Wisdom Regarding Iran
Today was an interesting day for reading and reflection. And for our reading pleasure this evening, I present two fine pieces regarding Iran. The first comes from Thomas Sowell at Real Clear Politics.
HT: Dean Barnett, guest-blogging at Hugh Hewitt's site.
It is hard to think of a time when a nation -- and a whole civilization -- has drifted more futilely toward a bigger catastrophe than that looming over the United States and western civilization today.
Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran and North Korea mean that it is only a matter of time before there are nuclear weapons in the hands of international terrorist organizations. North Korea needs money and Iran has brazenly stated its aim as the destruction of Israel -- and both its actions and its rhetoric suggest aims that extend even beyond a second Holocaust.
Send not to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee.
This is not just another in the long history of military threats. The Soviet Union, despite its massive nuclear arsenal, could be deterred by our own nuclear arsenal. But suicide bombers cannot be deterred.
Fanatics filled with hate cannot be either deterred or bought off, whether Hezbollah, Hamas or the government of Iran.
The piece is positively brilliant, which simply proves (as I have asserted in the past) that Thomas Sowell is one a handful of truly brilliant people on the planet. Please, I insist to our readers, you need to read this.
And they should also read Ann Leslie's piece in the UK Daily Mail. It's right up there with Mr. Sowell's piece.
Why shouldn't Iran have nuclear weapons? We have them, so has America, France, Russia, Israel, China, Pakistan, India and possibly North Korea. So why make such a fuss about Iran?
After all, we gulped, but then decided to accept Pakistan's and India's nuclear bombs. Why? Because we recognised that their bombs are, essentially, a continuation of the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine which, as a deterrent, kept us from nuclear Armageddon throughout the Cold War.
In fact, it could be argued that, not long ago, the M.A.D. doctrine actually kept Pakistan and India from going to war yet again over Kashmir.
So why shouldn't Iran have nuclear bombs to deter attack from the 'Great Satan', America, let alone the two 'Little Satans', Israel and Britain? Sounds reasonable. But that pre-supposes that the Iranian regime is reasonable.
The mullah-mafia lied through their teeth for 18 years, denying they had a nuclear programme, despite their obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
And all the evidence shows that they are lying now when they say they only want nuclear power for 'peaceful energy purposes', despite sitting on some of the largest oil reserves in the world.
But, alas, there's nothing which we would recognise as 'reasonable' about President Ahmadinejad, the small, bearded blacksmith's son from the slums of Tehran - who denies the existence of the Holocaust, promises to 'wipe Israel off the map' and who, moreover, urges Iranians to 'prepare to take over the world'.
The first piece is a wake-up call for the West to understand that Iran, right now, can't be negotiated with, and will soon become a serious problem for the world. Nuclear blackmail of the region? No, try on a global scale; an attempt to force the capitulation of the world to do as Iran says else they may lose a city.
Both Ms. Leslie and Mr. Sowell cite MAD in their pieces. And if this were the Soviet Union that would apply fittingly. But this isn;t the Soviets here. This is a regime led by a man who preaches the violent martyrdom that the Islamofascists believe in, embrace, and practice daily. So, the question is, what will deter Iran? MAD won't because Ahmadinejad is probably very willing to sacrifice his nation--all of the Islamofacists--if it means removing a couple of their key enemies. And he's just crazy enough to do that. The virulent strain of Islam we have dealt with for the past five years is what is preached from the minirets in Tehran. And while not all 68 million Iranians adhere to such practices, those in power--those who control the power--do, and it will be their decisions that render the idea of MAD irrelevant.
Iran isn't a nation to be toyed with. Whether through diplomatic of military options, they will fight to the end. We see evidence of this in Iraq on an increasing basis. Iran is training and supplying Shi'ite radicals in Iraq in an attempt to drive the fledgling country into a civil war, and their prime mover and shaker there, Moqtada al-Sadr, is still alive and kicking. He is suspected as being behind much of the Shi'ite problems of late. Diplomatically, they will put on their best face to the world that they are giving in, but in the end any agreement reached will be broken just as easily as those with North Korea were.
