussein had such weapons before the war and shipped them out to Syria and Iran before we attacked in 2003 then the mullahs already have stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.
Simply put, Irans nuclear weapons program, combined with the murderous comments of that countrys president, is the political equivalent of a man running toward your childrens school holding a hand grenade and shouting I hate kids. I welcome death. The risk of taking timeto think, to talk, to analyze, to co-ordinate with other countries is just too high. We know where Amadinejad and the mullahs work, and we ought to know where they live. (And if we dont know, the Israelis do and would be more than happy to lend a hand.) We have cruise missiles, Stealth fighters, and B-1 bombers that can fly from the US to Teheran, drop their lethal loads, then return to the US without ever landing en route. We have skilled, courageous Special Forces teams that can get themselves on the ground in Teheran quietly and fast.
The question is whether we still have within us the instinct for survival. If we do, then our only course is to act now, this minute, however we can and to take out the mullahs. Tonight.
Herbert E. Meyer served during the Reagan Administration as Special Assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence and Vice Chairman of the CIAs National Intelligence Council. His DVD on The Siege of Western Civilization has become an international best-seller.
About Herb Meyer: http://www.siegeofwesternciv.com/HerbMeyer.htm
Index of his articles posted on FR: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=HerbertEMeyer
Bad argument. The Mullahs aren't running at us with nukes. It's a subtle game, so "shoot first ask questions later" is not an obvious policy, as it is in the school-bomber example.
Recent Articles
|
Yeah, well just wait until they grab hold of one.
"Now, what do you propose to do?"
Simple. I carry concealed a Kimber 1911 .45cal. What happens in the school case is a no=brainer. I'll have to get back to you on the other problem, after some thought.
Ping for Later
Thank you
Shoot first and ask questions later.
I'm not ready to sacrifice a few thousand of my fellow Americans lives for all these "might be, could be, always a chance that" threats.
Why are we convinced deterrence won't work with Iran? I know the Muslims have that death cult thing going, but only the 18 year-olds are determined to blow themselves up. The 50 year-olds would rather sit in their comfy seats in parliment, and almost certainly take retaliation by Israel and the U.S. quite seriously.
We need to make it an official part of U.S. policy that if a country gives terrorists WMDs, that country will be held responsible for whatever the terrorists do.
The best bet is to build up a free and prosperous Iraq. Iranians will start looking across the border and saying "Hey! Why can't we have that?"
BTTT
Agreed - dumb, alarmist analogy.
Well, we know Syria is the source of a good deal of terrorism and WMDs - so, drop the big one on them and cutoff the source of ALOT of trouble...
The obvious question being: ...are we willing to take the chance?...
"It's a subtle game, so "shoot first ask questions later" is not an obvious policy, as it is in the school-bomber example."
I don't think this game is subtle. I believe that once Radical Islam has a bomb, then the game changes. Who do we attack? It is like the RATS when they told us to chase Bin Laden and hunt down Al Queada? Where? Do we just go into a country and tear apart the place looking for Al Queada?
Fact is we know Iran is building a bomb so attacking Iran is the most logical solution. We set back Iraq almost 20 years. We shouldn't hesitate to do the same with Iran.
Right, but for the wrong reason.
It isn't other WMD's (although that is a consideration)
It is about halting the global stench of Islam, and by doing away with the Mullahs and other pig farmers, it will slow them down enough to get a good bead on the next leaders heads that pop up, Moose Limbs or others.
Accurate but irrelevant. It's really hard to get those 100,000 people to quietly line up for their injections.
Any other delivery is probably at least an order of magnitude less efficient.
Well, they would make for cheap dates since they generally shun alcohol, but I still wouldn't want to take them out.
You're mixing things up.
The Mullahs die 'cause they're nuts
inciting terror.
Terrorists with nukes
die because they're nuts with nukes.
They're separate groups
but they're all targets
and the sooner they're scratched off
the sooner they're gone.
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.