Tuesday, April 11, 2006

Next Stop Iran

Spengler has some interesting thoughts:

“Americans are a misunderstood people. … President Bush earned overwhelming support by toppling Saddam Hussein, a caricature villain who appeared to threaten Americans, but earned opprobrium by committing American lives to the political rehabilitation of Iraq, about which Americans care little. …

The Revolutionary Guards of 1979 now are middle-aged men who now at last have a chance to lead. … But Iran's motives for acquiring nuclear power are not only economic but strategic. Like [Adolf] Hitler and [Josef] Stalin, Ahmadinejad looks to imperial expansion as a solution for economic crisis at home … envisages a regional Shi'ite empire backed by nuclear weaponry. …

If conflict with Iran is indeed unavoidable, the Bush administration can re-emerge as a war government rather than as Wilsonian nation-builders, with every expectation of popular support.”

He predicts President Bush will take action before November. He is not alone. This from the UK Telegraph:

“It is believed that an American-led attack, designed to destroy Iran's ability to develop a nuclear bomb, is ‘inevitable’ if Teheran's leaders fail to comply with United Nations demands to freeze their uranium enrichment” program.

Update1: “We need to attack Iran, not just to keep it from developing nuclear weapons, but to topple the largest remaining state sponsor of terrorism, and to discredit Islamic rule. … Everywhere you look in the Middle East … who is the biggest threat to America's interests, you will find the same answer—Hamas in the Palestinian territories, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Assad regime in Syria, al-Qaeda and the Shiite militias in Iraq—Iran is supporting them all. This is the real war, and it's time we started fighting it.” Robert Tracinski (link unavailable.)

Update2: “Iran, of course, secure now behind its nuclear wall, will surely step up its campaign of terror around the world. It will become even more of a magnet and haven for terrorists. The terror training grounds of Afghanistan were always vulnerable if the West had the resolve. Protected by a nuclear-missile-owning state, Iranian camps will become impregnable” –Gerard Baker, The Times.

Update3: Mark Steyn. Hat Tip: Thrutch and TigerHawk and Sixth Column.

Update4: "In fact the United States and Iran have been in a state of war since November 4, 1979. The taking of a nation's embassy is usually interpreted as such under the international law that liberals hold in such high regard. Since that time Iran has waged war upon not just America but also infidels in general." - Grant Jones, the Dougout.

Update5: "You say it is unacceptable to choose between such alternatives. There must be a moderate, middle way to oppose Iranian nukes. What about diplomacy? sanctions? confidence- and security-building measures? The short answer is no. You are simply postponing the real choices, and effectively choosing something worse than either. …" - Angelo Codevilla

Update6: "All that has changed in the past six months is the growing Western realization that radical Islam thrives on appeasement, and really does mean what it says. … Far from withdrawing his pledge to wipe Israel out, President Ahmadinejad doubled-down on the boast by organizing formal Holocaust-denial conferences, the prerequisite for any Jew-hater who wishes to move from rhetoric to action. Unlike Hitler, however, Ahmadinejad outlined in advance not merely the intent but the method of his intended follow-up to the Holocaust …" - Victor Davis Hanson, Symposium on Iran.

Update7: "Iran intends to move toward large-scale uranium enrichment involving 54,000 centrifuges, the country's deputy nuclear chief said Wednesday, signaling its resolve to expand a program the international community has insisted it halt." - AP wire "If Iran can get 3,000 centrifuges on line by the end of 2006 and is otherwise ready to build its first bomb, it could have a nuclear weapon by this time next year." - Tiger Hawk

Update8: Gus Van Horn reviews Ahmadinejad's millennial worldview and our need to act soon. Hat Tip: Thrutch


Blogger Brooke said...

I swear I don't understand all the whining!

No, I don't want war any more than the next guy, but I sure don't want a nervous peace staring down the barrel of an Irainian nuke!

4/11/06, 1:15 PM  
Blogger American Crusader said...

Iran has undoubtedly imperialistic ambitions. They want Shi'ite dominance and they want to become the regions most powerful/influential country. I don't see them trying to annex territory like Iraq.
ducky...isn't it obvious that Russian technology is helping Iran to do just that? And about who is upset about Iranian nukes, you can start with their Arab neighbors, Israel, Europe and of course United States. Plenty more can be added to this list.

4/11/06, 2:10 PM  
Blogger Always On Watch said...

From the Telegraph article:

"If Iran makes another strategic mistake, such as ignoring demands by the UN or future resolutions, then the thinking among the chiefs is that military action could be taken to bring an end to the crisis. The belief in some areas of Whitehall is that an attack is now all but inevitable.

I was working on grades for most of today and caught the end of a news alert about Iran. Something about enriched uranium in a larger amount than expected? Guess I'd better go check some news sites to find out if I heard correcty.

