generals never die, they just fade away.” Unfortunately, many otherwise astute minds are relying on the former CentCom Commander’s outdated worldview to formulate their own policy positions, particularly in our looming confrontation with Iran over that nation’s nuclear ambitions. If America follows Gen. Abizaid's advice, we may all "just fade away" much sooner than we had envisioned.The Washington Times’ Arnaud de Borchgrave, whom we have praised previously for sound analysis on other topics, quoted Ret. Gen. Abizaid extensively in his recent column on potential conflict with Iran, “Networked and Lethal.” De Borchgrave subscribes to the view that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has aroused international scorn and sympathy in equal portions, is merely a powerless puppet whose strings are controlled by Iran’s Supreme Religious Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
This analysis, by itself, is relatively accurate and approaching diplomacy with Iran from that perspective is a somewhat prudent course to follow. However, de Borchgrave draws upon Gen. Abizaid to support his position that military action against Iran would be a mistake. According to both men, using force against Iran to eliminate uranium enrichment sites would be foolish and dangerous because, somewhere under the lecherous layers of power represented by Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, lies a trickling rivulet of revolution that seeks peace with the west and only civilian use of nuclear power for electricity.
We will set aside for the moment the fact that this optimistic view of Iran’s underlying potential for political reform requires, to borrow from Hillary Clinton’s lexicon, “the willful suspension of disbelief.” Senator Clinton used that phrase to bludgeon General David Petraeus’ report to congress on progress in Iraq, where despite abundant evidence of silver linings, critics choose to see only the dark cloud. By contrast, in evaluating Iran’s potential for peaceful coexistence with the West and its Middle East neighbors as a nuclear nation, those same critics embrace wishful thinking and cite historical references to Persian culture and traditions that they conveniently forget have long since been replaced by radical Islamic ideology.
Ret. Gen Abizaid is a strong advocate of what is, for a leader who was previously so instrumental in the War on Terror, a remarkably reckless and illogical policy toward Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Gen. Abizaid sees no reason why Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear technology, apparently including nuclear weapons, because he mistakenly equates Iran with the former Soviet Union and the current standoff with Iran as just another iteration of the Cold War. The following excerpts set forth de Borchgrave’s and Gen. Abizaid’s reasoning for choosing a nuclear Iran over military conflict to prevent that eventuality:
Mr. Ahmadinejad, who today will put in his third appearance in three years before the U.N. General Assembly, has little power in Iran's theocracy. The key levers are in the hands of Supreme Religious Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Everything from media to intelligence and including the armed forces and parliament is in his hands. And former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani, who lost the presidential election to Mr. Ahmadinejad in 2005, was elected chairman of Iran's Assembly of Experts, the body that elects the supreme spiritual leader. Mr. Rafsanjani defeated a hard-line cleric who was Mr. Ahmadinejad's friend and protector.
Unlike Mr. Ahmadinejad, who would seem to welcome a military showdown with the United States, if only to force the entire Middle East to side with Iran against the U.S., both Messrs. Khamenei and Rafsanjani are apparently worried about the voices calling for the bombing of Iran's estimated 23 widely scattered underground nuclear facilities.
…Former CentCom commander Gen. Abizaid, who speaks fluent Arabic and whose command extended from Afghanistan to Iraq and the rest of the Middle East and took in a large chunk of Africa from Egypt to the Horn of Africa down to Kenya (27 countries), said bombing Iran would be catastrophic. It would set the entire Middle East ablaze and bring millions more recruits to al Qaeda's anti-U.S. bandwagon.
Gen. Abizaid, now retired, says: "We can stop Iranian expansion. We contained the Soviet Union with tens of thousands of nuclear warheads in missiles targeted against the United States. But we kept talking to Soviet leaders throughout the worst of the Cold War. And we blocked Soviet expansionism and we also learned to live with China after President Nixon restored diplomatic relations."
Iran, the general explains, is a dangerous power that seeks weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to dominate its neighbors much the way the Soviet Union developed satellite and client states. The United States should deliver clear messages. One or two Iranian nukes should not rattle us. If they fired them, Iran would be instantly vaporized.
