The Case for Bombing Iran

Commentary ^ | June, '07 | Norman Podhoretz

[T.L.Sink]

Podhoretz thoughtfully examines all the conventional pros and cons of attacking Iran. He quotes Bernard Lewis, the greatest authority of our time on the Islamic world: "MAD, mutual assured destruction, [was effective] right through the Cold War. Both sides had nuclear weapons. Neither side used them, because both sides knew the other would retaliate in kind. This will not work with a religious fanatic [like Ahmadinejad]. For him, mutual assured destruction is not a deterrent, it is an inducement. We know already that [Iran's leaders] do not give a damn about killing their own people in great numbers. We have seen it again and again. In the final scenario, and this applies all the more strongly if they kill large numbers of thir own people, they are doing them a favor. They are giving them a quick free pass to heaven and all its delights."

[potlatch]

Sometimes I feel like the ‘Great Grand-mother’ of graphics, lol.

Those are some strange carrots, lol. Night!

[FARS]

FYI & thanks.

http://noiri.blogspot.com/2007/05/eagle-cometh-in-stealth-bearing-bombs.html

You sired a new one.

[potlatch]

Ahhh, that looks very nice there FARS. devolve does excellent graphics!

Night to all, heading to bed!!

[cookcounty]

For those interested, ABC's Brian Ross is reporting that the President has authorized black ops against Iran.

But Brian has been very wrong before.

[davidlachnicht]

[Defiant]

Bump!!

[mkjessup]

Norman is full of it. Iran is a past and future ally. We should seek regime change without alienating most of the Iranian people who are on our side.

Utter nonsense.

The idea that the Iranian people are 'on our side' is absurd when one considers that the mullahs have had 28 years to brainwash the populace and purge any serious and lingering pro-American sentiment within their society, let alone within whatever passes for a 'government'.

And the extent of control and surveillance of the mullahcracy into everyday Iranian lives far exceeds even the worst excesses of the Shah's regime.

It is all well and good to promote the idea of instigating regime change on Iran by supporting those elements that oppose the mullahs, but that is nothing more than a crap shoot with no guarantee of success, and because we are looking at an impending nuclear Iran, we have to go with a sure bet, not a gamble.

The sure bet is raining destruction from the skies the likes of which Ahmadinejad and his crew have never imagined. It may well be true that the Iranians will 'rally 'round the nutcase' if U.S. bombs begin to fall, and if so - so be it.

The alternative of waiting, waiting, and waiting some more while dubious covert efforts are taken to try and destablize Iran is too risky. In fact, in addition to precisely targeted and limited air strikes on Iran's military and command infrastructure and nuclear sites, an example should be made of Iran for no other reason than they have now taken upon themselves the mantle of 'local big dawg on the block', and think they're calling the shots in the region, so to put them in their proper place, target a nuke on Qom, with Ground Zero at the Jamkaran Mosque where their mythical 'mahdi' is supposed to be hiding in a well.

Literally wipe that city from the face of the Earth, just like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If there is to be an uprising against the mullahs, that will provoke it because if their 'holiest Muslim city' is suddenly reduced to radioactive rubble, they will of course blame the United States (and they already blame us for everything so what's the difference?), but they will also blame Ahmadinejad and the mullahs for bringing down such devestation upon them.

That's the plan: Nuke Qom, use nuclear-tipped bunker busters if necessary to take out the hardened nuke sites, destroy Iran's military resources (air, naval, land) with U.S.-based plus Naval-based airpower.

30 days, and Iran will truly become what they've always sought to be: a 9th century power.

And the world can breathe a little easier, if only for a little while.

[Seadog Bytes]

Thank you!

[mad_as_he$$]

There isn’t enough testicular fortitude in the Bush admin to launch a real campaign against Iran. Not gonna happen. The Iranians will have to use a nuke that can be traced back to them and then MAYBE we might do something if it killed enough Americans.

[jveritas]

We shall see.

PS: Many on FR like to use "manly" body parts to describe the strength of will, I have my theory about those folks and it is not pretty.

