Latest Column:
Stopping the Meltdown
What Beltway Republicans Need To Do
..........

CaliforniaRepublic.org
opinon in
Reagan country
..........

..........

Jon Fleischman’s
FlashReport
The premier source for
California political news

..........

Michael Ramirez
editorial cartoon
@Investor's
Business
Daily
..........

Do your part to do right by our troops.
They did the right thing for you.
Donate Today

..........

..........

..........

tOR Talk Radio
Contributor Sites
Laura Ingraham
Hugh Hewitt
Eric Hogue
Sharon Hughes
Frank Pastore
[Radio Home]

..........

All Threats Taken Seriously
Mahmoud Amadinejad and a nuclear Iran…
[J. F. Kelly, Jr.] 2/7/06

The Middle East country currently posing the most serious problem for the United States and Europe, to say nothing of Israel, is not Iraq. For better or for worse, American and British forces will begin withdrawal this year and while aid will continue and the military disengagement will be gradual, Iraq is going to have to stand on its own sooner rather than later. Hopefully, it will survive as a democracy of sorts, maintaining cordial relations with its liberators and not descend into tribal strife and anarchy but that will be largely up to them. We should wish them our very best and promise to stay in touch.

The greater immediate challenge now is Iran and its Islamic fundamentalist government headed up by a fanatic president who says that Israel should be wiped off the map. Mahmoud Amadinejad could be dismissed as just another crazy person spouting meaningless threats except that his country is, in the opinion of many, proceeding to develop nuclear weapons. Iran has restarted uranium enrichment that can lead to the production of such weapons in a matter of a few years, perhaps sooner. Tehran claims that its nuclear program is for peaceful, energy-related purposes, but even European leaders are not buying that. For one thing, Iran sits on the world’s second largest oil reserves. Why would they need an expensive nuclear energy program? For another, why should anyone be willing to trust a religious zealot who wants to obliterate an entire nation?

The threat posed by the prospect of nuclear weapons in the hands of an Islamic fascist like Ahmadinejad is too great to ignore in the hope that more rational voices in Iran might some day prevail. The problem is what to do about it before it is too late to do anything without risking a nuclear exchange. The Bush administration, its overextended ground forces bogged down in an increasingly unpopular war, has been content so far to let European leaders carry the burden of efforts to dissuade Iran from pursuing its dangerous course. Diplomacy is, of course, preferable to military action and, besides, diplomacy is the only weapon the European nations have.

France has sounded brave warnings about not hesitating to use its own nuclear deterrent if threatened. United States and European leaders discussed referring the matter to the Security Council. Israel has warned that it will not stand idly by while an enemy who wants to destroy it develops nuclear weapons. But the United States is key to any effective action to deny Iran’s mullahs access to nuclear weapons. The military forces of the European nations, atrophied by years of pitifully small defense budgets, are really not up to the task of compelling Iran to behave by military means. We all have seen how ineffective UN resolutions and sanctions are in resolving anything, Chinese and Russian cooperation is problematic. And Iran’s nuclear facilities would pose a far more difficult target for an Israeli strike than Iraq’s did because of the greater distance and dispersion. The United States, overextended or not, remains the only power able to effect a military solution, hopefully with the help of reliable allies like Britain and Australia and token, largely ceremonial help from other nations.

The problem with diplomacy is its slowness and time is not on our side. The threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iran is real and perhaps imminent. An attack on Israel would demand a U.S. military response. Diplomacy, moreover, to be effective, requires each side to negotiate in good faith. Iran’s threats and irrational pronouncements show no sign of good faith or reasonableness. One cannot negotiate with leaders who preach hatred and destruction and believe that God is on their side.

Eventually, then, the United States must act to preempt this threat if it is not otherwise defused. Should that become necessary, our military response must be very different than it was in Iraq. This will not be about winning hearts and minds, boots on the ground or spreading democracy. We don’t presently have the capacity or the national will to fight another Iraq-style war nor should we have to.

The United States, backed by the support of our those allies who are willing to take a stand, must make it clear to Iran that it must immediately and permanently cease its efforts toward achieving the capacity to develop nuclear weapons and permit unrestricted U.N. verification or we will destroy their nuclear facilities, reducing their cities to rubble, if required, in the process. No ground campaign. No occupation. No rebuilding effort. Just lots of shock and awe Hopefully, Ahmadinejad will realize, before that becomes necessary, that all threats are actually taken seriously here. The world has become too dangerous for us to just stand by and hope for the best. -one-

copyright 2006 J. F. Kelly, Jr.

§