Thursday, August 31, 2006

Can war be avoided, when Iran pushes for it?

This picture by Cox and Forkum was made for the cover of the latest issue of of The Intellectual Activist magazine.

The cover story there is Robert Tracinski's article: Five Minutes to Midnight. Cox and Forkum offer this excerpt:

Observing the events of today—the hesitation and uncertainty, the stubborn clinging to the fantasy that the enemy can be appeased if we just keep talking and find the right diplomatic solution—I now feel that, for the first time, I really understand the leaders of the 1930s. Their illusion that Hitler could be appeased has always seemed, in historical hindsight, to be such a willful evasion of the facts that I have never grasped how it was possible for those men to deceive themselves. But I can now see how they clung to their evasions because they could not imagine anything worse than a return to the mass slaughter of the First World War. They wanted to believe that something, anything could prevent a return to war. What they refused to imagine is that, in trying to avoid the horrors of the previous war, they were allowing Hitler to unleash the much greater horrors of a new war.

Today's leaders and commentators have less excuse. The "horror" they are afraid of repeating is the insurgency we're fighting in Iraq—a war whose cost in lives, dollars, and resolve is among the smallest America has ever had to pay. And it takes no great feat of imagination to project how much more horrible the coming conflict will be if we wait on events long enough for Iran to arm itself with nuclear technology. Among the horrific consequences is the specter of a new Holocaust, courtesy of an Iranian nuclear bomb.

(bold emphasis mine) We have a window of opportinuity here to stop this. If we let that window close, and Iran obtains nukes, what would happen? Neal Boortz today speculates on just such a scenario:


...Let's spend just a few moments thinking of what happens when Iran gets the bomb. There are several scenarios. A nuclear strike on Israel is one, of course. Would the West retaliate? Perhaps. Remember, though ... Ahmadinejad and his Islamic fascist pals don't really care how many of their countrymen are killed in any retaliation. They way they look at it, they're fighting and dying for Allah, and this guarantees their place in paradise. Kill infidels, or die trying to kill infidels. It make no difference. In their twisted vision of their religious duty, it's all the same.

So ... Iran makes a few nuclear weapons. They then use the porous border between the U.S. and Mexico to bring one of those bombs into the U.S. Perhaps in the well-shielded back of a minivan. They park the minivan in a garage of some ordinary house in an obscure neighborhood in some mid-sized American city. Then they conduct a nuclear test in Iran. Surprise! We have the bomb!

As the world is reacting to the Iranian nuclear test, some deranged Mullah steps up to the microphones to inform the world that there is a bomb just like the one they tested somewhere in the United States. There's another in some Western European country. The world is then informed that both of these bombs will be detonated unless certain Islamic demands are met.

What demands? Well, let's start with the removal of all U.S. and Western troops out of the Middle East. Then all Jews are told to leave Israel or face annihilation. The U.S. is told that if we dare to defend Israel, the bomb will be detonated. In short order the Islamic fascists have complete control over the entire Middle East. All moderate Arab governments will fall. The Persians of Iran will rule. All oil supplies to the Western world will be held hostage to Iranian demands.

Now ... is there anything in this scenario thus far that you think is absurd? Can you not see things playing out pretty much this way? Sure, there are as many possibilities are there are people capable of dreaming them up. Any way you look at it, Iran with a nuclear bomb isn't a warm and fuzzy thought.

So .. what do we do?

There are three main alternatives.

1. Diplomacy
2. Sanctions against Iran
3. Military action...

(bold emphasis mine) Boortz goes on to examine each of these three alternatives in detail. He starts with an excellent analysis of Diplomacy, and how the left has undermined our efforts in this area to the point where it is now practically worthless. Sanctions would also be undermined by the left and the media, and as for a military solution... it's a new game, with new rules, and it's pretty ugly. And the left once again, plays it's part. There's much more, I recommend reading the whole thing. There is also an opinion poll with the article, where you can vote on the alternative you think would be best.

No comments: