Don't Panic on Iran (Good Read)

The hardest thing in times of crisis is not to panic—- to hang on and think very hard about the options. “Don’t shoot ‘till you see the whites of their eyes” is the old phrase. It signals mental clarity, readiness to act, and also patience and calm. It is not a bad slogan for coping with today’s rise of a new Hitlerite regime, soon to be armed with nuclear weapons.

Caroline Glick, writing in the Jerusalem Post, is understandably anxious about Tehran’s constant stream of threats against Israel. In an editorial called “The fateful hour has arrived,” she sounds a Churchillian alarm.

If I were the target of Iranian nuclear threats I’d be just as nervous. When your life and the lives of your children seem in danger, we are all wired to go into instant action.

But that is precisely what the madman of the moment, Mahmoud Ahmadiinejad, is trying to accomplish: To sow fear, appeasement, and panicky reactions. This is a guy who sent thousands of young boys to blow up minefields with their own bodies during the Iran-Iraq War, deluded by a promise of eternal paradise for martyrs. He knows all about threats and intimidation. That’s how he got where he is.

Our first reaction must be to hold our fire until we pinpoint Tehran’s weak spots. In fact, the regime has some real vulnerabilities as well as a kind of mad determination to dominate the world. If the time comes to respond, it should be at a time and place of our choosing. Not Ahmadinejad’s.

That is as true for Israel as it is for the United States. Threats to destroy our two countries are hardly new. The difference, of course, is the advent of nuclear weapons that give nearby targets, like Israel and the US 5th fleet, only a few dozen seconds to respond. (The same applies to Saudi Arabia and Iran’s other neighbors, who feel scared to death).

First, production of a real nuclear weapon will take some time. If Tehran has a running cascade of thousands of uranium centrifuges it might produce a weapon very quickly. Iran has missiles, but these cannot carry the sort of low tech nuclear weapons it migth produce. Publicly available intelligence indicates the moment of real threat is still a few years off. Tehran cannot strike with nuclear weapons for some time.

Second, Israel has a formidable array of nukes, and the means to deliver them accurately. With its three missile-firing subs, it has a second strike capacity that is more than adequate. Even if Iran gets a single nuclear weapon, Israel has an estimated 200, and can produce enough to roast every Mullah in the land many times over. On the defense side, only two updated Patriot batteries may be enough to lower the chances of an Iranian missile attack. But any mad Iranian attack would justify a nuclear response.

Third, the US military have amazing conventional and nuclear capacities, as General McInerney just pointed out. The US 5th Fleet is patrolling the neighborhood, which puts US forces at risk, and on standby to respond instantly. A missile attack on Israel would instantly threaten every other neighboring countries, and indeed European countries as well.

Fourth, a constant flow of oil tankers goes through the Gulf. Every country that needs that oil has a vital stake in US naval protection. Suppliers are just as dependent as buyers. Nobody trusts Tehran to protect the Gulf—- nobody.

Fifth, there are plausible time boundaries to the nuclear threat. It will become real in two or three years, with the first Iranian nuclear weapon. It will rise over subsequent years as Tehran amasses more weapons. And it is likely to decline over a ten to twenty year period, as we have seen with equally frightening regimes during the Cold War.

Today we see China and Russia as deeply invested in international stability. We do not fear a nuclear strike from them, because we know that they know it would be instant suicide. They have become rational actors. We know that many Iranians are quite Westernized. Over time, the modernists may begin to prevail by slow degrees.

The maniacs of Tehran sound profoundly irrational. However, we have dealt with irrational-sounding regimes before, even ones armed with nukes. Early in the Cold War the USSR and Mao’s China used pretty much the same words Ahmadinejad is using today. That doesn’t make the mounting danger easy to tolerate, but it gives us grounds for long-term hope.

Sixth, we know something about Tehran’s strategy behind the provocative language. Amir Taheri has a great depth of knowledge about Tehran; writing in the London Telegraph, he sounds alarmed, as is only sensible. But he believes the mullahs are playing long-term chess, not Russian roulette.

