Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Iran

Don’t miss Edward Luttwak’s piece in the next issue of Commentary, where he makes a persuasive case against attacking Iran in the near term. He also makes the point I raised a while ago that Iran’s nutjob president and ruling mullahs probably want the U.S. and Israel to attack.

Discussions - 7 Comments

He’s right.

Yes, I fear that the folks in power over there actually want us to attack. My worst fear about this is:

The wild rumors that Iran has managed to purchase one (or several) nukes are true. And... they have actually gone so far as to deploy these weapons to their intended targets. The martyrdom teams have been in place for some time now, and are only awaiting the appropriate signal for them to flip a switch and achieve instant transport to paradise. One of the problems the Iranians have with this scheme is that the weapons components degrade over time (nasty effects of inherent radiation from weapons components), and therefore have a limited useful life once deployed. That having been said, I don’t truly believe the Iranians have actually gone that far... but how can we be sure?

Too many of us keep expecting the Islamist Iranians to play nice to our diplomatic initiatives. Unfortunately, they really do think differently than most of us here in the West. Also, unfortunately, we keep refusing to take them at their word, when they have been consistent between their stated positions and their actions for many, many years.


Just my $.02
DRK

If the Iranian leadership desire us to attack, then they should get their wish. Those targets should be destroyed immediately. Time isn’t our friend in this drama.

Sanctions have been tried and found wanting. Economic incentives, "sweeteners," likewise. The Chinese and the Russians haven’t any interest in seeing the United States relieved of the Tehran menace. Further attempts to work the diplomatic angle only contribute to a perception of American weakness, lack of resolve and timidity, hampering our wider war efforts.

Everything we need to know about what Tehran is doing and intending, we already know. Nothing new is going to come to light, nor in that time are we going to somehow procure Chinese assistance on the imposition of a genuine sanction regime. And even if we did procure such help, how long would that sanction regime remain vialbe.

And once that sanction regime began to break down, where should we be then, but where we are today, alone, confronting a nightmare, that most nations of the earth prefer to avert their gaze from.

We’re in a war with Tehran, they’re bleeding us daily in Iraq, they’re backing Damascus, and they’re looking to erode what we’ve been trying to establish in Iraq. They wholly own and control Hezballah, Islamic Jihad, and are slowly absorbing Hamas. Tehran is now the main party in interest behind the Palestinians.

And they’ve dropped probably over a hundred billion dollars pursuing atomic weaponry.

It’s time to go after them in strength.

Dave K., I share your anxieties about Tehran already having the bomb. But, assuming arguendo, that Tehran already has the bomb, then take a good look at their foreign policy over the last few years, and ask yourself with what sureness Iran will play their hand if they’ve their own atomic production line.

One of the things that has frankly staggered me, is the sureness, the confidence, the brazeness of Tehran’s foreign policy. Be mindful they’ve had a ring side seat for our thorough thrashing of Saddam in ’91, again in 2003, and they’ve observed closely what we accomplished in Afghanistan within weeks. And instead of being chastened and humbled by such a display of Olympian military prowess and professionalism, they’ve embarked on a proxy war against us in Afghanistan and in Iraq. When Assad was tottering in Damascus after Syria’s eviction from Lebanon, it was Tehran who stepped in, propped him up, galvanized him to crack down hard on dissidents, and thus instead of Damascus coming to terms with the West, they’ve thrown their lot in with Tehran, and are doing all they can to foment sectarian violence within Iraq. And Damascus is killing off prominent opponents in Lebanon.

During the Reagan years, El Salvador was in the midst of a raging communist insurgency, supported and sustained by Nicaragua. And El Salvador wasn’t able to make headway against it until we formed the Nicaraguan Contras. Once the Sandinistas in Nicaragua were too busy fighting for their own lives, fighting to keep their own grip on power, was El Salvador able to finally overcome their communist resistance. A similar policy we should adopt in regards to Iran.

We should go after Iran’s leadership. We should be looking to toss all of Iran into a leadership struggle. While they’re busy fighting for power in Iran, they’re ability to destabilize Lebanon and Iraq will rapidly diminish.

I notice that he estimates a space of about three years until Iran has deliverable nuclear weapons. That would be around the time Bush leaves office, actually a bit after he does. I wonder if that time frame is intended as a hint, with respect to the timing of U. S. action.

I’m of the opinion that Tehran isn’t gauging the timing of their program to coincide with our electoral season, so as to maximize the difficulty for us in formulating and executing a response. No. I don’t even think they have that much respect for us. They hold us in complete contempt; they’ve been bleeding us for decades, and we can’t find the stomach to do anything about it, other than squalidly beg them to conform their behavior to international norms.

They’re contemptuous of us, and if I were them, I’d be contemptuous of us too.

We have this warped idea that the greater our display of "restraint," the greater our display of genuine power. That doesn’t fly in the mideast, that doesn’t cut it with the fellas from the desert. They’ve peered into our Western souls, and they see a great emptiness. They deem the West ripe for plunder. And, casting your gaze at the sorry international scene, which of us is to say they are demonstrably wrong.

He’s right (assuming the nuclear analysis is correct) IF the Dems and their allies in the media can be trusted to have the necessary guts to support bombing/regime-decapitation in the face of UN and probably European opposition when the time comes and regime hasn’t changed on its own. The way much of the Dem half of the nation is now towards Bush, that is, instinctively contemptuous and mentally dug-in on Iraq being a failure, it might well be healthier for our nation if a war with Iran happened (assuming it had to happen) on the Dems’ watch, which may well commence in ’08. But again, that is only IF they can be trusted to not countenance a nuclear-armed Iran.

IF not, W faces an extremely difficult choice.

I don’t claim to know one way or the other about the Dems, but the attitudes of their base make me rather nervous.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/8393