Reading Into Iran

So, in case you missed it recently, our good 'allies' in Russia came out in support of Iran over the weekend. Sounding an awful lot like the anti-war crowd here in the United States, Nikolai Spassky, head of the Kremlin Security Council said that "diplomacy" was the only way to deal with Iran. He further urged that no sanctions against Iran should be implemented until there was "concrete evidence" that Iran was using its nuclear program for non-peaceful measures. Basically, we should willingly trust a guy who has explicitly denied the Holocaust, predicted the apocalypse, and called for the elimination of an entire country when he tells us he's (honestly) not developing the most powerful weapon known to man.

My immediate response to this bit of news was that this is the reason why we don't let the United Nations dictate our foreign policy. Furthermore, it's why we genuinely don't care when other countries decry our actions and political stances. Other countries, like France, are run by naive idiots like these people at the Kremlin. Seriously, who thinks we can trust Ahmadinejad when he says that Iran is enhancing uranium solely for 'energy' purposes? Yes Moscow, the Nation that sits directly atop some of the largest oil reserves in the world needs 'alternate sources of energy'. When I hear crap like this from international leaders, it makes me glad that my President really doesn't give a damn what they think.

Furthermore, let's be completely honest: diplomacyis not going to work with Iran. As I have said before, the people in charge over there are completely insane. This little stunt they are pulling, claiming innocence, is a way for them to buy more time; and when they do feel like telling the truth, they'll have a nuke to prove it. So let's stop all this talk about diplomacy and sanctions: because they aren't going to work. Using diplomacy or sanctions with Iran would be like having a high school principal call a student to his office for threatening a teacher, and saying: "boy that was really, really, really bad - don't ever, ever do it again" and then letting the kid go without further punishment. I bet that kid is gonna be really scared of that principal saying "no," he'll really learn his lesson. Except that he won't, because he has no reason to. Same with Iran. Saying "NO" really loud and with a grave tone isn't going to accomplish anything.

As for the Russian Government's desire for "concrete evidence" of Nuclear weapons, I thought we learned this lesson in World War II. Wasn't that what Hitler taught us - that we cannot simply close our eyes to the evil around us and hope it goes away? Didn't a, now infamous, British Prime Minister teach us that treaties don't mean much when you make them with the devil? This is, or at least what should be, the beauty of the post-World War II era: the preemptive strike. We learned that it's best to take note of madmen and deal with them before they get their hands on serious power. Remember Mein Kampf, that crazy book published in 1926? Remember how the rest of the world completely ignored it? Remember how well that turned out for them? President Ahmadinejad is writing his own Mein Kampf. Russia doesn't want to read it; they probably want 'peace' ('in our time,' I assume). Let us hope, however, that President Bush learned a lesson from the generation of his father, and takes good notes on his Ahmadinejad.

Operation 'Back-To-The-Stone-Age'

It seems to me that the President of Iran gets loonier and loonier every day. Which, unfortunately, means the threat of Iran getting and, more importantly, using nukes grows as well. However, so as not to sound like another one of the crowd randomly shouting that 'Iran is a threat,' I thought I would distinguish myself with a few minor suggestions on how to actually deal with this threat without the use of a serious ground offensive.

To perform such an operation we need to have good relations with Jerusalem and that wonderfully sane place in the Middle East known as Israel. This, of course, isn't a problem: Israeli's are a bit more understanding of National Security matters than Europeans and even most Americans.

The key to any sort of offensive against Iran would have to center around strategic bombing: lots of strategic bombing. In other words, every site in Iran that is even thought to be even remotely related to nuclear production would have to be destroyed. Cruise Missiles, Patriot Missiles - whatever it takes. The launching of these Missiles would need to be done simultaneously from bases in Israel (assuming they have the long range capability), Navy Ships in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea, and American Bases on the ground in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The strategic command base for this operation could be either on Naval Ships stationed in the Arabian Sea, the American Naval base at Bahrain, or the US Military Base in Incirlik, Turkey. (I'd recommend the second)

Furthermore, the operation would need to have three key elements. The First is secrecy. In order to be effective this operation would have to be launched suddenly, without warning, and without any sort of public approval. That means no UN. That means no debates in the media. That means no Congressional hearings. The reason is simple: we can't afford to hash this thing out in the court of public opinion for 8 months like we did with Iraq. Giving the Iranians a heads up means giving them time to prepare for the bombs and to protect their nuclear program.