Ahmadinejad is just the latest creature of the mullahs to make nuclear threats—- it goes all the way back to Ayatollah Khomeini, Rafsanjani, and the current Supremo, Khamenei. In reality, in the last 25 years the Iranians have made war by proxy, using terorrist groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad. The mullahs practice patience and long-term strategy. So did Mao Zedong and Khrushchev. We don’t know with complete certainty, but chances are that they will ratchet up the pressure slowly, taking their gains incrementally, rather than in a single suicidal toss of the dice. These people think long-term.

Here is a prediction. Within the next 24 months the West will come to a decision that crazy maniacs armed with nukes are not acceptable, anywhere in the world. That consensus will have the tacit consent of Arab countries, which are even more at risk than Israel – believe it or not – because they have no nuclear retaliatory capacity. As the first enriched uranium is produced in Natanz or Isfahan, actions will be taken by several nations. Many of them will be covert. At some point they will become visible.

The United States and the civilized world must seize the right moment, with the right actions.

Iran’s nuclear threat is not immediate. We must never panic or react impulsively.

Here is a prediction. Within the next 24 months the West will come to a decision that crazy maniacs armed with nukes are not acceptable, anywhere in the world. You mean the West hasn't already come to this conclusion?

That consensus will have the tacit consent of Arab countries, which are even more at risk than Israel – believe it or not – because they have no nuclear retaliatory capacity. This is a no brainer since other Arab countries have always freaked when a neighbor with military ambition grabs a video feed.

As the first enriched uranium is produced in Natanz or Isfahan, actions will be taken by several nations. Many of them will be covert. At some point they will become visible. Call me crazy, but hasn't this already happened? Weren't those Uranium Olympics we watched this last week a celebration of successfully enriching uranium?

The Amazing Kreskin can do better than this.

"As the first enriched uranium is produced in Natanz or Isfahan, actions will be taken by several nations." Obviously the author has decided that Iran has not yet produced enriched uranium, but given the Islamic penchant for lying through their teeth and believing their moon god blesses them for such behavior if they rationalize it to be 'defending Islam', I'd say that assumption is weak at best.

but you are forgetting something that has been reported here and which I believe to be true.

You are correct. I'm not sure how all that should be factored in...but I hope we have good intellegence on the ground and in the air.

"First, production of a real nuclear weapon will take some time. If Tehran has a running cascade of thousands of uranium centrifuges it might produce a weapon very quickly. Iran has missiles, but these cannot carry the sort of low tech nuclear weapons it migth produce. Publicly available intelligence indicates the moment of real threat is still a few years off. Tehran cannot strike with nuclear weapons for some time."

Unless you believe, now supported by the comments of the President of Iran, that they have been using the P-2 centrifuge for some time undetected.

B,
Like you, I feel the more immediate and realistic threat is not from huge Iranian missiles but from their terror cells. And the regime doesn't even need to produce a fission weapon.

Maybe even now it can make highly radioactive material in enough quantity to produce a "dirty bomb". They don't need the flash-bang of a nuclear reaction to kill, or to threaten Israeli cities, economic centers, or crops.

Terrorists exploding radioactive bombs...where does it end?

Rhetorical question: Why can't we get in there and create enough internal havoc to send a significant message to Iran? Is it because of the kid gloves/hamstring advocates here, or are there some other obstacles (timing, preparedness, language, etc.)

Now that's not rational and people who are like that can never be trusted.
But it is rational. The minefields get cleared and you don't waste trained soldiers doing it. It is scary rational.

It's just that the morality is Pete Singer scary. The issue is a MORAL one. Not a rationality one.

This article refers to statements by Mao, that were similar to Ahmadinejad's. I am reading the new book about Mao, and it details why he wanted to start the Korean War to chew up our military and destroy us. He wanted to fight the Korean War indefinitely and the Russians finally decided to end the war. Mao didn't care about loosing millions of his own people. He believe that destruction led to change (his kind). Had he had the ability to use nukes during the Korean War, he may have used them.

It is suicide to wait until Iran already has nukes to do something.