[mad_as_he$$]

Well I could use other metaphors but they take more words and use more bandwidth. Would you prefer “commitment to action” or “a course for positive results”. Since W has only stood up to congress on one thing in the past five years and ONLY when he had no choice; I guess you think he has fortitude to stand up to Iran? And finally I don’t care much about what you think but I can tell you that in the ME strength is the only thing respected and they laugh their a$$es off (oops another body part) at our “weakness” and they way the WOT is being fought. They are right. With the current course of action they will win and we will loose. They are making terrorists faster than we are killing them, simple math.

[milford421]

Excellent articles...thanks.

[kabar]

The idea that the Iranian people are 'on our side' is absurd when one considers that the mullahs have had 28 years to brainwash the populace and purge any serious and lingering pro-American sentiment within their society, let alone within whatever passes for a 'government'.

That just doesn't jibe with the facts on the ground. Iran is a cauldron of dissent and opposition to the rule of the mullahs who have wrecked the economy and oppressed the society. It is the young who are leading the opposition.

Iran: Coping With The World's Highest Rate Of Brain Drain

Given enough small taps, Iran regime will crack

It is all well and good to promote the idea of instigating regime change on Iran by supporting those elements that oppose the mullahs, but that is nothing more than a crap shoot with no guarantee of success, and because we are looking at an impending nuclear Iran, we have to go with a sure bet, not a gamble.

It is more of a gamble to make a military strike that will delay but not prevent Iran eventually getting nuclear weapons. It will mobilize the population against the US and increase nationalism. The Iranians can also buy nuclear weapons whether from North Korea or maybe even Pakistan. The danger Iran poses is the provision of WMD to terrorists not an overt attack against the US or Europe. That would be national suicide.

The sure bet is raining destruction from the skies the likes of which Ahmadinejad and his crew have never imagined. It may well be true that the Iranians will 'rally 'round the nutcase' if U.S. bombs begin to fall, and if so - so be it.

If there is a large, indescriminate attack against Iran with a large amount of collateral damage, then it will be counterproductive. FYI: Ahmadinejad doesn't run Iran, the mullahs do.

The alternative of waiting, waiting, and waiting some more while dubious covert efforts are taken to try and destablize Iran is too risky. In fact, in addition to precisely targeted and limited air strikes on Iran's military and command infrastructure and nuclear sites, an example should be made of Iran for no other reason than they have now taken upon themselves the mantle of 'local big dawg on the block', and think they're calling the shots in the region, so to put them in their proper place, target a nuke on Qom, with Ground Zero at the Jamkaran Mosque where their mythical 'mahdi' is supposed to be hiding in a well.

Now you are just plain nuts. The launching of a US nuclear attack against Iran and against an important religious symbol would invite worldwide condemnation and have far reaching effects upon the world's one billion plus Muslims. And the impact on the flow of oil from the region would send the world economy into a tailspin.

[null and void]

CONGRESS YOU ARE DERELICT IN YOUR DUTY TO PROTECT MY FAMILY, MY WAY OF DOING BUSINESS, AND MY COUNTRY.

Don't be silly. It's hard work to stuff all that pork into a military spending bill, and have to re-do it all every couple months!

[null and void]

I’ll just say. Almadijinda (sp?) (I’m very tired)

It's spelled 'I'm a dim nut job'...

[null and void]

Sooooooo, what’s your theory???

[null and void]

For those interested, ABC's Brian Ross is reporting that the President has authorized black ops against Iran.

Good thing our Fourth Estate Fifth Column is keeping it a secret...

[null and void]

Now it is the summer of 2007 and if we intend to attack them then I figure we ought to should get attacking or it will be too late. See if we wait until either Hillary or Obama wins then I don't figure we would be in too preemptive a mood at the CIC level.

Iran will probably hold off until after the inauguration.

"The world" always tests a new president's resolve and mettle.

This is assuming they don't pull an Atocha on us in an attempt to queer our election.

[mkjessup]

The idea that the Iranian people are 'on our side' is absurd when one considers that the mullahs have had 28 years to brainwash the populace and purge any serious and lingering pro-American sentiment within their society, let alone within whatever passes for a 'government'.
That just doesn't jibe with the facts on the ground. Iran is a cauldron of dissent and opposition to the rule of the mullahs who have wrecked the economy and oppressed the society. It is the young who are leading the opposition.