"The ayatollahs are heirs to a great civilization," he said in a colloquy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, "and they are not in the business of collective suicide. Using suicide bombers against Western or pro-Western countries is one thing, but committing national suicide quite another. They aren't mad." And we should talk turkey with Iran at the highest level as soon as possible.
It is stunning that a man with the mindset that “one or two Iranian nukes should not rattle us” was ever selected as the CentCom commander. His comparison between the former Soviet Union and the current Iranian regime is frighteningly naïve, especially from one who many look to as an “expert” on Middle Eastern matters. Ret. Gen. Abizaid either conveniently or cunningly ignores the fact that during the Cold War nuclear capability belonged to only a handful of nations and was a jealously and fanatically guarded secret. There was virtually no concern within the intelligence community that the Soviets would develop a nuclear weapon, sell it to Islamic or other terrorists, and help them to smuggle it out of country to be used against the United States or its allies.
Quite simply, the Soviets feared that any nuclear weapon used against the United States would be blamed on them and retaliation would not be long in coming. Thus it was in the self-interest of the Soviets not to share nuclear technology with radicals who might strike the United States rashly. Though dangerous in its own right, the Soviet Union wielded nuclear weapons in large quantity as a demonstration of national strength. There is far more fear that a nuclear Iran would use or sell its weapons than there ever was that the Soviets would do so. The Soviets likewise did not harbor any sympathy for or ally themselves with Muslims and were understandably alarmed by the potential consequences of any nuclear Islamic nation.
Ret. Gen. Abizaid seems to think that our ability to “instantly vaporize” Iran should make us
confident that Iran would never be irrational enough to use nuclear weapons against America. In essence, the general advocates applying the strategy of deterrence, or Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) to Iran. MAD was crafted to defend against an enemy's all out assault, an attack intended to cripple America with strikes against multiple cities simultaneously. It was never meant as a deterrent against terrorists who would be perfectly satisfied with a random detonation in just one American city. To equate MAD's capacity to deter the Soviet Union with a similar effect on radical Islamic terrorists is illogical in the extreme.It is baffling why this so-called expert would not prefer keeping nuclear weapons out of Iranian hands in the first place. Radical Islamic terrorists are not known to be reasonable, rational people. Gen. Abizaid would like to believe that the Iranian nation as a whole is not suicidal and that “they aren’t mad.” He forgets, however, that the weaponry of Iran is in the hands of a small number of religious zealots who preach loudly of their role in ushering in an apocalyptic future. The Iranian nation may not be bent on collective suicide, but its radical leaders have no such qualms about martyring themselves and their nation to fulfill prophecy.
The general’s portrait of Iran as an inherently peaceful nation fails to address what is undeniably the greatest source of concern regarding Iran: that it will provide nuclear weapons and/or technology to terrorist groups who would not hesitate to use them against America and its allies. A nuclear-armed Iran would be unlikely to engage in a tactical nuclear conflict with America, but most Americans would not share Gen. Abizaid’s opinion that we should not be rattled by “one or two Iranian nukes.” Which cities in Europe would Gen. Abizaid be so casually willing to lose? What would be left of Israel after “one or two Iranian nukes?” The nuclear devices would detonate and we would face then the same question we face today: Should we take action to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment and nuclear technology sites? The only difference would be the tragic loss of millions of lives due to a nuclear terrorist attack that would have been preventable.
Given Iran’s well-documented record of funding, equipping, training, and transporting terrorists who attack American civilians and military forces on a daily basis and who have struck at Israel for decades, it requires the willful suspension of disbelief to think Iran would not sell or give freely its future nuclear weapons to terrorist groups it already supplies with weapons. The confusion after a nuclear terrorist attack would be paralyzing to America. Some would blame it on Russians; others would insist it was a preemptive strike by an increasingly aggressive China; Al Qaeda would naturally be suspected, but in the aftermath of such an attack it would be difficult to establish who orchestrated the event and how to respond. The knee-jerk reaction would be to annihilate whatever nation produced the weapon and supplied it to terrorists.
