The report issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency last week confirms that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will soon have their fingers on nuclear triggers — unless serious actions are taken. “The biggest threat to the United States,” a senior U.S. military official told reporters, “has come into focus and it’s Iran.”
You think? Thirty-two years ago this month, Iranian revolutionaries committed their first act of war against America: storming our embassy in Tehran and taking 52 diplomats hostage. Four years later, the regime deployed Hezbollah, its terrorist foreign legion, to slaughter 258 American Marines and diplomats in Beirut. In 1996, the FBI believes, the ayatollahs ordered the bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 U.S. airmen. Tehran has supported militias in Iraq that have killed hundreds of American soldiers. It has provided assistance to both the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Iran’s rulers have vowed that “a world without America . . . is attainable,” and “Death to America!” has for years been scrawled on Iranian missiles. Last month, law enforcement authorities revealed details of an Iranian plot to blow up a restaurant in Washington, D.C.
Advertisement
All this and more the theocrats managed while Iran has been militarily weak. Imagine what they will do once they are packing nuclear heat.
Imagine this, too: Iran goes nuclear — despite American presidents, Republican and Democratic alike, vowing that such an outcome would be “unacceptable.” Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, and other nations in the Middle East move quickly to acquire their own nukes. Over the years that follow, what do you think are the chances that one of those weapons winds up in the hands of “stateless” terrorists? Other countries will cut deals with Tehran — at America’s expense. The likelihood of a confrontation, sooner or later, between the nuclear-armed, oil-rich, global-revolutionary Islamic Republic and the “Great Satan” will rise. Or, also plausible, Americans will gradually submit to a new world order, one in which tyrants set the rules and everyone else abides by them.
The policy options available to President Obama, leaders in Congress and those running for election next year are not numerous. A quick review of what is currently on the table:
Diplomacy, outreach, and engagement: During his earliest days in office, President Obama famously told Iran’s rulers that if they will “unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.” Their fist remains firmly clenched. Anti-Americanism is a central pillar of Khomeinism, the regime’s murderous utopian ideology. What we have not done: engage with the Iranian opposition. Dissidents would benefit enormously from receiving America’s moral support openly and America’s material support covertly.
Sanctions: Passed by Congress on a broadly bipartisan basis, sanctions have cost Tehran tens of billions of dollars. This has weakened the regime — but not nearly enough. “Crippling” sanctions have been threatened but not implemented. On Tuesday, my Foundation for Defense of Democracies colleague, Mark Dubowitz, testified before the House Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense, and Foreign Operations on tougher and more creative approaches that could dramatically reduce Iran’s oil income — from which the regime derives 80 percent of its hard-currency export earnings — without roiling oil markets or further upsetting the global economy. These approaches would not require Russia or China to go along — because they will not.
This article is really nothing more than a call for O to be removed from office next year. However, that may not be soon enough. I can really see him and his cohorts doing nothing more than making a big show of standing up to Tehran. Basically, that means that the current administration will utilize its diplomatic prowess and appease, appease, appease. After 2012 it won't matter and they will then say "See, told you. Imanutjob isn't so bad."
I forgot to note that cartographers love this plan because everyone in the world will have to buy new maps to replace the ones that still have Israel on it.
This is not difficult. It is essential that we use violence to end Iranian ambitions. All alternatives to this choice are ultimately futile.
The systematic aerial destruction of Iranian military bases and assets, the destruction of their oil shipping facility and then attacks upon all of their known nuclear facilities would take only a few days. Even if only partially successful, these measures would halt Iranian nuclear and territorial ambitions cold and would lead other nations to believe that America is not to be trifled with. The mullahs might even then be overthrown.
This would require an American president with the cojones to take a risk, who cares about our survival as a nation.
While I'm at it I might as well wish for a magic pony.
Eureka! I got the solution! Obama needs to call Benjamin Netanyahu and say, Ben I need a Peace Deal NOW between Israel and the Palestinians, I don't care HOW it gets done, just get it done. In return I am going to authorize a MASSIVE US Air Strike against Iran with the goal of NOT ONLY removing their nuclear weapons capacity but Regime change. I than see the Congress changing the Constitution to allow Obama a third term, and ANOTHER shared Nobel Peace Prize with Ben.
Otherwise, our jewish friends are going to make them and other "bad guys" glow in the dark on their own.... can you spell "toothless tiger" would become our middle name should this happen??
1 million SPF lotion is available on the web, as it ammo and MRE's...be prepared..
There is yet another option that May does not list: sabotage.
What would the Iranian response be if their oil refineries and pipelines and pumping stations started to go kaboom in the night, without any tell tale sign of who was responsible? As May points out, the Regime relies on oil sales for 80% of its cash which it needs to keep the thugs on the payroll happy. Without the thugs, the Regime implodes.
How would the Regime react? We already know. The same way they reacted to Stuxnet. The same way they reacted to the death of their nuke scientists. Or the recent explosion that at the missile base that killed one of their top generals related to the nuke program. They would do nothing except rage at the Great Satan.
