How Soon for the Iranian Nuclear Bomb?

This whole "being the President" thing is just so easy, isn't it? Why, George Bush could certainly handle the job if he just wasn't so dumb, right?

OK ...let's consider Iran. In just a few paragraph here I'll have you saying "Damn, I'm sure glad I'm not the one who has to make these decisions."

First: Iran is working toward a nuclear bomb. I don't care how many times Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talks about nuclear power plants for electricity, every sane person in this country knows that a nuclear weapon is his true goal.

Let's spend just a few moments thinking of what happens when Iran gets the bomb. There are several scenarios. A nuclear strike on Israel is one, of course. Would the West retaliate? Perhaps. Remember, though ... Ahmadinejad and his Islamic fascist pals don't really care how many of their countrymen are killed in any retaliation. They way they look at it, they're fighting and dying for Allah, and this guarantees their place in paradise. Kill infidels, or die trying to kill infidels. It make no difference. In their twisted vision of their religious duty, it's all the same.

So ... Iran makes a few nuclear weapons. They then use the porous border between the U.S. and Mexico to bring one of those bombs into the U.S. Perhaps in the well-shielded back of a minivan. They park the minivan in a garage of some ordinary house in an obscure neighborhood in some mid-sized American city. Then they conduct a nuclear test in Iran. Surprise! We have the bomb!

As the world is reacting to the Iranian nuclear test, some deranged Mullah steps up to the microphones to inform the world that there is a bomb just like the one they tested somewhere in the United States. There's another in some Western European country. The world is then informed that both of these bombs will be detonated unless certain Islamic demands are met.

What demands? Well, let's start with the removal of all U.S. and Western troops out of the Middle East. Then all Jews are told to leave Israel or face annihilation. The U.S. is told that if we dare to defend Israel, the bomb will be detonated. In short order the Islamic fascists have complete control over the entire Middle East. All moderate Arab governments will fall. The Persians of Iran will rule. All oil supplies to the Western world will be held hostage to Iranian demands.

Now ... is there anything in this scenario thus far that you think is absurd? Can you not see things playing out pretty much this way? Sure, there are as many possibilities are there are people capable of dreaming them up. Any way you look at it, Iran with a nuclear bomb isn't a warm and fuzzy thought.

Tell me, please, how that is going to work. The Islamic world sees America as weak. When George Bush first initiated the war against Radical Islam we were seen as strong and full of resolve. The Arabic world responded to that image of strength and determination. Libya immediately halted its weapons programs. Saudi Arabia started to institute reforms that called for more democratic processes. Syria was trembling in fear that American troops would not stop at its border with Iraq.

Then ... the left got rolling. Democrats' hatred of George Bush overwhelmed any resolve they may have had to defeat Islamic fascism. Islamic fascists who once feared that a dangerous and resolute America had been pushed too far suddenly saw signs of weakness. The "Bush lied - People died" campaign was in full swing, and Islamists were in full smile. Democrats were pushing for a timetable to war, a timetable that Islamic murderers would use as one for conquest.

Diplomacy? Sorry .. but we're operating from a position of weakness in any diplomatic discussions with Iran. Why, we're getting ready to give a former Iranian President president Mohammad Khatami a royal welcome to the U.S. next week? In fact, Mr. Appeasement himself, Jimmy Carter, is going to swap spit with Khatami in Washington DC! This Islamic murderer is going to be permitted to speak at the National Cathedral! All of this ... every bit ... the visit, the meeting with Carter and the speech in our National Cathedral will be viewed by Islamists as a sign of American weakness.

If you think that negotiating with Iran from a position of perceived weakness will do the trick, then go for it! Let us know how that works out for you!

Let me read to you the headlines in the world's major newspapers just a few weeks after we impose sanctions on Iraq.

