Nazis With Nukes

The preferred method for dealing with unruly nations is to bring international pressure against them and deploy sanctions. This method is preferred in part because it is relatively cheap in lives and treasure. It is preferred for the most part because it allows one to defer difficult decisions almost indefinitely.

That doesn't mean that it can't work. Sanctions brought an end to White rule in South Africa and an end to Gaddafi's nuclear program in Libya. It is possible that it will work in Syria.

The Assad regime is fighting an armed insurgency similar to the one that brought down Gaddafi. On the ground, the facts do not favor the insurgency. The regime has a professional army with lots of mobile armor. The army is manned by Alawites, the Shia minority that rules the country. If the regime fails, the Alawites will be at the mercy of the Sunni majority (70%), so they have a very clear motive to keep fighting. The insurgents, meanwhile, depend on smuggled and recovered small arms. Unlike the Libyan rebels, they aren't getting American air cover.

Russia has been intransigent in its support of the regime. There are some signs that Russia might go along with serious UN sanctions. The Arab League likewise has said a lot of harsh things about the Assad Regime without yet being willing to do anything. If Assad is really isolated, it is difficult to see how he can hold out.

There is also some evidence that sanctions are beginning to bite in Iran. The difference there is 1) the absence of any insurgency or even a significant protest movement; 2) the Iranian nuclear weapons program; and 3) the fact that the Ayatollah is a Nazi.

As for item 3, let the following money quote from a recent speech by Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei suffice:

"The Zionist regime is a true cancer tumor on this region that should be cut off," the supreme leader said. "And it definitely will be cut off."

That is clear enough that anyone who ignores it puts his soul at risk. The Iranian regime is dedicated to the eradication of Israel. That ideal is the essence of Hitlerism. The Iranian regime cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons.

If the Israelis are prepared to take action, we should encourage them to do so. It may be politic to deny that we are encouraging them, but we should be prepared to be impolitic. If the Israelis need some assistance, it should be forthcoming. If Israel cannot do the job alone, they should not have to do it alone.

Iran is a great threat to the stability of the region. We would have the support (implicitly at least) of her neighbors if we took action or encouraged Israel to take action. This is, however, no matter of ordinary policy. The Ayatollah is an evil man at the head of an evil regime. It would be nice if some gentler policy like sanction can contain that regime. We must not seduce ourselves with wishful thinking.

Comments

[larry kurtz]

Israel should be a county in Utah.

[D.E. Bishop]

You said, "The preferred method for dealing with unruly nations is to bring international pressure against them and deploy sanctions. This method is preferred in part because it is relatively cheap in lives and treasure. It is preferred for the most part because it allows one to defer difficult decisions almost indefinitely."

Do you really think that politicians consider it preferable to get Americans killed rather than make a difficult political decision? Argh!

I am liberal, and I really struggle with not supporting Israel. I think they have taken some very provocative actions regarding the Palestinians, Israeli settlements, the wall, etc. But on the other hand, what are they supposed to do?! They live in the midst of nations that have zealously pledged to exterminate them?

I don't think there is an easy answer. What is yours?

[Bill Fleming]

Time to dial down the sword rattling already. Broker a deal allowing Iran to develop nuclear energy but limit the level of enrichment allowed. Okay, that's the carrot. The stick is "unless of course you'd rather have your country end up looking like Iraq does right now."

[Stan Gibilisco]

... or like the surface of the planet Mecury.

[Stan Gibilisco]

Oh gawd, how do these gremlins get into my spelling? "Mercury."

[Ken Blanchard]

D.E.B.: I say the opposite of what you suggest. Most of the time, as Churchill put it, jaw jaw is better than war war. Not always. Putting of the inevitable is one of the chief causes of WWII. As for solutions, I plainly state two.

Bill: I would love to send you to Tehran to broker a deal. You would fail. Obama has failed. Waiting and hoping is what the Ayatollah is counting on us doing. The stick only works if the donkey thinks you are really prepared to use it.

Stan: The only way we would ever use Nukes on Iran is if they used on of theirs first. Making sure it doesn't ever come to that is the only sane policy.

[Donald Pay]

ElBaradei's book, "The Age of Deception" has a very detailed unraveling of years of failed efforts to address the nuclear issue with Iran, efforts that just missed success several times because of domestic politics either in America or in Iran. As leader of the IAEA, ElBaradei played middle man in the negotiations between two very different American administrations and Iran. The issue is a lot more complicated than claiming people are "Hitler."

Among the issues you might want to consider is what would be the effect of a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities on Pakistan, which has at least 50 nuclear weapons. ElBaradei believes there would be an immediate shift of that country toward the radical Islamic elements, and those nukes might be turned on us. Certainly our troops in the region would be in grave danger.

I think the recently announced speedup of force withdrawal from Afghanistan might be linked, in part, to such an understanding. If Israel attacks, our troops in Afghanistan would be in serious jeopardy. Getting them out on a speeded up timeline may indicate that the US expects an attack.

[Stan Gibilisco]

Even if Iran did nuke Israel, I'm not sure that the United States would nuke Iran. But Israel (assuming they have The Bomb) sure would.

[Bill Fleming]

KB, Hillary would do a better job of it than I would. Or you.

[Ken Blanchard]

Bill: You, I, or Hillary, would fail.

[Bill Fleming]

http://www.truth-out.org/us-leak-israeli-attack-weakened-warning-netanyahu/1328462237?fb_ref=.Ty7hNFZyC1w.like&fb_source=home_oneline

Maybe, KB... but think about it. Iran is toast. The only reasonable thing they can do is cooperate.

[Ken Blanchard]

bill: I hope you are right. I don't see why you think that they might do the reasonable thing.

[Jimi]

"The only reasonable thing they can do is cooperate."

When dieing for your religous beliefs is considered righteous? They could care less what the consequences are...that's the point!