“What’s up, Hiroshi? Let’s light this candle!”
Posted on 09/28/2009 10:19:33 AM PDT by nuconvert
(excerpt)
Pressure, be it gentle or severe, will not erase that nuclear program. The choices are now what they ever were: an American or an Israeli strike, which would probably cause a substantial war, or living in a world with Iranian nuclear weapons, which may also result in war, perhaps nuclear, over a longer period of time.
(excerpt)
At the heart of the problem is not simply the nuclear program. It is the Iranian regime, a regime that has, since 1979, relentlessly waged war against the U.S. and its allies. From Buenos Aires to Herat, from Beirut to Cairo, from Baghdad to, now, Caracas, Iranian agents have done their best to disrupt and kill. Iran is militarily weak, but it is masterful at subversive war, and at the kind of high-tech guerrilla, roadside-bomb and rocket fight that Hezbollah conducted in 2006. American military cemeteries contain the bodies of hundreds, maybe thousands, of American servicemen and servicewomen slain by Iranian technology, Iranian tactics, and in some cases, Iranian operatives.
The brutality without is more than matched by the brutality within—the rape, torture and summary execution of civilians by the tens of thousands, down, quite literally, to the present day. This is a corrupt, fanatical, ruthless and unprincipled regime—unpopular, to be sure, but willing to do whatever it takes to stay in power. With such a regime, no real negotiation, based on understandings of mutual interest and respect for undertakings is possible.
It is, therefore, in the American interest to break with past policy and actively seek the overthrow of the Islamic Republic. Not by invasion, which this administration would not contemplate and could not execute, but through every instrument of U.S. power, soft more than hard.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Yeah he was. Not just on the sidelines either but one of the most vocal. The left was thrilled with Eliot when he started in on Bush. Maybe its unjust but I blame Cohen and the others on our side who did what Cohen did for Obama being in office today. I also blame them for dragging the war out and American having a casuality count higher than it should have been.
Now of that, of course, means Cohen is wrong today. I believe he is correct. But I don't trust him one inch.
Iran has the ability to mine the Strait in a VERY short period of time. UNLESS we were poised to immediately counter Irans attempt to lay mines, the damage would most assuredly be done.
The last part of your comment is the key in the face of determined American naval and air forces.
Our armed forces are a reflection of our POTUS's determination. I don't think Obama will be determined to do anything against his muslim brothers. He is bound and determined to throw Israel under the bus.
Also, the mideast under extreme tension, if not in a war, would strangle the US AND the rest of the world. Creating finincial collapse in the US, allowing Obama his tools for recreating the US in his image.
Obama is not interested in what is BEST for the US, he is interested in whats BEST for his transformation of the US.
"Soft" in the sense of creating unrest and revolution in Iran, rather than a direct invasion ("hard" power). The suggestion is actually a pretty good one -- Iran probably isn't all that far from being tipped over the edge; the main thing lacking being a serious core of well-armed revolutionaries.
There are other strategic factors that argue for it as well: Iran is destabilizing Iraq and (I think) helping the Taliban. Iraq might even agree to provide supply/training bases for an Iranian insurgency, as it'd be in their interests.
The problem, though, is that it would be up to the hapless Obama administration to create and nourish a program like that; and to be ruthless in its execution. They haven't a clue even how to start.
Alas, the comparison of Obama to Neville Chamberlain is ever more appropriate; although, it must be said, that Chamberlain was merely deluded, whereas Obama is probably mentally ill.
I would assume our side understands Iranian capabilities and would prepare for them - as in: prevent them from mining the strait.
But your are right. Hussein likely doesn’t have the courage to order the actions necessary and may even welcome enough Iranian success to push the U.S. into economic melt down and so give him an enormous crisis to use to enact his agenda.
I never imagined that the POTUS would be a threat to national security - or that such a thing would even be in question. But her we are.
The bet with the wife(Sec. of Treasury, War and all others)and I have a bet. If Israel doesn’t Jump Ugly by Thanksgiving she gets a shopping spree.