Gen. Abizaid appears to have great respect for Iran and its Persian culture and traditions. He should recognize that the best way to preserve Iran’s people and culture is to prevent its current radical regime from ever developing nuclear weapons that, through their existence and potential use or sale, would jeopardize the future of the entire Iranian nation. Neither the world nor the Iranian people can afford to take the risk that mullahs with nuclear weapons would act responsibly in possession of nuclear weapons. Their record terror sponsorship, their stated vision of a world without Israel, and their hatred for America should rattle us out of our diplomatic course that has allowed Iran to bring over 3,000 centrifuges online and race toward sufficient uranium enrichment for weapons production.
Gen. Abizaid is a trusting soul, but trust in the intentions of Islamic radicals in pursuit of nuclear weapons may prove suicidal. This may be the only situation in recorded history where America should take the word of Ahmadinejad and his mullah puppeteers at face value and ignore the advice of one of our decorated retired generals.
Technorati Tags: General John Abizaid Iran Ayatollah Khamenei Ahmadinejad Iranian Nuclear Weapons War on Terror Cold War
10 comments:
...and all this with no mention of those 'human waves', when the Iranian clergy, in the course of the Iran/Iraq war, sent hundreds, perhaps thousands, of young boys - the Basij 'volunteers' - to their deaths merely to clear the way through minefields for the tanks to follow.
You show restraint in your posts, OBW.
May I remind you that, ranging in age from only nine to more than fifty, these eager but relatively untrained soldiers swept over minefields and fortifications to clear safe paths for the tanks.
Lacking the equipment to open secure passages through Iraqi minefields, and having too few tanks, the Iranian command resorted to the human-wave tactic in March 1984. At that time, an East European journalist claimed that he "saw tens of thousands of young boys, roped together in groups of about twenty to prevent the faint-hearted from deserting, make such an attack."
Nukes?
I dislike how you put volunteers in quotes. Considering that teenage boys are perfectly happy to blow themselves up on Israeli buses, or to shoot at US troops in Iraq, thinking that they weren't perfectly willing to do something crazy for the greater good is a little dumb. Remember, they were clearing the way for the Revolutionary Guard, the religious army of Iran, to go fight their heretic, aggressive neighbours. And also remember that in earlier human wave attacks the Basij (and Revolutionary Guard behind them) had been well supported by the Iranian Army and Air Force.
And for citizens of a nation with ten thousand nuclear weapons, two-thirds of which are ready to fire right this very minute, to be scared of a regime managing to create two large, heavy bombs which shout out their nuclear payload to anyone with a geiger counter, that's just yellow.
General Abizaid is a man with a wealth of experience in the region, and his opinion should be worth more than accusing him of being outdated in his views, foolish, reckless, illogical, inexperienced, naive and, in one case, willfully dishonest.
You are right, radical Islamic terrorists _aren't_ that reasonable, in that it's impossible to reason with them. They also happen to be Sunnis, but Iran is the centre of Shi-ite Islam, and the thought that they will hand their weapons to Sunnis is about as likely as the UDF offering their weapons to the IRA. For those of you who don't understand the analogy, the UDF are a Protestant terrorist group in Northern Ireland, the IRA famously Catholic. Iran as a nation is immensely proud of its Persian heritage, of having had an empire which once controlled the region. Whilst there are some Muslims who would like to see a Caliphate, they are Sunnis, the Iranians have, I believe, no interest past protecting their own borders and making life difficult for the US whilst avoiding further sanctions. And, of course, any action towards nuking Israel will no doubt be responded to in kind by Israel, a nuclear power.
If you're worried about "record sponsors of terror" you should go look at Libya, and what can happen when you stop bombing your opponents and start talking to them. Gaddafi slept through the US bombing of his country, kept supporting extremist terrorists, and it takes diplomatic efforts to make him stop and join the world. Just think about the support _you_ are giving to the people who think bombing is the way to go.
That said, I'm going to have to stop reading this blog regularly, it appears to ignore discourse, evidence and experts in order to chase one policy, and look where that got us today. Take care O-Be, I'll keep checking in to see if you've managed to find the pulse.
While I respect boy’s opinion, I find the arguments put forth only furthered in my mind the validity of OBW’s post and johnny-behind-the-duece’s comments. If the teenage boys in Iran are perfectly happy to blow themselves up to fight their heretic neighbors, what will they be willing to support and do to eliminate others they consider heretic and aggressive? The General’s portrayal of Iran being a peaceful nation doesn’t fit with the example of their youth. They have not kept their feelings toward the United States, Israel and others a secret. It is clear they feel there are many aggressive heretics in the world that deserve to be removed. While the US may have many nuclear weapons, they have not shown any desire to use them. The world has known for some time Iran wishes to possess nuclear power for the purpose of weapons, yet the US is still talking to the powers that be in an attempt to prevent those who teach and lead those thousands of teenage boys so willing to die for their religion from obtaining those weapons.
As for Sunnis and Shi-ite’s being unable to work together for a common goal, one only has to look at Iraq to discredit that theory. The opponents to Iraq’s new government (or to be more accurate, those who oppose anything that might make President Bush’s action worth something) claimed it would never work because the Sunni and Shi-ite can’t work together. And yet, despite the claim that Iraq is failing, Sunni and Shi-ite have been found working together. (see http://o-be-wise.blogspot.com/2007/07/sleepless-senate-awakens-iraqi-unity.html ) If they both see Israel, the US and other allies to be aggressive heretics who need to be eliminated, they may be able to work together. Can we risk that possibility? They can always hammer out their differences (or eliminate each other) after their common enemy is removed.
After reading OBW’s analysis of General Abizaid’s opinion of what should be done, I did not feel that OBW disparaged or showed disrespect for the General in any way. OBW simply disagreed with the General’s assessment and explained. If boy disagrees with the view of OBW, he is entitled and encouraged to express and support his own opinion. I would encourage boy to reconsider the decision to stop reading regularly simply because he disagrees with the author’s view. The posts are well written and worthy of reading whether one agrees or not. To stop reading simply because one sees things differently would not be in line with the idea of communicating before acting, an idea boy supports. One cannot talk effectively to one’s opponents until one listens first.
As for me, I thank OBW for these insightful writings. I greatly enjoy reading them.
I have decided to stop keeping a watchful eye on this journal simply because it seems to be populated by commentators unwilling to take the advice of others who they disagree with, and I believe your post is no different.
Firstly, please post an independent source when attempting to prove your point, linking back to this very journal is clearly unacceptable to me, I believe that whilst O-Be's facts will be correct their presentation will be skewed.
And saying that Shi-ites and Sunnis are working together in the Iraqi parliament as proof that extremists would be willing to combine forces is like me saying Hillary Clinton should get Karl Rove to decide her election strategy since Republicans and Democrats work together in the US government. Moderates are very different from extremists, moderates could be given nuclear weapons and trusted, extremists cannot. I do not believe the government of Iran is made up of extremists, although to be sure it has some extremist elements. One of those is Khomeni, who is sure never to work with Sunnis, being the self-proclaimed protector of the Shi-ite faith. Sections of the Revolutionary Guard are likewise extremist, although whether they are open to the Sunni's suicide tactics is open to question.
As for your point of "If Iranian boys would be blown up to fight Iraq, wouldn't they do it for America?" No, I don't think so. Iraq was, in American terms, a clear and present danger. Iraq had invaded Iran. These boys were fighting to protect their country, they were not dying to attack another. It is an important point, especially when you consider the Iran-Iraq War followed the Iranian revolution, the Iranian populace has become significantly less fanatical during the intervening twenty years. For proof, go and find news reports of "bad hijab", the majority of Iranians are straying from the hardcore path the Ayatollah has marked out for them. I think Ahmedinejad is a politician of the new school, he sees the future of his country in these people, not in trying to cling to strict interpretations of Islam.
Try and put yourself in Ahmedinejad's shoes. The US named your country in an "Axis of Evil", invaded two of your neighbours and now a lot of questions are being asked of the presidential candidates about whether or not they'd consider bombing _you_, /and everyone important is saying they would/. Meanwhile another Axis of Evil country has actually _exploded_ a nuclear device and the US is trying to give them money and fuel oil.
I just realised that I'm still trying to get you to look at the evidence from another angle, I guess one day I'll learn that's impossible.
boy, thank you for your different angle. I form my own conclusions of every situation and event by evaluating many sources and opinions. I find that most disagreements are like the proverbial glass. While one may see the glass half empty, another may see it half full. Ironically, both are right. History may prove one (or both) of the differing view points correct. Or there may be a view point neither has considered. Like OBW's posts, I find your comments well reasoned, supported and written. Thank you. I will take them into consideration when forming my opinion. It may not end up concurring with yours (then again, it might), but no conclusion is worth much unless all points of view have been explored.
I likewise realise that many views should be taken to form policy, and I'm happy that everyone on this forum appears to be intelligent and well-informed.
I think the one thing everyone can agree on is that America is at no risk if Iran does acquire nuclear weapons, they would be far too hard to move into the US, and Iran does not have (and is unlikely to ever be able to assemble) the kind of networks in the US that it would need to keep this weapon concealed in the continental US. Terrorist strikes against the US have been carried out with weapons procured in the country, from the Wall Street bombings to Oklahoma to September 11th, so don't worry about someone being able to bring in a nuclear weapon, they're much more likely to attempt to seize one of America's.
boy:
Your comment that the blog at times avoids discourse is somewhat unfair, simply because of time limitations. O-Be-Wise tries to respond to all comments when possible, but sometimes that response might not come soon after a comment is posted. You must consider that there are few blogs out there that produce 3-5 column-length posts per week on a variety of current topics. Find me a popular news columnist who puts out more than 1 or 2 per week, and that is their full-time job. O-Be-Wise manages to do this while juggling career and family. Please be patient if the level of discourse is not as fast-paced as you would like.
As for your points on Iran, I think you have several valid arguments, but also a few that are based on your opinion of Iran rather than historical evidence. For example, you wrote that America is at no risk if Iran acquires nuclear weapons. I noticed you did not write "Israel is at no risk if Iran acquires nuclear weapons," or "Sunni nations in the region are at no risk..." Given America's strategic and cultural alliance with Israel, America is at risk as long as Iran continues to threaten the existence of the Jewish state. If Iran attacked Israel or if a radical group seized an Iranian nuke to detonate in Israel, America would respond and thus be drawn into a lethal conflict. I also take issue with your argument that Iran would not share weaponry with Sunni. Iran is already doing this with IEDs, VBIEDs, rockets, SAMs, and other weaponry currently employed against American and NATO forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The evidence of this is undeniable and directly traceable to Iran.
To say that the Revolutionary Guard operates without the knowledge of Ahmadinejad or Ayatollah Khamenei is to demand the willful suspension of disbelief. If Iranian weapons ARE pouring into Iraq and Afghanistan without authorization or awareness of Iran's government, then that merely strengthens the need to keep nuclear weapons out of Iranian hands. If they can't keep track of their own rockets and explosives, should we entrust them with nuclear weapons? I prefer not to take that chance.
I agree with you that far more should have been done and should continue to be done to dismantle North Korea's nuclear weapons program and destroy its existing weapons. Our government (mainly Clinton and the CIA) badly misjudged North Korea's intentions and progress and allowed the unthinkable to become reality. If anything, that example lends more credence to the idea that we should not allow Iran to similarly lull the world into believing its stated peaceful intentions for nuclear power.
I of course hope you will not stop visiting Capital Cloak because we have divergent views on Iran. It is an important issue, but it is not the only issue we face and based on your input here I believe we have far more common ground on other issues than we have differences. I will always welcome your comments, as they stir debate and present a unique perspective.
I do not feel I was unfair to say that you _ignore_ discourse, I have never accused you of avoiding it. However it appears that my comment was ignored and what was read was that which wanted to be read. Ironic, no? :)
Similarly, I have never said "the Revolutionary Guard operates without the knowledge of Ahmadinejad or Ayatollah Khamenei". I _have_ said something to the effect that Ahmedinejad has no control of the Revolutionary Guard, and this is true, they answer to Khomeni. The Revolutionary Guard is well equipped with all the explosives they would need to make IEDs and EFPs, but the nuclear weapons would be under the command of the Iranian armed forces, and therefore under Ahmedinejad's control.