4/11/06, 2:18 PM  
Blogger Jason Pappas said...

One question Ducky: when we go to war with Iran, whose side are you on?

4/11/06, 8:45 PM  
Blogger beakerkin said...

Ducky is an agent of Chaos. If the Capitalist and Jihadists kill each other off he thinks what is left will find salvation in Marx.

4/11/06, 10:04 PM  
Blogger (((Thought Criminal))) said...

I'm not advocating allowing Iran to go nuclear but please don't pretend this is the first roque state nuke out there. better to explain how you think they could develop the technology to hit America.

Maybe they'll rub a magic lamp and wish a nuke into Boston.

You wouldn't believe what those guys could do with boxcutters.

But the survey says "they could develop the technology to hit America if we let them." You know, the same way all the other "rogue nuke" states have.

December 15th, 1989 was not so long ago. You know, when Saddam Hussein strap-welded some Scud missiles together and boosted a temporary satellite into orbit.

Not that rockets that achieve orbit could be refined and used to deliver warheads to anywhere on Earth. That's scary shit only rational people think about.

4/12/06, 3:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So is Ducky saying we should attack Pakistan, too?

4/12/06, 12:07 PM  
Blogger American Crusader said...

well it was confirmed yesterday that Iran has indeed enriched uranium, although not nearly enough for weapons. This does prove Iran has the technology for weapons development. When the United States first developed nuclear weapons during World War II, it wasn't long after the enrichment process was developed that they produced their first nuclear bombs.

4/12/06, 1:45 PM  
Blogger Always On Watch said...

Crusader: When the United States first developed nuclear weapons during World War II, it wasn't long after the enrichment process was developed that they produced their first nuclear bombs.

Anybody wanna bet against Iran already having the weapon?

4/12/06, 5:31 PM  
Blogger Always On Watch said...

The article you cited in Update 2 makes my blood run cold.

4/12/06, 8:03 PM  
Blogger Cubed © said...

If conflict with Iran is indeed unavoidable, the Bush administration can re-emerge as a war government rather than as Wilsonian nation-builders, with every expectation of popular support.

Well, I guess the old cliche about "Everybody loves a winner" is right; as we have sunk further and further into the mire, there has been little evidence that Bush is a winner.

"Winning" is not unlike "pregnancy." You either are, or you're not.

Good ol' Aristotle - gotta love that guy!

4/12/06, 8:04 PM  
Blogger Jason Pappas said...

Yes, AOW, that Times article is not sugarcoating the choices. He says assume the worse about a war with Iran, then it is still the lesser of two evils by far. Iran can't be allowed to have nukes. He is right. I like how he has that British resolve in the face of a grave situation. No "it's all for the good" nonsense. It's pain now or nuclear terror later.

Yes, Cubed, everyone loves a winner and hates a loser. That also applies for the Iranians. Their regime will be humiliated by a war. But they hope to win by galvanizing our 5th column.

That's why I think Bush may be quiet. Like Clinton's bombing of Serbia when we didn't even know there was a problem in Kosovo, we were surprised to hear that bombs were dropping ... instead of the Monica testimony. It was literally like the movie “Wag the Dog” where Albania is used as a crisis to distract. However, the lack of debate gave Clinton an advantage. After the war is started the debate is moot.

Only the surprise of the attack has a parallel with the present. Iran is a real threat. Bush has long ago explained that Iran is part of the Axis of Evil. And we all know the nature of the Iranian regime just as our parents knew the nature of Nazism. What’s to explain? Stopping the war with the battle of Iraq is like stopping WWII after removing Mussolini from power. The main culprit is still standing.

Bush needn't say more. Pro-administration writers should be making the case. But Bush should just categorize the nature of the Iranian regime assuming it is common knowledge which it should be. I wish he could do it better but he isn't the most forceful speaker.

4/12/06, 10:27 PM  
Blogger kevin said...

If you want consistancy, just pay attention to Iran's continual ranting about how they're going to nuke Israel. Something that Pakistan has never promised to do

4/13/06, 2:21 AM  
Blogger Cubed © said...

"I wish he could do it better but he isn't the most forceful speaker."

Yeah, I do to, but you're right, he is a man of few words.

4/13/06, 4:10 PM  
Blogger Jason Pappas said...

Saddam was a threat by his very nature which is illustrated by the totality of his thirty year reign. Obviously if we had better intelligence we could have delayed dealing with Saddam and focus instead on Iran. In this war, Saddam is Mussolini while Ahmadinejad is Hitler and Quadaffi is like Franco. And just like in WWII we choose the easier target first, Mussolini, on the way to the goal of the war, Hitler, and while Franco watched from the sidelines. (Obviously the analogy isn’t exact.)