I think it will be from inside and the sea!
Make that your tag line. It's a good analogy. How much blood and when it gets spilled.
The Iranian regime has no qualms about slaughtering its own to stay in power. I’m sure Beijing has given them tips on that. The power of the Mullahs is not just political - its existential, and unless the majority of Iranian citizens turn around and reject Islam, the ultimate trump card will be the implication that they are in power by the hand of God.
Twitter ain’t gonna get it done.
Absolutely .... but Twitter was instrumental in showing the world that there's no shortage of Iranians willing to go up against the existential threat.
How to defeat Iran without war? I can only think of one way but even that tool in our bag of tricks has been thrown in the smelter.
Multiple, almost simultaneous assassinations inside Iran in a very dangerous and covert ongoing operation. It would need to be made to look like interior revolutionaries were responsible and we would have to deny deny deny. You would have to get several of the Mullahs and Aquavelvejad on the same day. Sabotage at the nuclear facilities would have to follow with in hours. Many heads of the Revolutionary Guard would have to go.
Why might this work (even though I doubt we could do it)? There is a strong anti-government movement in Iran already. They don't have the resources. But if even they thought this was coming from within, it would throw the nation into instability with in and certainly confusion. It would also encourage an uprising.
The fallout would likely still be war. But it may well end up becoming a civil war within Iran. It would certainly be bloody. There would likely be some other countries involved. But if coordinated properly, it would be the only and last alternative to all out war.
“What’s up, Hiroshi? Let’s light this candle!”
In order to prevent the mining, we would currently need subs IN the Strait and a carrier right their, prepared specifically to repel mine layers.
Obama, in order not to "offend" the muslim world, will not attack Irans nukes, and will not put the force into the IMMEDIATE area to thwart mine laying. All in the name of not trying to raise tensions. "Can't we all just get along"
It is laughable. The Europeans couldn't find their own backsides with both hands. They couldn't agree to mention Iran by name in a joint press release expressing concern, as recently as two weeks ago. Europe isn't going to do a damn thing. Some of them know this is hopelessly irresponsible and are concerned enough to bleat about it a little, purely for blame-diversion purposes. They might agree to cancel a couple of visas or restrict a checking account. But act, with force sufficient to break the Iranian regime or their physical capabilities? Not a chance in hell.
I had dinner in London with a British security type in 2005, right after the tube bombings. We talked about Iran. He said Iran wouldn't get nukes because it would be bad, therefore it would not be allowed to happen, but Americans were going about it all wrong. He thought the problem was to buy them off in a way that kept possibilities of trade open to make money on their oil. Just hopeless. I told him point-blank that Iran was going to get nuclear weapons and the world would watch and do nothing. On the news, after three minutes detailing police efforts to catch those responsible for the attacks, the BBC was wall to wall mullahs lecturing the British for being racist bigots - on the day the buses were being bombed. I swear I am not making this up.
I was right then and I'm right now. I don't like it, but there it is. If Bush with all our firepower and on an active war footing did nothing about it for six years, Obama isn't going to do jack squat. And the Iranians know it.
What will be new about the trouble Iran and its proxies make *after* we let them get nukes, on the other hand, is the next rocket volley from Lebanon will destroy half of Israel, instead of putting people in their basements for a week and scaring the livestock.
That's the whole point.
We have thousands of jet fighters, thousands of nuclear weapons, hundreds of ships, ten thousand tanks, a million men under arms trained to the highest standards, treasure to afford anything - and we won't move a muscle. Then we expect men in shirtsleeves to stand up to murderers and torturers and save *us*, from the consequences of *our* cowardice, with their own bravery and nothing else.
It is too obscene for further comment...
When I said that even the Europeans are starting to make some noise, I didn’t mean to imply that they will actually do anything. It is sad though that Sarkozy is speaking more forcefully about Iran than our own president.
The biggest problem with letting them have the bomb is that religious fanatics are not deterred by the concept of mutually assured destruction. Especially those who believe it is their moral duty to help bring about the end of the world.
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.