We Must Bomb Iran, Says US Republican Guru

A senior foreign policy adviser to the Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani has urged that Iran be bombed using cruise missiles and "bunker busters" to set back Teheran’s nuclear programme by at least five years.

Iran threatens 'decisive strike' if US attacks Analysis: Iran and US in political flux US elections coverage in full The tough message at a time of crisis between the United States and Iraq was delivered by Norman Podhoretz, one of the founders of neoconservatism, who has also imparted his stark advice personally to a receptive President George W. Bush.

"None of the alternatives to military action - negotiations, sanctions, provoking an internal insurrection - can possibly work," said Mr Podhoretz.

"They’re all ways of evading the terrible choice we have to make which is to either let them get the bomb or to bomb them."

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Mr Podhoretz said he was certain that bombing raids could be successful.

"People I’ve talked to have no doubt we could set it back five or 10 years. There are those who believe we can get the underground facilities as well with these highly sophisticated bunker-busting munitions."

Although Mr Podhoretz said he did not speak for Mr Giuliani, the former New York mayor whom he briefs daily appears to have embraced at least the logic of his hard-line views.

During a visit to London last month, Mr Giuliani said Iran should be given "an absolute assurance that, if they get to the point that they are going to become a nuclear power, we will prevent them or we will set them back five or 10 years".

Mr Podhoretz said: "I was very pleased to see him say that. I was even surprised he went that far. I’m sure some of his political people were telling him to go slow ... I wouldn’t advise any candidate to come out ands say we have to bomb - it’s not a prudent thing to say at this stage of the campaign."

But Mr Podhoretz’s 77 years and his position as a pre-eminent conservative foreign policy intellectual means he can not only think the unthinkable but say the unsayable.

"My role has simply been to say what I think," he said, explaining that he takes part in weekly conference calls and is in daily email contact with the Giuliani campaign.

He is the most eminent of a clutch of uncompromisingly hawkish aides assembled by Mr Giuliani. They include Daniel Pipes, who opposes a Palestinian state and believes America should "inspire fear, not affection", and Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon official who has argued that Condoleezza Rice’s diplomacy is "dangerous" and signals American "weakness" to Teheran.

"Does Rudy agree with me?" Mr Podhoretz asked rhetorically. "I don’t know and I don’t wish to know." But he added that "Rudy’s view of the war is very similar to mine."

Mr Podhoretz’s thesis is that the war on terror is in fact World War Four and that the 42-year-long Cold War should be more properly described as World War Three.

Awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, America’s highest honour, by President George W. Bush in 2004, Mr Podhoretz later sought a rare one-on-on audience with the US commander-in-chief. They met in New York’s Waldorf Astoria Hotel in the spring.

The author of the recent World War IV: the Long Struggle Against Islamofacsism spent about 35 minutes outlining his case for air strikes against Iran as Mr Bush’s then chief adviser Karl Rove took notes.

"Whether I had any effect on him I truly don’t know but I sure tried my best to persuade him," he said.

"He was very cordial. He was warm. He listened. He occasionally asked a question as I made the case but he was truly poker faced."

Mr Podhoretz left the meeting unshaken in his belief that Mr Bush would attack Iran before he leaves office.

"The spirit of the questions was not to try to refute or contradict what I was saying. I didn’t get any negative vibes."

He said that now "the debate [over Iran] is secretly over and the people who are against military action are now preparing to make the case that we can live with an Iranian bomb".

Neither Mr Bush nor Mr Giuliani, however, would countenance Teheran acquiring a nuclear weapon and either one would authorise military action once they were convinced Iran had passed the point of no return with its uranium enrichment programme.

"Unlike a ground invasion where you’ve got to mass hundreds of thousands of troops, it takes six months and everybody knows you’re mobilising, with air strikes, we’ve got three carriers in the region and a lot of submarines," Mr Podhoretz said.

"I would say it would take five minutes. You’d wake up one morning and the strikes would have been ordered and carried out during the night. All the president has to do is say go."

“One way or the other, we are determined to
deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass
destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That
is our bottom line.”
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use
force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously
diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass
destruction program.”
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what
happens there matters a great deal here. For the
risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us
or our allies is the greatest security threat we
face.”
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction
again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“We urge you, after consulting with Congress,
and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws,
to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect
Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat
posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass
destruction programs.”
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI),
Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998

“Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on
building weapons of mass destruction and palaces
for his cronies.”
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

“There is no doubt that .. Saddam Hussein has
invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate
that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War
status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine
delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of
a licit missile program to develop longer-range
missiles that will threaten the United States and
our allies.”
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob
Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam
Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and
stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate
of the United Nations and is building weapons of
mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of
biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction
has proven impossible to deter and we should assume
that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam
Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass
destruction.”
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in
October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam
Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked
on a crash course to build up his chemical and
biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear
weapons...”
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam
Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear
weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within
the next five years ... We also should remember we
have always underestimated the progress Saddam has
made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

“He has systematically violated, over the
course of the past 11 years, every significant UN
resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any
nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.”
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be
compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has
had for a number of years, a developing capacity for
the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction.”
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec.! 8, 2002

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam
Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading
an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly
grievous threat because he is so consistently prone
to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating
America’s response to his continued deceit and his
consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction...
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real.”
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

AC didn't say he beleived "diplomacy would solve the problem".

Instead, he questioned the urgency and scope of the problem -- based on the faulty intelligence we had on Iraq. Or, at least, we think it was faulty...we can't be sure.

His position is a valid one. Before we do what's being proposed, we've got to be absolutely sure that it's necessary.

Personally, I believe that it will become necessary to take military action against Iran -- some time in the intermediate-term. But, without access to the nature (and quality) of the intelligence, we've no way of knowing that for sure.

Personally, I also disagree with AC on whether the invasion of Iraq was justified. Even in the absence of WMD, I believe it was.

Nonetheless, his position on Iran is arguable, legitimately conservative and should be respected.

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.