There is PLENTY that the U.S. could be doing (and could have and should have been doing) to take down this evil Regime. It is a failure of national leadership the likes of which we have not seen since the 1930's.
Obviously only a massive bombardment campaign, killing 1000s of Iranian civilians, causing a rallying of support to their rulers in time of war, further causing a broad regional war (likely guerrilla) that will kill 1000s more from Turkey to the Gulf to the Kashmir, and resulting in $10 a gallon gas and a world-wide Depression making the 1930s look like the 1950s ...is the "only" answer.
Obviously. I think some people get so excited about watching "war" on CNN that they don't even seriously consider the outcome. If the Iranians are so base evil and suicidal, then starting a war isn't going to change anything other than give them nuclear armed allies in the form of Putin and Hu.
North Korea has the craziest, maddest leader in the world but even he hasn't started World War 3. The mullahs are far more rational.
I do laugh that the war hawks are again citing WMDs and Al Qaeda as a justification to attack Iran. Reagan would say to them, "Well, there you go again." Reagan knew you could negotiate with the mullahs. We need this type of sanity to return to policy makers.
First let me stipulate that now there are no good options. When we should have moved militarily, we didn't. Now even if everyone agreed that we must use that option its viability is limited. When we declared that a nuclear armed Iran was 'unacceptable' that reality should have been backed by appropriate options that included the military but with the proviso that it must be used at a certain point in nuclear development. We did not.
We have a wealth of experience that sanctions don't work. However, we engaged more in wishful thinking than reality resulting in the sad state we are in today. China and Russia were never onboard to make this option viable. They still aren't.
The first assessment that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable still exists. However, we have far fewer options with significant consequences. I believe that the only viable option open is military that will result in significant adverse consequences that could have been lessened had we exercised that option sooner.
Procrastination by the West is nothing new. We saw that in the 1930s and we have the advantage of hindsight to know better. However, we have not learned from that experience and face the same consequences again. Let's hope that we are blessed with the same result depite our stupidity.
Invasion and bombing are overt acts of war. War has unpleasant consequences. If we go to war against Iran, we might "win" in the sense of generating destruction in excess of what we experience as a consequence--in the short run. The long run would entail unimaginable consequences to us as well.
Leaving aside the outrage of the so-called Arab Street, a military attack and resulting disruption in oil flows from Iran will not be welcomed by other potential antagonists such as China and Russia. What happens if they decide to intervene--not on Iran's behalf, but simply occupying the region themselves, to protect oil flows? Are we ready for that?
Our troops and the bulk of our military capabilty have been tied down by our excurion into Iraq. In the interim, there have been real concerns about our ability to respond militarily to a major crisis elsewhere as a result. Now, are we ready to commit out limited resources to a war with Iran? What happens if China decides to intitate a takeover of Taiwan while we are busy with Iran? Where do we get the troops, ships, guns and people to resist that?
An option that never seems to be discussed, probably because it is not commonly understood, is "cyberwar". Cyberwar involves hacking into and disabling the computer systems and information technology used to operate power grids and transportation systems. It is clean, quiet, secret and cheap. It is also very hard to track back to its originator.
Cyberwar does sound like the best option. Too bad it only exists in your imagination. Like the likelihood of China and Russia (together? or serially?) occupying Iran.
Who exactly identified only three options. It's not that simple.
As Israel goes, so goes the world. Collateral damage is OUR reference and not relative to extremist Islamic martyrdom. I haven't heard of an Islamic extremist not desiring martyrdom, unless they were calling the shots, and only other people--never blood family was not part of the death-dance.
This article didn't identify option FOUR: drone bombers as soon as Israel perceives a critical threat.
Israel is the only Democratic state in the region. That needs to be a major consideration as tyrany under the guise of Spiritual Musims and sharp-edged Sharia' Law moves into the region, like roaches into a B-grade restraunt. Next.....
Iran is about to acquire Iraq--after boots on the ground have been permanently put under the ground. So,
"Thank you Mr. President. You need to get your citizenship revoked as a political enemy against the U.S. You clearly do not understand Democracy---even as POTUS of the greatest Democratic Republic in the World. Mr. May has pointed to 'bright-line freedom based policy' -- and reinforced what you have done to us."
The cost of "containing" the USSR was trillions of of dollars (mostly paid by the U.S.) and millions of lives (mostly paid by others).
Evils which began with Soviet crimes plague us to this day. For instance, the dreadful state of Afghanistan; the Castro tyranny in Cuba, and its subversive influence in Latin America; the threat from North Korea.
The Iranian regime can perhaps be "contained" from openly invading and conquering its neighbors. It will be extremely difficult to "contain" Iranian subversion and terrorism against its neighbors when Iran becomes an absolute "safe house" and its regime becomes invulnerable to American force.
Most of the neighboring regimes are fragile, and not especially clean. They will have a choice: oppose Iran in return for a U.S. guarantee against invasion, and endure continual unending subversion and terrorism; or accept Iranian domination. In every Middle Eastern country there are factions which prize internal dominance over national interest; the ayatollahs will have no shortage of quislings.
