Bomb Iran

Is there any other choice?

The reality is that we cannot live safely with a nuclear-armed Iran. One reason is terrorism, of which Iran has long been the world's premier state sponsor, through groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Now, according to a report last week in London's Daily Telegraph, Iran is trying to take over Al Qaeda by positioning its own man, Saif Adel, to become the successor to the ailing Osama bin Laden. How could we possibly trust Iran not to slip nuclear material to terrorists?

Koppel says that we could prevent this by issuing a blanket warning that if a nuclear device is detonated anywhere in the United States, we will assume Iran is responsible. But would any U.S. president really order a retaliatory nuclear strike based on an assumption?

Another reason is that an Iranian bomb would constitute a dire threat to Israel's 6 million-plus citizens. Sure, Israel could strike back, but Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former president who was Ahmadinejad's "moderate" electoral opponent, once pointed out smugly that "the use of an atomic bomb against Israel would totally destroy Israel, while [the same] against the Islamic world would only cause damage. Such a scenario is not inconceivable." If that is the voice of pragmatism in Iran, would you trust deterrence against the messianic Ahmadinejad?

The old-school realists -- and the new crop of liberal super-fans of realpolitik -- think there are other choices. Militant, expansionistic, hegemonic, violent, savage Islam is just a threat (if that) like any other. And like all other threats, they can be placated with a mix of appeasements and surrenders.

They scoff at the idea this is a wholly new threat, one that simply will not stop until it achieves its goals, which it has not been shy about declaring on a daily basis.

But they're quite sure this is a threat just like any other, because, after all, we've never, never, in all of our history, faced an enemy with an inherently racist and manichean goal of world subjugation and mass slaughter, an enemy which not shy in the least about announcing precisely these plans in daily speeches to its fanatical followers.

Since that's never happened before, obviously, it's very unlikely it could happen in the future. As physicists say, that which can happen, does happen, that which does not happen, cannot happen.

There's never been such a vile, violent, racist, mannichean enemy in our past, so it can't happen in our future.

Except... the one problem is... it did happen before. And it's not exactly a secret. There have been like five or six books written about it and everything.

And that war didn't stop until more than sixty million people were dead.

An atomic weapons were only invented at the end of that war.

By the way... For those whose hearts bleed over the death of every victim of war -- so long as they're not American and/or Jews -- a large-scale conventional bomb-strike on Iran may, possibly, obviate the well-nigh-inevitable nuclear attack on Iran.

If liberals think their fellow Americans are the sort to watch innocent countries get nuked -- perhaps even our own -- and yet abstain from some apocalyptic nuclear counter-fire themselves (so we can show them we're better than they are!!!), liberals have, as usual, badly misread their fellow Americans.

posted by Ace at 09:09 PM

| Access Comments