Iran wants the Bomb so it can use it
Posted on 11/05/2007 1:53:50 PM PST by knighthawk
One of the many tragic consequences of the Iraq war is that it has made it harder to act against Iran. The geographical and alphabetical proximity of the two countries tempts us into false comparisons. Look at the mess the neo-cons made in Iraq, we think. We surely can't let those clots try the same failed strategy against Iran. Nor do you hear this argument only from tousled students.
Mohammed El-Baradei, who heads the International Atomic Energy Agency, says that Iraq should serve as a warning to those who want a forward policy against Teheran.
Well, I am no neo-con. I was the only leader writer on this newspaper who argued against the Iraq war. I opposed the invasion because I didn't believe that Saddam had a weapons programme. When it comes to Iran, though, there can be no doubt that the regime is developing a nuclear capability, and that it has the delivery mechanism: Shahhab-3 missiles, with a range of 1,500 miles.
Nor can there be much doubt that the reason the ayatollahs want the Bomb is so that they can use it. Look, after all, at what they are already doing. They have armed militias as far afield as the Balkans, the Caucasus and the old Silk Road Khanates.
They have supplied their Lebanese proxy, Hizbollah, with rockets. They have been implicated in the bombing of a Jewish community centre in Argentina.
Can we really be certain that, if they had the technology, they wouldn't tip some of these bombs with nuclear warheads?
It's the Buenos Aires bomb that I find most interesting. What possible strategic interest can the mullahs have had in Argentina? The answer, surely, is that the very remoteness of the target made it attractive: Teheran was flaunting its ability to strike wherever it wanted. That is what makes an Iranian bomb so frightening: we are not dealing, as we were in the Cold War, with a regime pursuing rational aims. The ayatollahs play by different rules.
They advertised this with the very first act of their revolution: the seizure of the US embassy. The sanctity of diplomatic personnel is the basis of all international relations. Even during the Second World War, when mutually antagonistic ideologies struggled to obliterate each other, legation staff were peacefully evacuated through neutral states. By violating this principle, the mullahs were sending out a deliberate signal: your notions of territorial jurisdiction mean nothing to us; we recognise a higher authority than yours.
They got away with it, too. Even while the US embassy staff were being held hostage, the Iranian mission in London was seized. We sent in the SAS, recovered the building, and handed it back to Teheran with a cheque to cover the breakages.
The ayatollahs concluded that they could have it both ways, being accorded the privileges of a sovereign state without having to reciprocate.
That set the pattern for what was to follow. Iran has never shown much respect for state sovereignty.
Like all revolutionary regimes, it has spilled out from behind its borders, seeking to replicate itself elsewhere. It has sought, in particular, to radicalise its co-religionists in the Arab world, prompting King Abdullah of Jordan to warn against a "Shia crescent" arcing from the Lebanon through Syria, Turkey and Iran to the Gulf monarchies.
Yet our response – and by "our", I mean the EU's – has been to pursue a policy of "constructive engagement" in the hope of jollying the mullahs out of their nuclear ambitions. To his credit, even Jack Straw, who was the most visible agent of that policy, and who for a while seemed to be in Teheran every other week, now accepts that it has failed.
What, though, is the alternative? Well, in between the current policy of trying to wheedle the Chinese into letting us pass UN resolutions, and the option of direct military action, there are several escalating steps. First, there is economic isolation.
By that, I don't mean the withholding of investment by a few Western firms, something which is already happening; I mean proper sanctions. The EU is easily Iran's largest trade partner and, as Malcolm Rifkind has pointed out, much of that trade is underwritten by export credit guarantees. Proper sanctions should include the seizure of assets, the freezing of accounts and travel embargoes.
Then there is the option of sponsoring internal dissent: something the Iranians are quite happy to do in other countries.
One of the sillier concessions we made to the ayatollahs during our "constructive engagement" phase was to decide that the military arm of the main opposition group, the National Council of Resistance in Iran, was a terrorist organisation. Removing that tag from this group – the People's Mujahideen of Iran – and hanging it instead on the ayatollahs might indicate that we mean business.
There are plenty of disaffected Iranians. There are monarchists, secularists, socialists and students.
There are Sunnis, who are not even allowed to build a mosque in Teheran. There are national minorities, including Azeris and Arabs, with little love for the Persian state. We could be doing far more to back democratic opposition groups, as we have done in formerly Soviet territories.
As a last resort, if nothing else works, we could apply the kind of armed siege, complete with no-fly zone and targeted air strikes, that we imposed on Iraq between the two wars. Our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan has removed two anti-Shia powers from Iran's flanks; but we now have bases from which to deploy in extremis.
Before you complain about escalation, consider the consequences of further non-escalation.
The Iranians were implicated in terrorist attacks against Western interests.
They got away with it, so they started backing the anti-British militias in Basra. When they got away with that, too, they went a stage further and kidnapped our sailors.
By any definition, the use of force against uniformed British Servicemen on patrol in the territory of an allied state is an act of war, but still the mullahs escaped any consequences.
Now, our soldiers in Helmand complain that Iran is arming the Taliban. Our non-escalation, in other words, has encouraged a good deal of escalation from the ayatollahs. Can you really be sure that, if they had the Bomb, they might not use it?
Ping
Something for the ping list.
What’s the good of having a sabre if you can’t rattle it?