As for the North Korea issue, must I remind you that it was under W that a nuclear scientist came back from viewing some DPRK yellow cake and said they would not be able to produce a bomb. If anything the US was over-confident in the case of North Korea, believing that a country so backwards would be unable to produce a bomb. However I would like to remind you that America had bombs in the 1950's and I assume North Korea made them the same way. This does mean however that whilst North Korea has access to nuclear weapons it has no delivery system.
But I digress. I did not stop reading because we disagree over Iran, but because you ignore any evidence which does not fit into your existing mindset. I think this post is a perfect example, three times I have had to correct you.
If one assumes that Iran is lying, has always been lying, and will continue to lie, then perhaps they do not want nuclear power but instead wish to become the largest target in the Middle East. After all, America has invaded two of its neighbours for much, much less than owning a nuclear weapon.
boy, you can only claim to correct someone if your assertions are actually correct. However, you continue to draw historical conclusions that are simply not supported by evidence.
If you believe that Iranian nuclear weapons would be under Ahmadinejad's control rather than Khomenei's you know far less about the inner workings of Iranian government than you try to convey in your conclusions. The supreme weapon would certainly be under the control of the Supreme Leader, not the figurehead president. You imply that the military would control such weapons in Iran, but that is wishful thinking. The weapons would be under the control of the leader who inspires the most loyal and fanatical followers, and Iran's military is filled with Khamenei loyalists, not Ahmadinejad worshipers. There is no basis in fact for an argument that the Islamic radical element in Iran is the driving force behind the quest for these weapons and would retain total control over their deployment.
Likewise, the assertion that North Korea lacks a delivery system for nuclear weapons is only a partial truth. What North Korea lacks is a BETTER delivery system. North Korea, through business dealings with China, possesses ample missile technology, as it demonstrates by selling missile delivery systems to Iran and other nations. Currently North Korea has at least one missile system that can reach the American West Coast. What it has not mastered is the production of ICBMs with global reach and more importantly, weapons of a higher yield than our WWII atomic devices. The difference is that North Korea has opened its facilities for the world to see, and has entered into new agreements to dismantle its nuclear weapons program. The "reasonable" Ahmadinejad makes no such gestures of goodwill. Why? Because he is not running Iran. And please don't blame W because a scientist got his estimate wrong on North Korea's progress toward weapons. There would have been no nuclear power plants or weapons programs in that country had Clinton not sold them reactor technology and parts and encouraged them to build "peaceful" civilian nuclear power facilities. That was utterly irresponsible, and W inherited a situation where the only way to stop them would have been military assault. Given North Korea's cozy ties with China, that just was not a viable option. Iran has no such protectorate and can be dealt with mroe decisively if it will not back down and close the centrifuges.
I am curious, if you are willing to disclose it, to know what nation is your home. I can sense you very much wish to believe Iran has only peaceful intentions and that its aggressive actions toward American facilities (embassy) and troops (Iraq, Afghanistan) are merely self defense mechanisms. The 1979 hostage-taking was certainly not done out of any pressing self defense needs at the time. It was done to make a political statement and spread the revolutionary fervor in the region. You may think Ahmadinejad, who participated in that embassy invasion/takeover as a young college age student, has grown up and is mature and wise now, but take a lesson from American politics and Bill Clinton. Reckless college men grow into reckless leaders when they reach "maturity."
It is interesting that you claim America invaded two of Iran's neighbors for much less than owning a nuclear weapon. First, Iraq was thought by all of the world's intelligence agencies to possess chemical and biological weapons and there was some evidence at the time, now proven to have been exaggerated by Joseph Wilson of PlameGate fame, that Saddam was trying to purchase yellowcake. So owning a nuclear bomb would have been too late for prevention. Either way, the invasion of Iraq was made in good faith based on evidence of WMD.
