A Little Bit About Iran
Obviously, everyone heard that this earlier this week,
Basically, there’s no doubt that
The hoo hah in the
The sad fact is that we do not currently have the capability to force regime change and build a democracy in
At present, any attack on
That said, as highlighted in these articles, we have no good options. Only really bad, and really friggin’ worse. An
William Kristol explores whether we have the *guts* to stand up and carry out our responsibilities in the world. Readers note, that Kid Various has his doubts.
The strategist Eliot Cohen was correct when he told the New York Times last week, "I don't get a sense that people in the administration are champing at the bit to launch another war in the
Caroline Glick also tackles the big question, whether we, in
After the September 11 attacks, George W. Bush was revered by Americans and lovers of liberty around the world. His soaring rhetoric and stated determination to fight for all that is good and sacred in this world won the hearts of millions and instilled in them the hope that the great battle for civilization had been joined by a force capable of defending it.
Americais the greatest nation on Earth and it does have the ability to defend the world against regimes like and its allies. It can prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It can take those weapons out of Iran 's hands. It can bring North Korea Damascusto its knees and force it to cough up 's arsenal of pathogens. And no, military might is not the only way for it to accomplish these tasks. Iraq
cannot, and it will not accomplish any of these goals if it continues to abide by strategies and frameworks that serve only to strengthen its enemies and permit its "allies" to behave perfidiously. It cannot and will not defend the world from evil, demonic regimes like America Iran's if it continues to allow the likes of the EU, Russia, Egyptand to undercut its will at every turn. China
This week Teheran threw down the gauntlet. The greatest battle of this war - the battle to prevent the world's most dangerous regime from attaining the most dangerous weapons known to man - has begun. The moment has arrived for President George W. Bush to make clear if he is, in the final analysis, the leader of the free world or its undertaker.
Former Lt. General Thomas McInerney claims that there *is* an available airstrike option that would at least set back Iraninan nuclear capabilities for 5 years and perhaps spur an overthrow of the regime. The Kid is doubtful. It sounds too rosy. However, there is no doubt that airstrikes could at least delay
A MILITARY OPTION AGAINST
Finally, a must read is Mark Steyn’s essay this week in The City Journal. How Steyn, who has no foreign policy background, can cut through the slop and identify the key issues at stake, and do so while being so seemingly effortlessly humourous, is beyond the Kid. He wishes he could write like that.
becomes a nuclear power, the Dutch have no reason to believe it would be a factor in, say, negotiations over a joint highway project. But Belgium ’s nukes will be a factor in everything. If you think, for example, the European Union and others have been fairly craven over those Danish cartoons, imagine what they’d be like if a nuclear Iran had demanded a formal apology, a suitable punishment for the newspaper, and blasphemy laws specifically outlawing representations of the Prophet. Tehran with nukes will be a suicide bomber with a radioactive waist. Iran
…For this to be a mortal struggle, as the cold war was, the question is: Are they a credible enemy to us?
For a projection of the likely outcome, the question is: Are we a credible enemy to them?
Four years into the “war on terror,” the Bush administration has begun promoting a new formulation: “the long war.” Not a reassuring name. In a short war, put your money on tanks and bombs—our strengths. In a long war, the better bet is will and manpower—their strengths, and our great weakness. Even a loser can win when he’s up against a defeatist. A big chunk of Western civilization, consciously or otherwise, has given the impression that it’s dying to surrender to somebody, anybody. Reasonably enough, Islam figures: Hey, why not us? If you add to the advantages of will and manpower a nuclear capability, the odds shift dramatically.
What’s the difference between a hothead and a moderate? Well, the extremist Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be “wiped off the map,” while the moderate Rafsanjani has declared that Israel is “the most hideous occurrence in history,” which the Muslim world “will vomit out from its midst” in one blast, because “a single atomic bomb has the power to completely destroy Israel, while an Israeli counter-strike can only cause partial damage to the Islamic world.” Evidently wiping
Israeloff the map seems to be one of those rare points of bipartisan consensus in , the Iranian equivalent of a prescription drug plan for seniors: we’re just arguing over the details. Tehran
So the question is: Will they do it?
And the minute you have to ask, you know the answer. If, say,
Norwayor acquired nuclear weapons, we might regret the “proliferation,” but we wouldn’t have to contemplate mushroom clouds over neighboring states. In that sense, the civilized world has already lost: to enter into negotiations with a jurisdiction headed by a Holocaust-denying millenarian nut job is, in itself, an act of profound weakness—the first concession, regardless of what weaselly settlement might eventually emerge. Ireland