March 8, 2003
THE PRESIDENT'S PLAN:
Next stage of war on terror - Iran (Stephen Pollard, 3/7/2003, The Telegraph)
The President has carefully set about action in ascending order of difficulty. First the Taliban. Then Saddam. Then the next step, Iran - the world's leading financier of terror. North Korea will be left to China to deal with, with Mr Bush making clear to China that, if it does not take its responsibilities seriously, Japan will be given nuclear weapons.This is not speculation; talk, as I have, to those within the Bush circle . . . and they will take you through the plan step by step. . . .
Iran is, if you like, the Henry Ford of modern terror: it invented an assembly line, from the local mosque to the terrorist training camp . . .
Well-connected advisers tell me that if, as now seems likely, the UN refuses to back action against terror, Mr Bush will announce a "temporary" suspension of America's membership, to be accompanied by an offer: if the UN gets its act together and carries out long-overdue reforms, America (and its money) will return. But if there is no reform, the temporary withdrawal will, de facto, become permanent.
Topic for discussion: which enemy after Iraq -- Iran, North Korea (Ted Kennedy's choice), the U.N. -- or France? Posted by Paul Jaminet at March 8, 2003 12:26 PM
I think Syria/Hamas/Hezbollah/PLO should be included-- a fumigation of southern Lebanon would do the world a lot of good. Although, that might be the side effect of taking out Iran. (Hey, maybe they'll revert to "Persia"!)
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at March 8, 2003 1:53 PMFrance.
Posted by: M Ali Choudhury at March 8, 2003 1:59 PMIf we do a good job of the post-war in Iraq, the Iranians will quite happily give their mullahs the old heave-ho.
I vote for Korea next. After that I bet a whole bunch of countries get the clue that pestering us is a very
bad idea.
Regards,
Jeff Guinn
North Korea -- they're starving, and enough pre-emptive strikes eliminate their nuclear capacity. We lose Seoul, maybe. But then again, no one pays us to take care of the place.
France next.
I'd say Iran next, but I've come to agree with you -- Iran will sort itself out.
Leave enough forces in the Gulf to clean up Syria (assuming the young Assad doesn't learn faster than his Daddy did) and Hezbollah, et al.
Agree with the others - let's get the US base set up in Iraq and deal with Iran (hopefully done internally) Syria, Lebanon, etc.
North Korea may implode also but we should be ready to act militarily if needed.
As for France, knocking them off of the Security Council (if the UN still exits) and NATO, plus worldwide acknowlegement of what they have done, should do it.
N. Korea first--we owe them more.
Posted by: oj at March 8, 2003 10:55 PMFrance can be conquered by troops on their way back home from Baghdad. If done properly (ie speaking German), it should be finished in the early afternoon. In time for the British allies to have their tea-time right on schedule.
Posted by: Peter at March 9, 2003 12:21 PMLike Jeff and Orrin I think North Korea is most urgent -- the ability to produce 50 nukes a year plus their penchant for selling to terrorists and terror states are something we cannot allow, and this level of production will begin very soon. We don't want to be tied up elsewhere while dealing with it.
Iran is key to making further progress in the Middle East, but the threat from Iran is not increasing, so it can be put off. In Iran we'll probably want to see if the example of democracy in Iraq leads to a revolution or handover of power from the ayatollahs. We can intervene opportunistically in Iran to push things along. If we try to overthrow the ayatollahs ourselves, the internal resistance will probably sit back and wait for us to do all the heavy lifting; if we leave it to them, our burden will be lighter.
Syria/Israel is another good choice. But Iran's fall would make it easier, as Raoul says, and Iran might be easier to pluck.
My mention of France was not 100% flippant. If Saddam has nuclear weapons, it will be because France gave him everything he was missing. If Saddam has them and uses them on our troops, we will become angry at France.