Saddam, being a secular fascist, could be intimidated by a show of force as we’ve seen by Quadaffi’s capitulation after we showed our might in Iraq. Thus, if we had removed the regime in Iran, Saddam and Quadaffi would have gotten the message. Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, is a religious fanatic who believes in a millennial war of annihilation. He is part of the ’79 Islamic revolution and is willing to kill and die for his religious ideology. If we had defeated the Islamic revolution in Iran, the jihad would have suffered a relative setback compared to the secular Baathists. If we stop now if would be worse than having done nothing.

As there are many respectable battle plans, taking down Saddam to insure that there were no WMD programs in Iraq (and Libya) was also strategic in terms of Iran. However, stopping the war to build a model society is absurd. The administration’s failure is to see the war in terms of dictators instead of the threat of Islam and the jihadist revival. Dictators are the easy part. Religious true believers constitute the more dangerous threat. There is no choice but to annihilate the Ahmadinejad regime just as we had to destroy the Nazi movement by annihilating Hitler’s regime.

Saddam was a sideshow … Il Duce of the Arab world. The main battle lies ahead.

4/13/06, 4:19 PM  
Blogger Jason Pappas said...

After 9/11 we are all Israelis. From Madrid to Bali, from London to Kashmir, an infidel is an infidel.

Isn’t it interesting that domestically the left wants to ban guns even though it’s not “guns that kill people” yet it sees no problems with nuclear weapons—even in the hands of terrorist supporting hate-infested religious fanatics? Hmmm. According to the left, guns are bad and dangerous but nukes in the hands of a maniac are nothing to worry about.

4/13/06, 5:06 PM  
Blogger George Mason said...

More than anything else, I fear the Bushies. I am fully in favor of taking out Iran, Syria, and putting the rest on notice that we say what we mean and mean what we say. The trouble is, Bush et al are like everyone since Truman, and including Truman. They do not say what they mean, and none means what he says. None declares war, so we never go all out to win. All the efforts our "leaders" make are "compassionate conservativism" or "compassionate liberalism." Those terms means to these people that they can do a job just enough--just enough to make it really s.n.a.f.u.'d. All presidents from Carter to King George, II, have aided and abetted Iran becoming what it is today. Not a one of these presidents has the faintest idea what Islam is either. None of those still living dare even mention its name.

Iran will hurt us very badly if able. We must render them UNable. That means total destruction, including making it impossible for them to send oil and gas to anywhere. They must taste total defeat, so that all of the rest of the militating Islamists get the message as well, including Pakistan.

I do not know if Bush is up to it. I do know that no Democrat, with the possible exception of Lieberman, could do the job.

4/13/06, 5:14 PM  
Blogger Jason Pappas said...

I also worry about Bush also for the reasons you mention.

4/13/06, 5:53 PM  
Blogger Cubed © said...

It is my sincere hope that Bush is making very serious plans to deal with Iran - and I believe he is.

When he opposes something, like securing our borders, he doesn't hesitate to say so; the citizens manning the border were called "vigilantes," for example, while illegal aliens are given the name "undocumented workers."

So far, all we've heard from the government about Iran is that everything is on the table, that the Pentagon has all kinds of contingency plans, and that Iran is our most immediate threat.

To date, Bush has denied none of this, and so perhaps - I hope - there are plans to deal with Iran definitively.

4/13/06, 10:01 PM  
Blogger Jason Pappas said...

What were we after Oklahoma City?

An American. But you wouldn't understand.

4/14/06, 10:25 AM  
Blogger Caronte said...

I think Bush also wants an imperialist expansion, not in a militar way, but in a economic and cultural.Can anyone tell me why the united states and other countries(france,UK,china...) can have nuclear weapons and iran can`t have them?
I'm glad that one person of the USA have a blog which loves the classical culture and philosophy,you must walk a very long way to have it.Salutes from Spain.
PS:excuse me for my bad english

4/17/06, 10:16 AM  
Blogger Krishna109 said...


The reason "why the united states and other countries(france,UK,china...) can have nuclear weapons and iran can`t have them?" is quite simple-- and it seems quite obvious to me.

Simply stated, Almadinejad has said (on more than one occasion) that he wants to destroy another country. It seems quite obvious he means it-- and once he gets the bomb (plus the means to deliver it)...he will use it!

The other countries you mentioned (france, the UK, China) quite obviously are not out to destroy another country. While you may or may not like some of their policies, the chance of their using a nuke is very slim. (In fact, these threee countries have had nukes for some time now-- if they wanted to use them, they would have by now).

And...even countries like Israel, India and Pakistan have had nukes for a while and haven't used them...and probably would not (except in self defense-- if they were nuked first). Iran, however, probably would-- that is the difference.

4/20/06, 7:09 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home