Militarily is another thing altogether. Many people are saying that Iran should be bombed right now; before they become a bigger threat than they already are. Others urge patience to verify claims. The problem with patience is that by the time those claims can be verified, Iran could be rolling it's nukes out on parade. Let's face a solid fact right here, right now. The UN and EU won't take a tough stance on Iran. And even if we go off of recent history for the UN, their deal with Israel and Hezbollah proves that they lack the spine to hold the aggressor responsible for their actions. It took a separate resolution to put teeth into the peacekeeper's rules of engagement. Why would this not be inherently implied in the original resolution? Because the UN doesn't give a rat's @$$ about Israel. And because Iran wants Israel gone, they're willing to turn a blind eye to whatever Iran does. Mark my words, money talks for the UN, and they'll follow it no matter who's waving it. They had no problem cutting deals with Iraq, and would have even less of a problem doing the same thing with Iran.
For the coming showdown with Iran the West must remain united and resolute. We can't afford to let Iran slide by with their nuclear program. And while their initial contact with the A.Q. Khan network didn;t supply them with advanced missile technology, their "business" dealings with Russia and China may just do that. They have bought weapons from them in recent years, and both nations don't seem to have a limit as to what can be negotiated for. Iran is currently in talks with Russia (and has been for months now) regarding the purchase of a small number of medium range ICBMs. They don't have a warhead yet, but this is not the time to see how long it will take for them to accomplish that feat. By then it will be too late to act.
I made a point yesterday in one of my posts regarding a gunfight. You don't go to a gunfight with only one bullet in your gun when your opponent is loaded for bear, and out of your range. Ahmadinejad won't start a single thing until he has enough nukes to really be a threat. But he only needs one nuke to begin making threats. The first threats made will be to the region. And while the region rushes to comply to avoid being a target, he will build more; making him even more dangerous. It's a scenario I keep seeing over and over again. Ahmadinejad wants to--at the very least--recreate the Persian Empire as it once was. Beyond that vision is that of a worldwide caliphate, and complete domination or extermination of the infidel. That includes the nations of the West.
Is this something "designed" to scare you? No, not really. Such plans will be far-reaching, and prolonged. However what should cause you, dear readers, a level of concern is that we may see the beginning of this in our lifetimes. And it all has to start with one thing:
A nuclear-armed Iran. That is a prospect that gives me pause every time it crosses my mind, and it should do the same to you.
Like I said, reading and reflection, and this is what I see in both pieces. These are warnings to pay attention. I think it's time the world heeded these warnings.
Publius II
Today was an interesting day for reading and reflection. And for our reading pleasure this evening, I present two fine pieces regarding Iran. The first comes from Thomas Sowell at Real Clear Politics.
HT: Dean Barnett, guest-blogging at Hugh Hewitt's site.
It is hard to think of a time when a nation -- and a whole civilization -- has drifted more futilely toward a bigger catastrophe than that looming over the United States and western civilization today.
Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran and North Korea mean that it is only a matter of time before there are nuclear weapons in the hands of international terrorist organizations. North Korea needs money and Iran has brazenly stated its aim as the destruction of Israel -- and both its actions and its rhetoric suggest aims that extend even beyond a second Holocaust.
Send not to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee.
This is not just another in the long history of military threats. The Soviet Union, despite its massive nuclear arsenal, could be deterred by our own nuclear arsenal. But suicide bombers cannot be deterred.
Fanatics filled with hate cannot be either deterred or bought off, whether Hezbollah, Hamas or the government of Iran.
The piece is positively brilliant, which simply proves (as I have asserted in the past) that Thomas Sowell is one a handful of truly brilliant people on the planet. Please, I insist to our readers, you need to read this.
And they should also read Ann Leslie's piece in the UK Daily Mail. It's right up there with Mr. Sowell's piece.
Why shouldn't Iran have nuclear weapons? We have them, so has America, France, Russia, Israel, China, Pakistan, India and possibly North Korea. So why make such a fuss about Iran?
After all, we gulped, but then decided to accept Pakistan's and India's nuclear bombs. Why? Because we recognised that their bombs are, essentially, a continuation of the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine which, as a deterrent, kept us from nuclear Armageddon throughout the Cold War.
In fact, it could be argued that, not long ago, the M.A.D. doctrine actually kept Pakistan and India from going to war yet again over Kashmir.
So why shouldn't Iran have nuclear bombs to deter attack from the 'Great Satan', America, let alone the two 'Little Satans', Israel and Britain? Sounds reasonable. But that pre-supposes that the Iranian regime is reasonable.
The mullah-mafia lied through their teeth for 18 years, denying they had a nuclear programme, despite their obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
And all the evidence shows that they are lying now when they say they only want nuclear power for 'peaceful energy purposes', despite sitting on some of the largest oil reserves in the world.
