Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

We've Been Warned ^ | October 14, 2011 | Cliff May

Posted on 10/14/2011 8:22:26 AM PDT by Kaslin

Ayatollah Khomeini, leader of Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, had a saying: “The Americans cannot do a damned thing.” Tehran has tested that proposition time and again – conspiring, over three decades, to kill Americans in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Afghanistan.

Now we have learned of an audacious plot to launch terrorist attacks on American soil. One hesitates to imagine the consequences if, after this, we allow Khomeini’s heirs to acquire nuclear weapons. No one will be able to say we were not warned.

Lessons? Short term, Iran must be made to pay a price. The sanctions implemented so far have been only a shot across the bow. There is much more that can be done to isolate Iran economically and diplomatically. In addition, the millions of Iranians who oppose the theocratic regime should be supported and empowered. And there are other measures, more painful, that can be taken. We need to make clear that they are very much on the table.

Longer term, we need to finally recognize that Iran and other self-proclaimed jihadi regimes and groups are waging a war – a real war, not a metaphoric war. In response, America’s economic policies must become national security policies. As Bernie Marcus, the entrepreneur who founded the Home Depot recently said: “If the country is not strong economically, we can’t be strong period.”

Energy policy also must become national security policy. Right now, 97 percent of all transportation systems in the United States can run only on petroleum-based products. That makes oil a strategic community, one whose price is manipulated by OPEC, a conspiracy in restraint of trade dominated by Iran and other regimes hostile to America.

If transportation fuel were more abundant and cheaper, that would weaken OPEC – while strengthening both our economy and national security. How do we get there from here?

Most immediately: Re-open the Gulf of Mexico to oil production. In 2010, following an offshore drilling rig explosion, the federal government instituted a moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf and halted much of the shallow-water drilling as well. It was essential to find out whether other rigs were at risk. Once that question was answered, the moratorium was lifted – in theory. In fact, the Interior Department has been refusing to issue permits for offshore operations.

David Holt, president of the Consumer Energy Alliance, a pro-energy advocacy group, calculates that 200,000 jobs have been killed as a result, and that another 380,000 are threatened.

But re-opening the Gulf for energy production, he said, would “create thousands of new jobs in nearly every state across the country, spur economic growth and enhance our national security.” More precisely, he cited a recent study concluding that increasing permit approvals for oil and gas exploration in the Gulf would “create 230,000 new jobs …bolster U.S. gross domestic product by $44 billion and generate nearly $12 billion in revenue to state and federal treasuries. In addition, opening the Gulf would increase domestic oil production by more than 400,000 barrels per day, reducing U.S. spending on imported oil by $15 billion.”

The Gulf is not the only area where vast amounts of energy are waiting to be tapped. The development of new technologies and techniques, such as “horizontal drilling" and hydraulic fracturing, have made it possible to recover vast amounts of oil and natural gas from the Bakken oil fields of Montana and North Dakota, and the Marcellus Shale in the Appalachian Basin.

But when Harold Hamm, the discoverer of the Bakken oil fields, recently told President Obama about “the revolution in the oil and gas industry and how we have the capacity to produce enough oil to enable America to replace OPEC,” Obama was dismissive, as the Wall Street Journal’s Steve Moore reported:

"[Obama] turned to me and said, 'Oil and gas will be important for the next few years. But we need to go on to green and alternative energy. [Energy] Secretary [Steven] Chu has assured me that within five years, we can have a battery developed that will make a car with the equivalent of 130 miles per gallon.'" Mr. Hamm holds his head in his hands and says, "Even if you believed that, why would you want to stop oil and gas development? It was pretty disappointing."

Disastrous might be the more precise term if America’s energy, economic and national security policies boil down to this: waiting for the development of new, improved batteries that can be used in electric vehicles which we hope will replace the existing fleet of gasoline-powered internal combustion engines, thereby reducing the funding we are providing to our sworn enemies at some point in the future. That’s like dealing with a house on fire by waiting for a blizzard.

As part of this hope-for-change policy, the Obama administration also has been stalling on approvals for the Keystone pipeline, a privately funded project that will bring oil to the US from the tar sands of Western Canada, creating 20,000 jobs with no taxpayer money.

And the White House has spent no political capital pushing for a minor and inexpensive modification of new automobiles that would allow motorists to fill their tanks not only with gasoline but with a variety of liquid fuels, including methanol, which can be made from natural gas, coal, urban garbage, and agricultural and forestry waste, and ethanol which can be made from sugarcane and many other crops that can be grown not just in American but in parts of the developing world (where little development is currently taking place).

Which of these energy sources can best reinvigorate the economy and enhance America’s security? All of the above: Let a thousand offshore oil rigs bloom, let a thousand distilleries turn waste into fuels, let horizontal drillers drill and frackers frac, let entrepreneurs gamble and consumers choose, let a freer market pick winners and losers – without subsidies or tariffs.

The alternative is to continue waiting and watching as rising oil and gas prices hobble job creation and economic growth. The alternative is to continue sending trillions of dollars to mullahs, sheikhs and caudillos who decide how much to spend on terrorist groups and, in the case of Iran, nuclear weapons development.

Making policy is challenging when progress on one front means losing ground on another. But right now a single set of policies could strengthen us economically and make us more secure. What we need are leaders willing to demonstrate that Khomeini was wrong: Americans can do a damned thing.

TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: globaljihad

1 posted on 10/14/2011 8:22:28 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

One of the most tragic consequences of our decision to invade Iraq was that we chose the weaker enemy to invade. Iran has always been a bigger threat to us than Iraq. They deserve a beat down for all the harm they have caused us since 1979. Now, we don’t have the will as a country to take out this major threat before they go full nuclear. This was one of George Bush’s worst mistakes.

2 posted on 10/14/2011 8:34:55 AM PDT by 3Fingas (Sons and Daughers of Freedom, Committee of Correspondence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
What we need are leaders willing to demonstrate that Khomeini was wrong: Americans can do a damned thing.

If Americans do NOT defeat Romney in the primaries, we are in for more of the same...Khomeini will be proved right.

3 posted on 10/14/2011 8:36:13 AM PDT by greyfoxx39 (Joseph Smith, America’s first Comic Book author. He Produced the Adventures of Nephi-Mormon-Moroni)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39
If Americans do NOT defeat Romney in the primaries, we are in for more of the same...Khomeini will be proved right.

What exactly can / will Romney do against Iran? You really think that Romney (who believes in nothing except his desire to be America's president) can do what Bush couldn't?

4 posted on 10/14/2011 8:43:13 AM PDT by AfricanChristian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Good luck while there’s a raghead in the White House!

5 posted on 10/14/2011 8:48:43 AM PDT by Tucker39
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

America will never do anything against Iran’s insane Islamofascist serial killers posing as leaders.

For 3 plus decades, since their take over of our embassy under the woosey Carter, we have done nothing against these serial killers of Americans. Basically every act of violence committed by Islamofascists against innocent Americans around the world, have been planned/controlled/financed and sanctioned by the insane serial killers in charge of Iran.

The Iranians must have some really bad black mail stuff on America, because they have acted/killed innocents with no problem/recourse during Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clintoon, Bush II and of course Herr Obozo.

This sad state of bs reminds of us leaving the Castros alone in Cuba with no real action like taking them out.

Until Iran’s serial killer leaders are taken out by the Saudis and Israelis, nothing will be done to them.

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Somebody needs to explain to Cliff May What “False Flag” means.

7 posted on 10/14/2011 9:13:39 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 3Fingas


GW was obsessed with Iraq because of daddy’s unfinished business. He was more concerned with his father than any military or strategic interests. And, he did not think it all the way through.

It is fine to think ‘we will be welcomed as liberators’, but at least some thought should have been given to, what if we aren’t? Muslims are renown for their lack of gratitude, lack of any honor, and proud treachery. In fact, their religion glorifies these traits and tactics.

Had Iran been taken out first, and then Iraq, both countries would be checked by the other.

At least after Iraq, we should have continued on to Iran.

Considering that Iran is currently the leading sponsor of terrorism, and the leading cause of instability in the world today, why the world continually bows to them and always gives them a pass, while attacking other Muslim nations all around the, is beyond my understanding.

I suspect that Iran has some understanding with other major powers that keeps them safe in spite of their many promises to bring about a world apocalypse to usher in their 12th imam.

I do not believe this ridiculous Obama/Holder story about Iran, but the fact that Iran needs to be taken out is self evident, and has been for several decades.

8 posted on 10/14/2011 9:13:39 AM PDT by 240B (he is doing everything he said he wouldn't and not doing what he said he would)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tucker39
Good luck while there’s a raghead in the White House!

They aren't rags, they are sheets.

9 posted on 10/14/2011 9:16:05 AM PDT by Dan(9698)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 3Fingas

You mention Bush, But Carter was the one who helped the Ayotollah Aassahola to get back to Iran.

Now we mention making Iran pay.

Why doesn’t Saudi Arabia make Iran pay, It was their guy that was to be killed?

The Saudi’s just sit back on their ass an collect our cash,outlaw the Bible and wait for someone else to protect them.

10 posted on 10/14/2011 9:24:06 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 240B

I find little to dispute in your comments, perhaps, except for Bush’s primary motive in Invading Iraq. I think that W bought into this whole line of pablum coming from the neo-cons. By creating democracy in the heart of the Middle East, we would eventually convince everyone else, including the pro-democracy elements in Iran, to throw off their leaders and make baby democracies throughout the region. I always thought that this notion was a fairy tale from the beginning.

Your comments about Iran’s apocalyptic yearnings makes it clear that believing they will behave like a rational nuclear-armed power is wishful thinking.

11 posted on 10/14/2011 9:30:31 AM PDT by 3Fingas (Sons and Daughers of Freedom, Committee of Correspondence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

I think we should taken out the Saudi leadership a long time ago. In the very least, the should be selling us oil at $1.00/gallon.

12 posted on 10/14/2011 9:33:46 AM PDT by 3Fingas (Sons and Daughers of Freedom, Committee of Correspondence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 3Fingas

“There ya go” Said McCloud.

13 posted on 10/14/2011 10:08:06 AM PDT by Karliner ("That hound don't hunt." H.C., Jeremiah 29:11, Romans 8:28, "...this is the end of the beginning."WC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

But Obama sent troops to Africa. You mean that didn’t scare Iran into compliance with all our demands?

14 posted on 10/14/2011 5:09:17 PM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin


15 posted on 10/14/2011 5:30:16 PM PDT by hattend (If I wanted you dead, you'd be dead. - Cameron Connor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson