| « | Fran's Sunday Ruminations: Rainy Days And Mondays |
»
|
|
Monday, May 02, 2005
We’re Going To Have To Hit Them
We didn't want to...but we must:
Iran is planning to mount a staunch defense of its nuclear energy program at an international conference beginning today and will insist on rights to the same technology afforded to all members of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a senior Iranian official said in an interview yesterday.[...snip...]
M. Javad Zarif, Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, said his country's efforts are peaceful and well within its rights. Kharrazi, who will address the gathering tomorrow, will spend much of this week discussing the issue with diplomats from around the world.
It is quite obvious that the regime in Tehran intends to become a nuclear power, and not for electrical power's sake. Both the intent to develop nuclear weapons and the targets already chosen for them have been openly discussed:
TEHRAN 14 Dec. (IPS) One of Iran’s most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only"."If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran
[...snip...]
While Israel is believed to possess between 100 to 200 nuclear war heads, the Islamic Republic and Iraq are known to be working hard to produce their own atomic weapons with help from Russia and North Korea, Pakistan, also a Muslim state, has already a certain number of nuclear bomb.
In a lengthy speech to mark the so-called "International Qods (Jerusalem) Day" celebrated in Iran only, Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani, who, as the Chairman of the Assembly to Discern the Interests of the State, is the Islamic Republic’s number two man after Ayatollah Ali Khameneh’i, said since Israel was an emanation of Western colonialism therefore "in future it will be the interests of colonialism that will determine existence or non-existence of Israel".
Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani made the unprecedented threat as, following new suicide operations inside Israel and against Israeli settlements by Palestinian extremists in PA-controlled zones, responded by Israel’s heaviest bombarding of Palestinian cities, police, communication and radio-television installations, killing and wounding more than 200 people on both sides, resulted in the halting of all contacts between Israel and the PA of Mr. Yaser Arafat.
Rafsanjani's speech was delivered on December 14, 2001, a mere three months after the most horrifying terrorist attack in human history. Israel has already made preparations for the saturation nuclear bombardment of Iran, as the last-ditch defense against what Rafsanjani openly advocated. Should that come to pass, the casualties would be in the millions -- many of them innocent victims of the second most oppressive regime on Earth.
Given the attitude conveyed by today's story, we can no longer wait for a revolution from below to eject the mullahocracy. Our choice is between a few thousand casualties from a conventional invasion, and millions of corpses charred by nuclear fire. God only grant that the dead are not Americans.
Comments
American soldiers should die to prevent Iranian civilian casualties? When there’s even a chance the invasion will go wrong, as some military operations do?
I say no. I say bomb them with whatever weapons are neeeded to destroy their nuclear program utterly, and I specifically include using our own nuclear weapons against them. If we have to do it, can we for once use enough force instead of almost enough?
Posted by on 05/02/2005 at 08:23 AMOn the face of it Steve’s argument is mighty persuasive. We do indeed have the technological might, and (one dearly hopes) the will to use same should the need arise. And there is no rational (military) man who desires to see any of his charges brought to a bloody end when they have to answer the governments call to arms.
But, (Ya knew it was coming didn’t you?) Iran is not the same as Iraq. Both in the make up of the government in charge, and in the overall make up of the populous. The fact is, there exists to some extent a great number of people who are pro west and given the chance, would seek to have their current government exorcised of all the theocrats. If we were to (even including the use of guided tactical nukes) go in and start blowing up real and or suspected targets. Would we be willing to have as the consequence of these actions be even more American (and assuming we are not acting alone) and allied forces being killed as we take the follow up action of deposing their current government?
I am not saying nothing should be done. Far from it. This is a very big (or had better be a) concern for this country, the Israelis, and (I hope)the Europeans who are thinking far enough ahead. Perhaps there is a way to support and promote insurrection from inside...but owing to the nature of such things, we most likely will not find out about this until after it starts. Failing that, like it or not, is there a realistic way we can expect this to be resolved without some loss of life? Because though bombs may get rid of the reactors and such...they won’t remove the root cause of the problem.
Posted by Guy S. on 05/02/2005 at 04:05 PMQuite so, Guy. We should try everything short of war to topple the regime. I hope we already are doing so, and suspect we are.
We only have to hit them when it gets down to the last five minutes—when they are about to complete a nuclear weapon which can be hidden anywhere, but before that weapon leaves the assembly facility.
Given the consequences of guessing wrong, we need to hit them as soon as the above might plausibly be true, not wait for proof positive.
My only carp was then WHEN AND IF WE DO HIT THEM, for God’s sake let’s do it in the way which involves the least risk to our servicemen while still getting the job done. And to hell with Iranian casualties.
But yeah, until the very morning we have to hit them or have an Iranian nuke in useable condition ... let’s not hit them. There’s still a chance we can resolve this by political warfare.
Posted by on 05/02/2005 at 06:10 PMOne word: Trinitite.
Posted by og on 05/02/2005 at 10:18 PMI guess what I was trying to say was if there ever was a case for a well thought out covert operation being able to be implamented, in my mind Iran would be the country to do it with. They have the people who would (given the chance/opportunity) form a real resistance when needed, and have people in their government right now who would be instrumental in shaping that if a proper coup was brought about. Failing that being possible, and a surgical strike (or strikes) was the course of action needed, even then, I think the proper rallying of internal forces would benifet us in both the short and long term. But the bottom line is the bottom line...they should not be allowed to have the capibility to implament a nuclear option.
As an aside...N. Korea would be a prime place to lob a tactical nuke or two ...on either their nuclear facilities or the little fat guy with funky hair house...or both. Enough is enough already.
Posted by Guy S. on 05/03/2005 at 12:15 PM