But, alas, there's nothing which we would recognise as 'reasonable' about President Ahmadinejad, the small, bearded blacksmith's son from the slums of Tehran - who denies the existence of the Holocaust, promises to 'wipe Israel off the map' and who, moreover, urges Iranians to 'prepare to take over the world'.
The first piece is a wake-up call for the West to understand that Iran, right now, can't be negotiated with, and will soon become a serious problem for the world. Nuclear blackmail of the region? No, try on a global scale; an attempt to force the capitulation of the world to do as Iran says else they may lose a city.
Both Ms. Leslie and Mr. Sowell cite MAD in their pieces. And if this were the Soviet Union that would apply fittingly. But this isn;t the Soviets here. This is a regime led by a man who preaches the violent martyrdom that the Islamofascists believe in, embrace, and practice daily. So, the question is, what will deter Iran? MAD won't because Ahmadinejad is probably very willing to sacrifice his nation--all of the Islamofacists--if it means removing a couple of their key enemies. And he's just crazy enough to do that. The virulent strain of Islam we have dealt with for the past five years is what is preached from the minirets in Tehran. And while not all 68 million Iranians adhere to such practices, those in power--those who control the power--do, and it will be their decisions that render the idea of MAD irrelevant.
Iran isn't a nation to be toyed with. Whether through diplomatic of military options, they will fight to the end. We see evidence of this in Iraq on an increasing basis. Iran is training and supplying Shi'ite radicals in Iraq in an attempt to drive the fledgling country into a civil war, and their prime mover and shaker there, Moqtada al-Sadr, is still alive and kicking. He is suspected as being behind much of the Shi'ite problems of late. Diplomatically, they will put on their best face to the world that they are giving in, but in the end any agreement reached will be broken just as easily as those with North Korea were.
Militarily is another thing altogether. Many people are saying that Iran should be bombed right now; before they become a bigger threat than they already are. Others urge patience to verify claims. The problem with patience is that by the time those claims can be verified, Iran could be rolling it's nukes out on parade. Let's face a solid fact right here, right now. The UN and EU won't take a tough stance on Iran. And even if we go off of recent history for the UN, their deal with Israel and Hezbollah proves that they lack the spine to hold the aggressor responsible for their actions. It took a separate resolution to put teeth into the peacekeeper's rules of engagement. Why would this not be inherently implied in the original resolution? Because the UN doesn't give a rat's @$$ about Israel. And because Iran wants Israel gone, they're willing to turn a blind eye to whatever Iran does. Mark my words, money talks for the UN, and they'll follow it no matter who's waving it. They had no problem cutting deals with Iraq, and would have even less of a problem doing the same thing with Iran.
For the coming showdown with Iran the West must remain united and resolute. We can't afford to let Iran slide by with their nuclear program. And while their initial contact with the A.Q. Khan network didn;t supply them with advanced missile technology, their "business" dealings with Russia and China may just do that. They have bought weapons from them in recent years, and both nations don't seem to have a limit as to what can be negotiated for. Iran is currently in talks with Russia (and has been for months now) regarding the purchase of a small number of medium range ICBMs. They don't have a warhead yet, but this is not the time to see how long it will take for them to accomplish that feat. By then it will be too late to act.
I made a point yesterday in one of my posts regarding a gunfight. You don't go to a gunfight with only one bullet in your gun when your opponent is loaded for bear, and out of your range. Ahmadinejad won't start a single thing until he has enough nukes to really be a threat. But he only needs one nuke to begin making threats. The first threats made will be to the region. And while the region rushes to comply to avoid being a target, he will build more; making him even more dangerous. It's a scenario I keep seeing over and over again. Ahmadinejad wants to--at the very least--recreate the Persian Empire as it once was. Beyond that vision is that of a worldwide caliphate, and complete domination or extermination of the infidel. That includes the nations of the West.
Is this something "designed" to scare you? No, not really. Such plans will be far-reaching, and prolonged. However what should cause you, dear readers, a level of concern is that we may see the beginning of this in our lifetimes. And it all has to start with one thing:
A nuclear-armed Iran. That is a prospect that gives me pause every time it crosses my mind, and it should do the same to you.
Like I said, reading and reflection, and this is what I see in both pieces. These are warnings to pay attention. I think it's time the world heeded these warnings.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 7:21 PM
1 Comments:
Good blogs. Imho, in order for Muslims to continue their goal of world domination Islam, they need nuclear weapons. We saw their weakness when they became incensed over a cartoon or when the self proclaimed Prophet Mohammad or the Qu'ran is seriously questioned. Rawriter
Post a Comment
<< Home