The Second key component is that the strikes from Afghanistan and Iraq will need to be conducted with the added element of Air Force bombing. This Air-bombing would be an attempt to destroy other non-nuclear military facilities and cripple any potential counter-strike measures from Iran. The use of Stealth Bombers etc. would obviously be crucial in this regard. Furthermore, it would be an added bonus if, say, one of the Air Force's bombs were to fall on the Presidential House in Tehran and perhaps kill the maniac in charge of that country.

The Third element, which has been alluded to, is the utter need for an overwhelming, unexpected, preemptive strike. The attack would need to happen so fast and with so much force that the Iranian nuclear program would be utterly crippled before Tehran ever knew what was going on. No half-assed attempts at 'limited bombing' or at 'avoiding civilian casualties.' If you're going to bomb it; take it out. (Think George Patton style)

In the aftermath of such an attack, it would need to be made clear to Iran that we would not hesitate to bomb again, were they to re-start the program. Perhaps we might even try to hint at a potential nuclear attack. (And no, we wouldn't actually have to use an H-bomb, but immediately after a massive bombardment it would hardly be an empty threat.) While bombardment probably won't make Iran completely sane, it would, at the very least, set them back over 20 years in their long desired attempt to attack Israel or America.

So in a nutshell: A preemptive, secret overpowering strike, coupled with Arial bombing would seem to be a logical way to destroy Iranian nuclear capacity. However, in the aftermath of such an attack, we should remember that they are hardly likely to turn a complete 180 in policy and thus, we should still maintain a hard-line stance. It's not much, since I obviously am no military expert, but that to me appears to be a solid starting point for dealing with Iran.

An Iranian Nutjob

Iran's new President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, really is off-the-charts insane. Just to give you an idea, so far, although at this point he is still only the President-elect, he has described the Holocaust as a "myth," threatened to "[wipe Israel] off the map", decided that the state of Israel should be in Europe not the Middle East, and, most recently, openly hoped that the "criminal" Ariel Sharon will "[join] his ancestors" (a.k.a die) as a result of his illness.

Honestly, this guy must really have mental health issues. But that aside, he is also incredibly dangerous. He leads a Nation that is developing nuclear weapons, and that has some 68 million people, many of whom are either gullible or stupid (or maybe both) enough to believe and agree with each of the above quotations.

Interestingly enough, the potentially dangerous nature of the latest President of Iran, makes our our work in Iraq all the more important. The presence of a stable Republic of Iraq will make negotiating with Iran easier. One way that Iraq's rise will help us with Iran is simply by voiding the need for Iranian oil. The combination of Saudi Arabia and a stable Iraq in the Middle East will make it easy for us to simply place an embargo on Iran, which could be deadly to their economy. Additionally, having another steadying presence in the Middle East besides just Israel will facilitate economic, political and other operations in the region; a tremendous benefit when trying to deal with Rogue States, such as Iran.

The problem of course is the fact that Iran seems to be fairly close to building a nuclear weapon. The question then becomes, what would they do with a nuke? Well, since they are developing a nuclear weapon and not an Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile, hitting the US, Japan, or continental Europe won't be possible. That, of course, leaves the Middle East and the tiny little Nation that Iran feels should be "wiped off the map": Israel. Just one small problem, Israel also has the bomb (more than one bomb, I might add), and they are certainly not afraid to use them if Iran presses the right buttons.

So, am I saying that a nuclear war resulting (most likely) in the destruction of Iran will occur within 15 years? No. Or at least I hope not. But this complete moron who is now President in Iran is all the more reason to quickly move the Iranian issue into our playing field. The EU has tried and failed, and they will gladly continue to try and fail (over and over again), unless the United States steps in. Does this mean troops? Extremely unlikely (and not very plausible at this point), although threatening to use them might be the place for Bush to start.

The question of what to do with Iran, as you can perhaps tell from this post, is at the very least a murky one, but it is one of great concern. It needs to be addressed not only for our own sake but for the sake of our Middle Eastern ally Israel, and for the sake of the newly emerging Iraq.