* Iranian Sanctions Bring Hunger * Women and Children Suffer Under Oppressive Sanctions * Iranian Children are Dying for Lack of Medicines

As soon as we impose sanctions the left's publicity machine will crank up in perfect step with Islamic propagandists. Ahmadinejad is not above starving his own people to get images of death that can be broadcast worldwide and blamed on the Americans and their sanctions. In the meantime, Russia will make sure that the Iranian nuclear program isn't hurt. Who knows, maybe a little help will come from that strange little gargoyle in North Korea as well!

With sanctions the United States will soon be painted as a horrific monster that is set out on a course of genocide against the Iranian people. The world media will be all-too-happy to promote that image.

The simplistic solution would seem to be to just send in the military to destroy as much of Iran's nuclear infrastructure as possible. You do know, don't you, that Ahmadinejad has surrounded the Iranian nuclear development sites with as many Iranian school children and women as possible. He has taken steps to guarantee that any Israeli or U.S. strike against his nuclear program will result in the deaths of hundreds, perhaps thousands of women and children. If our planes and bombs don't kill them, then he will ... with all blame placed on America.

Remember ... there are new rules out there. While Muslims can get a pass on shooting children in the back, the United States simply cannot take any military action, no matter how grave the threat may be, if that military action would result in the death of a civilian, let alone a woman or child.

There are your options. Today the Iranian government is supposed to tell us whether or not it is going to cease it's nuclear enrichment program. Do you want to sit in the Oval Office and make the decision as to how we respond?

When Iran tells the world, probably today, to go play with itself, something will have to be done. After all, we don't want to look completely French, do we? So what will it be?

So what kind of sanctions? Real ones that will really, really hurt? Of course not. Why? Because real sanctions (like, for instance, on oil sales) would actually hurt. Instead, here are some of the "sanctions" that are likely to be proposed:

* Restrictions on the import of nuclear equipment and material. Yawn. Like that stopped North Korea.

* Measures that might restrict the travel of Iran's leaders. Like to where? The United States? I'm sure they're shaking in their boots.

* And, according to news reports, the United States would look to pressure European markets to stop lending money to Iran. Oh boy...this is sure to have Tehran shaking in their boots! There are banks in the world that would lend money to anybody.

So at the end of the day, Iran is going to defy the world, and there will be no consequences, just like the rogue terrorist state knew there wouldn't be. After all, it took 12 years of U.N. resolutions before the U.S. invaded Iraq and put Saddam Hussein in jail. Iran's just getting started.

Just as always, the U.N. is a complete joke. Aside from calls of condemnation and threats of sanctions, nothing will happen. And the Islamic terrorist beat goes on.

The dangerous era we live in is very similar to early 1939. The barbaric Nazi enemy has clearly demonstrated his intentions of global conquest. Do we continue to flounder and appease while the enemy continues arming, testing us and then attacks, or do we deny him the option of the preemptive strike - and hit hard and fast now?

While listening to John Batchelor the other night, I was introduced to the idea of 1938-ism (he's a 1938ist), 1942-ism, 1948-ism, 1972-ism, etc. After doing some reading up, I find it an interesting subject. I'm a 1938ist.

I found a website that had this to say about 1938ists:

"1938ists" believe that Iran's march toward nuclear power is the equivalent of Hitler's 1930s brinkmanship. While most '38ists still support the decision to invade Iraq, they increasingly see that struggle as the prelude to a broader regional conflict, and worry that we're engaged in Munich-esque appeasement….. If you hear someone compare Ahmadinejad to Hitler, demand a pre-emptive strike on Iran, or suggest that the Hezbollah-Israel battle is a necessary overture to a larger confrontation, you're listening to a 1938ist.

They also give examples of the other isms as well. The site can be found here.

Thank you for posting that link. After reading the info I too am in the 1938sit camp.

We can not afford to play the same UN stall games Saddam was able to manipulate for so long. Instead of waiting for Iranian unthinkable we must neutralize the entire Tehran régime in quick order.

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.