I think 'suicide' may not be the precise analogy. It would be more like "take the second punch."

America as a whole has completely forgotten about 9/11. Even if Israel was nuked today, the Left would scream "chance for peace!" Only when there is a smoking crater (again) will the US have the unopposed right to retaliate w/nukes on the Middle East. Though it means tens/hundreds of thousands dead this time, and areas tox'd for decades, it's the only time that a US nuke strike will again be possible, politically on the world stage and even here.

And a nuke in the ME, as so many trigger-happy mushroom-cloud-over-Mecca Freepers know, is the only thing that will get through to them (as with us).... the reality of all-out-war.

Thing is, though, a pre-emptive nuke strike for us is not possible, and we'll never have the nerve to go nuke early enough to prevent a smoking crater.

Iran already has a couple nuclear bombs that they secured from Russian and North Korea.

That would match the rhetoric. They may know they haven't a chance in hell to produce their own, so they import and then put on this ruse to get concessions without having to do a demonstration test.

In a similar vein, I think Saddam was being fooled by his generals to believe they had a clandestine WMD program ongoing.

In both cases, our CIA/NSA view is being clouded by intelligence fog. I hope they have their BS meters calibrated!

The US should go before the general assembly and basically say that within the next few days it will launch a strike against Iran's nuclear capabilities as well as their oil facilities.

American should then ask the general assembly what they would rather have, a nuclear Iran or oil from Iran.

Iran's threats are not of a strategic nature, but rather of a genocidal one (more Hitler-esque than Kruschev-esque).

I think the odds on Iran's initial strike being against the U.S. are very low, with Israel being by far the most likely target. First, they don't have the missiles to reach us. Second, a single strike against the U.S. would be horrible, but nowhere close to crippling us because we are a much vaster country. Third, given the lack of a missile, the odds on them trying to smuggle a bomb here don't seem bery good either -- at least as a first strike. Far too much risk of getting caught and giving us a well-recognized right to strike hard and take them down.

And even if they were successful, exactly what would they accomplish? They kill a few millions Americans out of a nation of 300 million. And greatly angered the most powerful country in the world on top of that. Not a very good risk/reward tradeoff for them, which is why Israel is the most likely target.

And if Israel is the most likely target, why should it be us who strikes militarily first rather than them? Not that I wouldn't support Israel in that case, but why is it up to the U.S. to take the lead rather than the leading power in the region?

That would match the rhetoric. They may know they haven't a chance in hell to produce their own, so they import and then put on this ruse to get concessions without having to do a demonstration test.

If that is true, why haven't they used them? Or are their threats just empty?

Indeed. The Iranian regime is not a collection of people with whom we can reason or whom we can expect to act rationally.

Unfortunately, the politics of this is that we will probably have to wait for a nuclear attack on Israel or the US (not clear which the mullahs will try first) before we do anything. Then, of course, the very lefties who have blamed us and held us back will blame Bush and scream for vengance until we slag the Iranians back into the Old Stone Age.

We should act boldly and promptly - rather than wait.

"Great post. And thanks, Mr. Lewis. It's never as bad as we think and even if it is, sanity can still prevail."

Do you or Mr. Lewis have any sense of history whatsoever even regarding the last 100 years? By his article, and your comment, I think not.

If that is true, why haven't they used them? Or are their threats just empty?

I think Iran is currently using them! Far from "empty threats" the West is just as worried about Iran "having" nukes as they are about using them. Merely "Having them" upsets the delicate mirage of peaceful diplomacy, and takes power away from the diplomats and the weaker nations (France, etc) who claim to be able to manage the world without war.

This gives Iran the ability to get concessions and claim "troposphere-superpower" status as the major player-hater of the real "stratosphere-superpower" players.....without raising the temperature to a million degrees anywhere.

I think the US has undone a lot of "bad" history of the last 100 years with Iraq. Instead of waiting around for a threat to materialize here, we now have a history of taking the fight to the enemy, striking first and striking hard. Preemptive military attacks are no longer unthinkable to us. And if this article is accurate, we still have a few years for Iran to think about it.

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.