If the US bombs the nuclear facilities, she should destroy the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and bring the regime crashing done. No half way measures.
Conrad Black argues Strike Against Iran would be successful — and bipartisan.
[..] If Russia and China do not join, or if they do and the sanctions don’t work as Iran approaches a nuclear capability, then the U.S., France, Germany, the U.K., and any responsible country that wishes to join (though perhaps not Israel) should attack Iran’s nuclear facilities as firmly and repeatedly as necessary, and, of course, as antiseptically as possible in terms of avoidance of collateral damage.
The problems of the Tehran government would multiply, the U.S. would cease to be seen as a paper tiger, the Western alliance would come back to life, the Arab powers could be persuaded to take a stronger line against Iranian incursions in their region (especially by Hamas and Hezbollah), and the derelict peace process with the Palestinians might even be invigorated. Iran would lose its ability to meddle successfully in Iraq, including through the egregious former protégé of the Pentagon and of Richard Perle, Ahmad Chalabi. The streets of the world would be as calm as they were after the anti-nuclear strikes on Iraq and Syria, and The New York Review of Books might even cease to represent the Khomeini revolution as a great democratic breakthrough with some resemblance to 1776.
The excruciating series of humbling acts that the Obama administration has called “engagement” could yet turn to account, as stern measures from Obama will be much harder to portray as naked aggression than the armed virility of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, the magnificently mustachioed John Bolton, et al. Bush’s promotion of democracy, which was fine as long as it didn’t unsettle America’s undemocratic allies, would be a clear success if plausible elections are regularly held across the quadrifecta of former hostile states and Afghanistan. Those formerly closed gates would be portals of opportunity, an immense international geopolitical success, and hailed bipartisanly within the U.S., as militant Islam is decisively defeated and moderate Islam enhanced.
Surely, someone in the bowels of the national-security apparat is thinking in these terms; perhaps Mrs. Clinton, who has spoken of “obliterating” Iran if it attacks Israel, or Robert Gates, or even the president himself, if only silently at 3 a.m. while waiting for the proverbial red telephone to ring. We retain the entitlement to hope.
— Conrad Black is the author of Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Champion of Freedom and Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full. He can be reached at cbletters@gmail.com.
Comments on Israpundit.com
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
© 2005-2008 by Domain Owner. Some Rights Reserved. All views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the site owner or the rest of its participants.
Israpundit is proudly powered by WordPress using a theme designed by someone no longer associated with this site. Technical support provided by Andrew L. Jaffee.
Obama wants to negotiate with Iran, not democratize it.
Like all leftists, he is haunted by the CIA-engineered overthrow of Mossadegh and will not aggress against Iran.
Besides, Iran is the means by which the Left can erase the “historical mistake” it perceives is situated between Lebanon and Jordan and Egypt.
Comment by ayn reagan — March 2, 2010 @ 1:02 am
Ayn the left can go pound sand, you and I along with many others know there is no historical mistake. G-d doesn’t make mistakes.
The land between Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt was dedicated to the Jews by G-d and woe to those who think differently.
I pray for Israel every day and G-d listens to sinners and I know He hears me loud and clear.
Comment by rongrand — March 2, 2010 @ 2:00 am
Black makes the case for striking Iran that Obama is deaf to. His thought, which is far more hope then fact based is that a confluence of factors might yet emerge that would bring America’s traditional allies including Russia and China onside to impose fang filled sanctions and if they don’t work, then all would ally in attacking Iran, in a most humane way of course, with minimal risk of collateral damage.
Obama however remains convinced that he can talk Iran to death.
Obama probably knows he is blowing smoke (and Black should also) when he speaks of Russia and China getting on board with sanctions against Iran, let alone joining in an attack on Iran. Nonetheless, Obama continues to blow smoke with his eloquent words that even he must know by now is fooling no one.
Russia and China are making a fortune from Iran which is a valued customer for Russian nuclear technology and a valued customer for both Russian and Chinese arms and munitions.
Obama will only get Russia and China onside for sanctions if Iran were to start attacking them or Obama can figure out how America can buy Russian and Chinese co-operation, like they have bought the tepid, if not trifling co-operation of other nations.
Rest assured the price would be high for Russian and Chinese co-operation vis a vis sanctioning Iran.
Neither option however seems realistic since America is bankrupt and it is in no position to give much, other then more trade and technology concessions. That will however only further undermine America’s economy and techonological edge.
What is perplexing however is that the case is there in American blood to be made that Iran is America’s enemy, has attacked America, if only by Iranian intervention in Iraq, by supporting and arming the insurgents, who have used that support to kill American soldiers.
What more does America need?
For one thing, it needs a President who not only is, but acts like a Commander in Chief and one who does not let his love of his own ideas and the sound of his own voice render him deaf, dumb and blind to harsh and bloody realities.
Comment by Bill Narvey — March 2, 2010 @ 2:52 am
What causes you to believe that Obama doesn’t know exactly what he is doing?
Do you think that Wright or Ayers or Khalidi disapprove?
These are his philosophical compadres.
People hate to acknowledge evil, but here it is.
Obama is not naive, nor is he deaf/dumb/blind to the harsh realities.
He hates Israel and despises America.
He is acting accordingly.
That is the harsh reality to which we must not be oblivious.
Life is sufficiently convoluted so that there is no need to contrive complexity.
If it walks like a (Marxist) duck, and talks like a (Marxist) duck…
Comment by ayn reagan — March 2, 2010 @ 3:01 am
Good points by all three of you, however - Ayn nails it in #4
Comment by Steve Smyser — March 2, 2010 @ 3:52 am
In Obama’s Brave New World a Nuke Armed Iran, who obliterates a Jewish Israel and Israeli retaliation wiping Iran of the map, is a scenario Obama might welcome if not encourage in covert ways.
Israel must attack Iran even if they can’t get the nuke facilities and stop the program. which we probably can’t this late in the game.
Israel should attack Iran with Israeli Nukes doing as much damage as necessary in-order to sow enough fear and to regain respect in the world, regaining deterrence.
Taking out at least half of Irans oil fields and at least 1 small city should do the trick but if not then redo the attack until somebody gets the message.
Comment by yamit82 — March 2, 2010 @ 6:12 am