Skip to comments.Why U.S. can't live with a nuclear Iran ~ William C. Martel: The West must face facts --
Posted on 09/21/2006 12:11:46 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
IRAN'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM has displaced Iraq as America's most serious foreign-policy problem. The question is whether we can live with nuclear weapons controlled by Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the mullahs.
President Ahmadinejad said that Iran would not be deprived of its "inalienable right" to develop nuclear power, and does not seek nuclear weapons. Despite these assurances, the ominous conclusion is that Tehran is arguably producing fissile material for nuclear weapons and defying the United Nations Security Council, as recent events suggest:
On Aug. 22, Iran refused to allow inspectors from the United Nations' nuclear watchdog group, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to visit its underground uranium-enrichment site, at Natanz.
On Aug. 28, Iran opened a new heavy-water plant for producing what many U.S., British, French and German policymakers believe is fissile material for nuclear weapons.
On Aug. 31, the Security Council deadline for Iran to freeze its enrichment program ran out, thus raising the prospect of political or economic sanctions against Iran.
What should the U.S. public and leaders conclude from these events?
Iranian nuclear weapons pose a catastrophic threat to the United States and its allies.
In classic defense terms, we do not worry about an attack by Iran, because it does not possess long-range ballistic missiles and will not for years. Further, a direct attack against the United States would lead to Iran's destruction.
The United States is secure unless Iran uses nuclear weapons in a terrorist sense. Our greatest unknown is whether Iran would provide a nuclear weapon to terrorist organizations.
Most policymakers agree that that is unlikely, but that's not the same as a guarantee to the millions of Americans or Europeans who would die.
Worse, Iran's strategic intentions are alarming.
(Excerpt) Read more at projo.com ...
That important facet of Arabness that the politicians seem to be unable to grasp, or perhaps simply choose to ignore, is the role that weakness plays in the Arab world and mindset.
By extension through the imperialism of Islam, this view can be found as well throughout the Muslim world, especially in this insidious era of Wahhabist propaganda. The phenomenon of the Arab reaction to weakness, be it real or perceived, is well documented, both historically and in modern times by such scholars as Raphael Patai, Bernard Lewis, and Robert Spencer.
Yet the Arab perception of weakness in any opponent, especially a non-Muslim one, is a perception that is as palpable to Arabs as is the Western disdain for suicide bombers as a "solution".
The further Western countries go in their efforts to appease the Arab world, the more our actions are viewed as weak.
Even the late Pope John Paul II's attempts to reach out to Muslims and encourage peace between faiths were viewed by many as not only weak, but potentially threatening, as this step was seen as an attempt to put Islam on the same level as Christianity and even Judaism.
Muslims have missed the core teachings of Christianity, in fact, since the days of Muhammad, who (in his "revelations") rejected the ideas not only of God as Trinity, but of God as being so merciful as to send and sacrifice Jesus for mankind.
This act of love which is central to the Christian faith was rejected by Muhammad, even though Jesus was not.
Such capitulation to the Romans is frequently argued against by Muslims, many of whom argue that if Jesus (Issa to Muslims) really was the Son of God, he most certainly would not have given himself over for crucifiction, but would have vanquished the Romans instead.
If push comes to shove,Israel will throw everything she has at Iran regardless of how vigorously the US,Europe or anyone else might object.
So, what is it, Muslims? Either deny Him completely, or accept Him completely.
We need to listen to Iran's own internal communications, watch their actions, and then take them at their word.
Put another way, why would a country with a tiny industrial base and plenty of cheap domestic energy sources focus a majority of it's resources on developing nuclear power, if not to weaponize it? And, after diverting so much of it's country's resources to making a nuclear weapon, why would anyone believe that they would not use it?
Iran's game is intimidation by threat, however her end game is to win by force. In today's world, the only real "equalizer" when you lack power-projection capabilities is asymmetrical warfare and NBC (or WMD) weapon capabilities (i.e. a bunch of terrorists with nuc or bio weapons in their knapsacks). Iran has already indicated as much, i.e. that if the U.S. moves against it Iran is ready to activate terror cells within the U.S.A. to retaliate.
We need to positively defeat Iran, i.e. Iraq 10x over, without the "nation building" aspects. We will have to kill a lot of Iranians before the Iranian (and ultimately Muslim) threat is neutralized, there's just no way around it. They have a high tolerance for death, because they value life so little. I'm not saying that in a eschatological way, i.e. that the value heaven over this world (as they of course claim), but that life to Muslim is cheap. They just don't have the "Christian" attitude that the West takes for granted about the value of individual lives. They're willing lose a few million souls for ultimate Islamic victory, and equally willing to kill a 100 million non-Islamic souls for the same goal.
My solution is simple. Destroy Iran's oil terminals, bomb her oil production facilities, destroy her Naval assets (including the Silkworms) to secure the Straits of Hormuz, methodically bomb the Nuclear facilities that we know about, plus other infrastructure like water and power, and wait for them to starve or surrender. No one in Iran (including the Mullah's) will support their little Hitler when they have nothing to eat or drink but crude oil. And trust me, the so-called undefeatable worldwide Islamic radical movement will evaporate just as Nasser did in Egypt; Arabs and Persians support winners, not losers.
There is a 6th option....Nuke them first!
No, no, no. The Iranian mullahs of the Religion of Peace have said that they intend to use their nuclear weapons peacefully.
Doies there exist an identifiable, definable Arab culture, identity, worldview, approach to life and others, independent of, or separate from the Muslim religion?
Arab and Muslim seem to be names used and though they are interchangeable, culturally and functionally the same. But I believe an Arab people existed pre-Muhammed, and many present-day Arabs are not Muslims. I suppose the controlling truth is that in every Arab society (country) of the present time the Muslim worldview dominates. N'est ce pas?
Imagine some future date when a cartoonist in Portugal draws a cartoon of Mohammed... and Iran's mullahs, while having one of the usual tizzy fits, nukes the Iberian peninsula.
So we should sit on our hands and do nothing till then ????
BTW ... I might add .. they don't really know what Iran has or doesn't have because the Lunatic refuses to let the UN in to see
Kind of reminds me of North Korea
Nuke the nuclear facilities of Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea. Nuke Waziristan where OBL is supposedly hiding.
Display the wrath of the world's only superpower.
If you're accused daily of being the world's biggest terrorist, then be the world's biggest terrorist. They accuse America of acting unilaterally, so show them what acting unilaterally really means.
This will be America's version of Vlad Dracul's 20,000 impaled corpses.
If being nice gets America nowhere, it's time to stop being nice.
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.