Iran would use it at least once to show off.
Israel would be the prime target.
It is interesting to note Iran transfered missile tech to our hemisphere. That shouldn’t be allowed to slip by folks. If they could, they’d send a nuke to our borders just to prove what a powerful state they are.
With Iran, it’s them or the rest of the world. Who is it going to be?
Taking out the leadership might be the best option. And then let it be known, if any missiles loft from Iran, the military leadership would cease to exist within thirty days.
Rumors of Wars...
This is the same song these dorks were singing in the lead-up to Iraq.
Arrange an accident at one key part of their largest gasoline import terminal (these idiots sit on the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world, but import much of their gasoline). I am certain one of the disaffected groups mentioned would love to take credit. US disavowals all around. Watch Iran ground to a halt. THAT is a sanction they will understand.
Iran wants a nuclear bomb so that they can say...”Watch our bomb blow up the Jews.”
LOL... well, we could start on day one, but it would probably take about thirty days to get the last rat bastard.
The military leadership would cease to exist within thirty minutes..............
I don’t disagree. Read the post over yours.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1921341/posts?page=12#12
The bomb in the hands of any Islamic Fascists is a great threat to the world as they will use it. I worry not only about Iran, but that the instability in Pakistan could hand nuclear weapons to terrorists.
HEH, HEH, HEH!.............I don’t think the Mullahs are ready for the “War” to be over as quickly as they think. They have some messianic prophecy that when it starts, they’ll be saved by the Second Coming of the 12th Imam...............
What we have here is a political class so completely submerged in Cold War ideology that it cannot function competently in the post-Cold War world. But it does function, with all the stridency and self-righteousness of those who disclaim responsibility and have so far successfully avoided consequences.
This time, though, it's on their doorstep. The Shahab series does not have intercontinental range, but it might well be able to hit a Europe whose political partisans are still singing the same old, tired 1980's anthems against prudent missile defense.
With one thing I do disagree with the authors of this piece, however. Iraq is not a distraction that prevents proper action against Iran, its circumstances constitute a revelation of the reason that no such actions are likely to run the political gantlet in Europe. Iraq did not make Iran necessary, but Iran did help to make Iraq necessary, and it continues to do so.
And now The World Bank is sending $900 million to Iran! It’s too stoopid to believe!
That was probably a bad translation. It actually read, “...they’ll be raised by the 12th A-Bomb.” ;-)
LOL!!!!.............
Unfortunately, what the author proposes will not do the trick, because by the time the ratcheted restrictions and sanctions take hold, the Iranians will have already built their bomb. Even if they hadn’t yet completed it, nothing short of crushing the program would sufice, as Iran is more than determined to get a nuke.
The Russians are not our, or any Western nation’s friend even this day. When Khrushchev was beating his shoe on the table screaming that he’ll burry us, they can still be thought of as rational and predicable. The Russians were not suicidal; they were not fatalistic in their world view.
The Iranians are not rational, not predicable, and are near suicidal. They are an extremist regime, led by about 82-84 old Iranian men who in reality run all of Iran. These guys are not elected and Ahmadinejad is a puppet that says what they want him to say. He’s a mouthpiece not much unlike a TV news anchor that reads from a teleprompter. He has no power, and those who do have the reigns in their hand have remained the same for the last 27 years. Elections in Iran are meaningless since this counsel picks the candidates and who ever is chosen will say whatever they want. Accepting a world where Iran has the bomb is like accepting some drug cartel, the mob, or some crazy sect with a nuke.
At this point we are entering the “end game.” Iran is developing a nuke, period. The Europeans are largely too weak to take direct action. The burden will as usual lie on our shoulders. We are working several efforts concurrently.
• Try to pressure Iran to back down (economic/political) Europe plays an integral part in this but can’t even muster the courage nor is willing to pay the economic cost for this action collectively.
• Strike Iran to delay, reduce, and raise the stakes. Some in Europe like GB and possibly even France in this one will be with us.
• Missile defense when they do have a nuke. Despised and loathed, played with politically by some European politicians, this will be the last and if nothing changes inevitable final defense we have.
It is paramount that the delaying and attriting effort is incorporated in our national engagement plan with Iran. Despite the known political use by opposition politicians and the impotent states that lie there doing nothing, this part of the equation needs to be in the formula. The feasibility of truly stopping Iran is at this point near off the table. No one wants to take the measures required to stop Iran, which would require regime change. If Iran really wants a nuke, they can have it, and they know this. That’s why they are running full force in that direction. I’m sure when push comes to shove; Great Britain will be one of the few with the balls to be there with us. The scary thing is that if you read between the lines, the West already largely accepts a nuclear Iran and even our military strikes will only be intended to slow and reduce, not stop, and that’s a scary proposition. “Crazy people with The Bomb”
If that happens it better eliminate the entire world or they won’t have to worry about where to use the second one.
I agree.
Thanks for the ping.
They shi’ite in the woods..
Sombody que "CAPTAIN OBVIOUS"
Interestingly, the West KNOWS this to be true but, like Hitler in 1938 again refuses to DO anything about it. The last time this happened 80 MILLION pepole died, millions more were injured and Europe ended up in ashes and rubble. This time around, multiply by a factor of 10 IF the west and America continues to do nothing but TALK about the threat instead of DEALING with it.
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.