Posted on 09/28/2004 6:01:55 AM PDT by 68skylark
Caroline Glick argues in the Sept 23 edition of the "Jerusalem Post" that the sole remaining hope of preventing the Islamic Republic of Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is to put the ball in the air and hope for a miracle basket, an act of desperation that would rank with Jerry West's 60-foot buzzer beater in the 1970 NBA playoffs.
Iran this week summarily rejected the latest call by the International Atomic Energy Agency to cease all its uranium enrichment programs. Speaking at a military parade on Tuesday, where Iran's surface-to-surface Shihab-3 ballistic missiles earmarked "Jerusalem" were on prominent display, Iranian President Muhammad Khatami defied the IAEA, saying: "We will continue along our path [of uranium enrichment] even if it leads to an end to international supervision."
US and European sources involved in tracking the Iranian nuclear program have made clear in recent weeks that Iran is between four and six months away from nuclear "break-out" capacity. This means that in the next four to six months Iran will have the nuclear fuel cycle complete, and will be able to independently construct nuclear bombs whenever it wishes. More conservative estimates have spoken of 12-24 months.
Glick did not believe that any new diplomatic initiative would materially delay the breakout. In order to illustrate the futility of further diplomacy, she focuses upon the proposals of veteran arms control negotiator Henry Solkoski who argued that diplomacy was the only option left because the United States was too preoccupied in Iraq to take on Iran and because the Islamic Republic's 15 uranium enrichment facilities were too hardened and dispersed to be successfully attacked. With force ruled out diplomacy remained by exclusion. But the cards left in the hand are not necessarily winning ones, as Michael Ledeen points out. Diplomacy had repeatedly failed to stop or even slow Iran's nuclear program. There was no reason for it to succeed with Iraq so close to its ultimate goal.
"This is more of the same, however you want to define it. We're not making any progress. The UN and the Europeans keep saying the same thing every three months. You wait every three months and eventually Iran has an atomic bomb. Then you don't need to worry about this failed policy."
Ledeen also believes that even if the Iranian program were to be referred to the Security Council, it is unlikely that sanctions on oil or natural gas – the only ones that might have an impact on the regime in Teheran – would be imposed. And even if they were, he says, "oil is fungible. Saddam proved oil sanctions don't really work. So who are we kidding?"
By applying the same exclusionary logic as Solkoski Glick arrives at the diametrically opposite conclusion. She counsels: don't dribble out the clock three points down with five seconds to go. Go for the 60-foot jumpshot. From the "Jerusalem Post" archives:
Sokolski states at the outset that the option of a military strike against Iran must be dismissed because Iran's program is too far flung and its sites are too hardened. That is, since it may well be impossible to hit every nuclear target, it is not worth hitting any of them. As well, Iranian leaders daily threaten that any military action taken against Iran will be responded to in a devastating manner.
Yet, were an air strike on Iran to take out say, only 10 of 15 sites, it would still severely retard the Iranian nuclear effort, buying the West time to formulate and enact either a policy of engagement from a position of strength, or a policy of regime change with the requisite credibility among regime opponents that such a strike would inspire.
Heady stuff. But what Glick does not say -- though it would perforce follow -- is that any strike would make it logically necessary to subsequently topple the Teheran regime by any means necessary. A second Osirak would prove to the Mullahs that they would have to use any nuclear weapons that came to hand before they lost it, a danger avertable only by eliminating the Mullahs. Bombing sites in the hope of delay would be like swimming into an underwater tunnel on a lungful of air hoping for an exit on the far side. But the only man who could turn the card was maddeningly ambiguous. President Bush, in an interview on Fox News on Sept 27, reiterated his determination to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons in the most uninformative manner possible.
"My hope is that we can solve this diplomatically," Bush tells Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" in the first part of a three-part interview to begin airing tonight. "All options are on the table, of course, in any situation," Bush said. "But diplomacy is the first option."
What President Bush will do with the clock running out is anyone's guess. But it's three points down and five seconds to go.
The link is here: The Closing Door.
Good article. The mullahs are so close to their nuclear dream, they'll use "diplomacy" as the perfect tool to stall military action against its facilities. Israel may be forced to take no action and hope that the MAD scenario becomes the umbrella against a nuclear attack from Iran, with America as guarantor of Iran's destruction should they make that mistake.
Islam can be a death cult. I don't think we want to rely on MAD to keep them from launching their nukes.
Nothing will happen before the election unless the Iranians precipitate it.
There is a good chance we will have to wage war against a nuclear-armed Iran.
Iran has always been the main target.
Iran will not be able to use its nucelar weapons. The missiles will be destroyed while fueling in their silos, even if it takes nukes to do it.
The resulting war will be 4X as big as Iraq. The U.S. military spent the last couple of years building enough bombs for this war, plus Korea if needed. Not a small job.
No action against Iran would be possible without U.S. infantry and armor on the ground in Iraq.
I don't think Israel needs nuclear guarantees from the US. It can threaten Iran with MAD on its own.