The 'facts on the ground' are not your friend. There may be groups of disgruntled youth leading some sort of opposition, but remember that it is the 'young' that rallied behind, and continue to rally behind Ahmadinejad, who organized the Basij brigades (children serving as human mine sweepers during the Iran/Iraq War) and retains much of his political power due to the Basij.

It is all well and good to promote the idea of instigating regime change on Iran by supporting those elements that oppose the mullahs, but that is nothing more than a crap shoot with no guarantee of success, and because we are looking at an impending nuclear Iran, we have to go with a sure bet, not a gamble.
It is more of a gamble to make a military strike that will delay but not prevent Iran eventually getting nuclear weapons. It will mobilize the population against the US and increase nationalism. The Iranians can also buy nuclear weapons whether from North Korea or maybe even Pakistan. The danger Iran poses is the provision of WMD to terrorists not an overt attack against the US or Europe. That would be national suicide.

I think that we need to have more faith in the abilities of the United States Armed Forces to take down Iran, than to play 'what ifs' about what Iran may do if we do NOT attack them preemptively. As for 'national suicide', embracing the Carteresque doctrine of 'don't use military force' virtually guarantees national suicide.

The sure bet is raining destruction from the skies the likes of which Ahmadinejad and his crew have never imagined. It may well be true that the Iranians will 'rally 'round the nutcase' if U.S. bombs begin to fall, and if so - so be it.
If there is a large, indescriminate attack against Iran with a large amount of collateral damage, then it will be counterproductive. FYI: Ahmadinejad doesn't run Iran, the mullahs do.

Ahmadinejad is the mullah's mouthpiece and figurehead, but don't delude yourself: he's got some substantial political power of his own.

The alternative of waiting, waiting, and waiting some more while dubious covert efforts are taken to try and destablize Iran is too risky. In fact, in addition to precisely targeted and limited air strikes on Iran's military and command infrastructure and nuclear sites, an example should be made of Iran for no other reason than they have now taken upon themselves the mantle of 'local big dawg on the block', and think they're calling the shots in the region, so to put them in their proper place, target a nuke on Qom, with Ground Zero at the Jamkaran Mosque where their mythical 'mahdi' is supposed to be hiding in a well.
Now you are just plain nuts. The launching of a US nuclear attack against Iran and against an important religious symbol would invite worldwide condemnation and have far reaching effects upon the world's one billion plus Muslims. And the impact on the flow of oil from the region would send the world economy into a tailspin.

a.) Qom is only an 'important religious symbol' because the Islamofreaks believe it to be so. You know and I know that it is just one more fake idol of an ideological death cult.

b.) 'World-wide condemnation'? Who gives a damn? The world condemns America every day and every night for any and all perceived 'offenses' whether deserved or not. You need to stop worrying about what the rest of the world thinks about us, and start promoting the idea that the rest of the world had damn well better start worrying about what AMERICA thinks of THEM.

c.) 'far reaching effects upon the world's one billion plus Muslims', you say? That is exactly what we need to do, to create some 'far reaching effects' that will demonstrate to them that if they don't surrender (which they won't), they're gonna die, each and every last one of 'em, and they'll die at the hands of the United States military. It was radical Islam that launched this jihad against America, and so-called 'moderate' Islam failed to stop it.

(hey, you know the difference between a 'radical' Muslim and a 'moderate' Muslim? The radical Muslim will decapitate you with a rusty knife ala Nick Berg, the 'moderate' won't actually kill you, but he'll hide the rusty knife in his house until the heat dies down, lol).

d.) 'the impact on the flow of oil from the region would send the world economy into a tailspin'. Uh huh. And what do you think is going to happen when Tehran acquires even a rudimentary nuclear capability?

The bottom line is that there are nothing but bad choices before us, and if Munich taught us ANYTHING in 1938, the worst of all choices is to do nothing, and pretend that our enemies are going to choose the most optimistic scenario that we aspire to.

It's not going to happen. That's why we should have nuked Iran last week. Truman didn't worry about what the world would think of us after nuking the Japanese in 1945, and neither should we worry about it today regarding Iran.

This is an ideological struggle to the death.

Do we want to win, or do we want to die?

Choose wisely.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!