We inveaded Afghanistan in direct response to the attacks of 9/11 and the fact that al Qaeda operated with total support and blessing from the ruling Taliban. Thankfully the Taliban never attempted to develop WMD because you can bet they would have sold them to al Qaeda and gloried in their use on America and Israel.
I don't ignore evidence when evidence that is historically sound is presented. Perhaps my view of Iran is too harsh, but it is equally possible that yours is too trusting.
I am sorry O-Be, but I am going to have to stop reading your journal. Your fanatical devotion to the demonisation of Iran is worrying to me, and impossible for me to break down.
I was born and bred in the UK, with some brief visits to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia following my father, an oilman. I was also in Kuwait immediately following the Gulf War, where I saw first-hand the beneficial effects of intelligent military action.
I would like to face your most obvious mistakes first. North Korea _does_ have missiles which can reach Japan, however they cannot do this with four or five tons of circa WWII nuclear weapons technology bolted to the front of them. North Korea has no delivery system for any nuclear weapon it has the technology to build. Also, DPRK's nuclear technology was provided by Pakistan in secret, Clinton was not responsible for the weapons technology North Korea acquired but for allowing them access to nuclear material. The same nuclear material a US scientist was later presented with and discounted as a fraud.
Iran's protectorates are China, again, and an increasingly aggressive Russia. To act unilaterally in this situation would, at the least, harm US relations with the rest of the world and, at the worst, lead to a new chill in US-Russia relations, a hardening of extremist feelings towards the US (you may scoff at this but groups such as al Qaeda would not be able to recruit men willing to sacrifice themselves were the US not so interventionist) and a new theatre of war in a country much larger than Iraq with much larger borders for troop-killing weapons to flood through.
I believe Iran's war against Iraq was one of self-defence, yes. I have never said that any Iranian forces interference in Iraq or Afghanistan was self-defense. I have said that Tehran _may_ turn a blind eye to this through some perverse delight in seeing America struggle. I have also never said that the storming of the American embassy was an act of self-defense. I feel you are putting words into my mouth, once again I have to correct you. I _do_ feel that Ahmedinejad may be willing to work with the West but to show any sign of this would destroy any support he has in Iran's power structure.
Please do not think that I am here to defend Ahmedinejad because I think he's the lamb of peace, but because he deserves a defence against such one-sided arguments. I argue for balance, something which should command a much higher price than it does in this world. The balanced view is that Ahmedinejad has stated again and again that his nuclear program is for power production only, that the UN inspectors can do their jobs (as indeed they did in Iraq before they were ignored and, ultimately, recalled), and that, at the worst, allowing Iran one or two nuclear weapons will not lead to a breakdown of peace in the area.
As for all the world's intelligence agencies believing in the WMD case against Iraq I am proud to say that the UK Security Services did not, and that the evidence presented to Parliament was not that which the JIC signed off on, and that whilst there were claims of biological and chemical weapons in the intelligence reports there were also strong concerns about the strength of that intelligence. I myself found it strange that a "high-ranking officer in the Iraqi Army" would be the sole source of the 45-minute claim, but his rank led to his intelligence being rated A, led to it being allowed into the executive summary and, ultimately, led to Britain going to war in Iraq. I found it strange because this man was one of the people who would profit from the war, and yet his motivation was never questioned.
And as for Saddam trying to buy nuclear material, if one wishes to buy nuclear material one goes to the former Soviet Union, _not_ Nigeria. That stuck out like a sore thumb.
The difference is, if I'm wrong the world has a nuclear Iran to disarm. It will take a little cajoling and a lot of bribing, but Iran isn't in such a position that this will shift the balance of power in the region. If you're wrong we're looking at a war over nothing, _again_. I disagree with the idea that I am too trusting, I prepare for the worst, but I am not willing to act as if the worst has already happened when it hasn't. Look at it this way, you are supporting military action against a country which hasn't built a weapon they say they don't want. Can you see why your position fills me with such horror? It is as if the past, only six years old, has come back and everyone is about to make the same mistake again.
Post a Comment