"There was no reason for it to succeed with Iraq so close to its ultimate goal."
Iraq??
"What President Bush will do with the clock running out is anyone's guess."
After the quote in the article above, W said to O'Reilly flat out that Iran will not be allowed to get the bomb.
Israel took out an Islamic country's developing nuclear capability several years ago. I can't remember which country it was, but it was awhile back. Why couldn't they do it again?
Begone troll.
And, in case anyone else is unclear on the concept:
A tiny fraction of "Chirstians" such as "Christian Identity" follow a racist and neofascist ideology. They are uniformly rejected by mainstream Christians.
By contrast, MOST Moslems sympathize with and support Islamic radicals. Islam is a cancer on the Earth.
Nukes don't have to be mounted to a missle!! That is part of the problem with Iran. It is a large country with an Air Force, Heavy Artillery, Special Operation Troops, ect. The actuall weapons are most likely built and deployed, requiring only weaponized material.
The known "hard sites" are just decoys. The Iranians have had 3 years to prepare for an attack. They know for a fact that if it is not the U.S. it will be Israel.
So now it comes down to who jumps first.
Absurd in the extreme. If you can't recognize the difference between the mullochracy in Iran and the Administration of George W. Bush then you truly don't belong in this forum. You have TROLL written all over you. The reason the Iranians can't be trusted with nukes is that it is their stated aim to use them against Israel. It is their stated aim to use them offensively. Is that too complicated for you?
1. Iran has repeatedly threatened to destroy Israel and the US.
2. Iran actively supports many terrorist networks to wage a direct and a proxy war.
3. A Methodist, is hardly a fundamentalist.
It is not a Mideastern problem, nor an Islamic problem. It is a terrorist state problem. North Korea also fits the bill on this. It is neither a Mideastern nor an Islamic State.
I didn't catch that. Looks like Wretchard made a typo.
That's stupid. If they have 15 sites and we succeed in knocking out 7, that means there is 8 sites left for ANOTHER STRIKE. And nothing sends a message like JDAMs and Bunker Busters.
Here's a question: Why is it necessary to knock out all of the nuke sites at one time? If diplomacy isn't working then destroy 2 sites every day until either the mullahs agree to shut them down or all the sites are destroyed. If this isn't a case for the Bush Doctrine I don't know what is.
It's hard to believe anyone actually supports an Iranian nuke, the way you claim you do. I don't think you actually support it -- I think you're just here to peddle some anti-American feelings.
Well, I think Wretchard offers the reply to your question. He argues that once the first site is hit, there's no going back -- we have to topple the government in Iran. You propose hitting them hard enough to get some kind of agreement from the government and I don't think that will work. They'll "agree" to anything to stop the bombing, then get right back to work on their nukes with renewed energy and renewed support from their people -- and use their bombs once they've got them.
Even if you don't agree with that logic, I think your proposal raises other concerns also. For example, we need an element of surprise if small-scale strikes are going to work. But if we telegraph our punches before we strike, we'll need thousands upon thousands of sorties to suppress their air defense systems.
Wretchard says that time for negotiation is closing. We might need to make an "all or nothing" choice, before we let the Iranians make the choice for us.
First things first, it was Iraq that had a nuclear facility that Israel bombed several years back. Also, there was a typo in the article where Iraq is mentioned as being close to its goal when I think the author meant Iran.
Now to the good stuff, Iran has got to be next on the list. No civilized country would write "Jerusalem" on their missiles and hope to join the nuclear club without some form of resistance. The problems with Iran are still to be laid at the feet of President Carter. This is unfinished business.
I personally think Jimmy Carter has a helluva nerve offering social criticism now when he had a pretext for war in 1979 and didn't have the brass to deal with the mullahs then. He should sit down and shut up. Quite frankly these are Carter's chickens coming home to roost.
Further, any Jew in the United States who votes for John Kerry and his sophisticated brand of Euro-appeasement will have blood on their hands should Iran finish their bomb and destroy Tel Aviv with it...and from what I hear, most of our New York reformed friends are planning to do just that.
Finally, John Kerry does have the resolve to fight Iran but only after a suitable pretext. His election will be seen as a green light to those who would maneuver against the United States. I believe, should Mr. Kerry be elected in November, that there is a good possibility that over 100,000 additional people will have to die to give Mr. Kerry the pretext to do anything pro-active. In the end, we will have to do exactly what Mr. Bush and Mr. Chenney would do without the carnage as justification.
The question is: "Is that option more civilized or less?"
That's what I was afraid of in the first place. Trying to topple the Iranian mullah's is a tall order and I think it is beyond our current capabilities for our military. Our troops are stretched as it is with Iraq and Iran does not fit the Afghanistan model. What options do we have when the talking stops?
You can look at it in two ways:
1. It's 4X the size of Iraq.
2. It's one Trident sub in under 45 minutes.
there is no doubt Iran could be militarily defeated, in a few months at most. And if they try to use their nukes, it will be over in minutes.
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.