8/23/2007 08:36:00 AM
Here we are once again considering the terrorist nation of Iran. A nation that controls Palestine through Hamas, Lebanon and Syria though Hezbollah, and Iraq through the Mahdi army, untold numbers of insurgency and militant organizations and even Al Qaeda. Iran is closing in quickly on the ability to mass produce nuclear weapons while our politicians are arguing over whether or not they are even a threat to the region, and our own nation. Israel, as I have said before, does not have the luxury of debating this issue until the day it is confirmed that the Iranian nuclear program has in fact produced it's first reliable weapon. Israel has nuclear weapons but will they use them? It is a strongly held belief that only the United States can deliver a conventional strike devastating enough to impact the Iranian nuclear program, however, if the United States does not do that and soon, Israel will be forced to consider the nuclear option as it's only reliable means of ensuring it's continued existence.When considering the possible destruction of your entire population by nuclear assault, the nuclear option does not seem so terrible in light of the consequence of waiting too long, or conducting an inadequate conventional strike. European nations, Russia and China have prevented measures that could have reigned in Iran many times before. Creating a situation whereby the one entity that could have made a difference (United Nations), is instead provoking the inevitable destruction of either Israel or Iran or possibly even the destruction of both nations.Iran has created a reality on the ground throughout the Middle East that provides the ultimate fallback. Iran's arming, training and positioning of Hezbollah, Hamas, the Mahdi Army, and literally hundreds of other militant assets means that at a moments notice Iran could create complete chaos throughout the entire region. Imagine all of these groups being coordinated by Iran's military machine causing the cessation of trade throughout the region, the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians in countries throughout the Middle East, and the successful overthrow of governments unable to respond quickly enough to such an unconventional enemy.If the United States is unable or unwilling to confront Iran militarily within the next 12 months, world war three is almost a certainty. Because if Iran is able to get all their pieces in place before they are directly attacked, this chess game is over and no country in the world will be safe from the terrorist army they have been building up arming and training for over 30 years. China, Russia, Venezuela and many other countries have already chosen their allies in this struggle by supporting, supplying and defending Iran in it's quest for nuclear weapons and undying support of terrorism in all it's horrific forms and manifestations.
In light of the U.S.'s behavior with respect to North Korea (not to mention its own past actions with respect to Iran), it's no wonder that any nation would want to obtain nuclear weapons as soon as possible.Your claim that Iran controls Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq is nonsense. FYI, Hamas is a Sunni organization, not Shia, though the U.S. State Dept. says it has received funding from Iran--but most Hamas funding comes from U.S. ally Saudi Arabia.The U.S. has done a terrible job of using divide and conquer strategies against Middle East groups that hate each other by labeling them all as radical Muslims of the same stripe, and uniting them all against us.An attack against Iran would be disastrous--it is unlikely that bombing alone would be sufficient to eliminate their nuclear program and prevent it from being quickly rebuilt, and the U.S. doesn't have resources for yet another ground war. Iran, despite its leadership, is a country that is demographically very young (more than two thirds of the population is under 30), highly educated, and quite westernized by Middle East standards.I think Matt McIntosh's commentary about the U.S. and Iran (part 1, strategic background; part 2, baseline expectations for policy; part 3, proposed policy) makes a hell of a lot more sense than yours.I previously summarized and commented on Matt's posts here.
It's a mistake to forget the shift of power that the Iraq invasion created, Arab Sunnis were certainly placed at a disadvantage in the area and the clearest potential beneficiary, ironically, was Iran. Quite honestly, I don't for a second doubt that the Iran policy of the Bush family is in service to its business partners in Saudi Arabia more than it is anything else. It seems like a safe bet to make that in the end, with the Bushes, it's all about what's in it for them.
Post a Comment