July 23, 2004
GOTTA HAVE SOMEWHERE FOR THOSE TROOPS IN IRAQ TO GO...:
Iran's Growing Threat (Rachel Ehrenfeld, July 23, 2004, FrontPageMagazine.com)
Recent events have made it clear that the threat posed by Iran should be dealt with sooner rather than later. Today's 9/11 Commission report documents extensive ties between Iran and terrorism, and the mullahs' drive to create a nuclear weapon is well known. In recent days, Iranian officials and clerics have increased the incitement for violence against American and Coalition forces in Iraq. However, ending the real threat this fundamentalist Islamic theocracy poses to the United States and the West may be impossible, thanks to the Left’s and the pro-Islamists non-stop assault on the president's credibility.
The case against Iran should be air-tight. The Bush administration is now armed with:
[1] The 9/11 Commission’s report, documenting the logistical, operational and material support from Iran and Hezbollah (Iran’s international terrorist arm) to al-Qaeda;
[2] Iran’s own admission of its intention to develop nuclear weapons;
[3] Iran’s increasing anti-American rhetoric; and
[4] Iran’s growing support of terrorism in Iraq.
Makes more sense to do Syria first, because it'll be easier militarily and Iran will fall soon just because of internal pressures. Oddly enough, an Iran war is more likely in the event of a Kerry win, because he'll need to prove he isn't a milquetoast. Posted by Orrin Judd at July 23, 2004 2:14 PM
Congress should love this idea. Just think of the "Savings" not having to move all the personnel and equipment half way across the globe. Unfortunately the same won't be true in N. Korea's case.
Posted by: John Resnick at July 23, 2004 2:21 PMEr, I keep hearing that Iran will fall due to internal pressures, and it sounds pretty much like when the Communist government in China was going to fall due to internal pressures, and instead they just ran over the internal pressures with tanks and kept doing what they were doing. Why should this be any different? Saddam wasn't loved by the Iraqis and he stayed in charge right up til we declared war on him.
Posted by: Just John at July 23, 2004 2:22 PMChina is unrecognizable compared to what it was twenty years ago and is nowhere near done cracking up. You can't partially liberalize. Iran is doomed because the regime violates Shi'ism. Saddam would have fallen in '91 if Bush, Baker, and Powell hadn't stabbed the Shi'ites in the back.
Posted by: oj at July 23, 2004 2:29 PMIronically, OJ may have undermined my motivations for voting for Bush with this post. I'm largely a war voter, and what I'm interested in hearing from the candidates is "what next?" The war won't be over until Syria, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have been dealt with, so the specific "what next?" answers I want to hear are about how we're going to bring the war to those nations. Iran is #1 on my personal list of "next targets".
If a Kerry win makes us more likely to militarily overthrow the Mullahs than a Bush win, in my book that's a solid reason to vote Kerry (or at least not vote Bush). I'm somewhat dubious that that's the case, though.
Posted by: Kyle Haight at July 23, 2004 4:18 PMKerry is far more likely to get us bogged down in an Iranian war that we need not fight and a Saudi war that we can't win--that's just the nature of Democratic presidencies in recent memory. Syria is a more likely Bush project and no matter who wins we eventually have to deal with Western Pakistan, but only at the end of the war.
Posted by: oj at July 23, 2004 4:35 PMI do not think that anyone can say with any degree of confidence which Middle Eastern Country (Neither Saudi Arabia nor Pakistan deserves the title of State) is the next in line.
OJ is correct to say that Syria would be the easiest in intial military terms although the aftermath might be much like Iraq.
Military resistance in Iran might be more stout, but the populace might be much more welcoming.
However, I think that timing will be determined by events. An open civil war or rebellion, an attack on Iraq, an attack on the United States or Israel could jump a land up to the head of the line.
The good news is that we are now strategically well placed to respond to any of these contingencies. All we need to do is keep the Fair Play for Cuba Committee out of the White House and all will be well.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at July 23, 2004 5:34 PMIf the mullahs successfully test a bomb, it won't matter who is President, the US will have to make about 40-50 glowing, smoking holes in Iran that evening.
Posted by: jim hamlen at July 24, 2004 12:32 PMJust John is right about these regimes falling. They don't fall unless they're pushed.
Orrin has these fantasies about shiaism, but they're just fantasies. There are no shia who act the way he says they do.
In all history, there are no examples of Muslims rebelling successfully against a regime just because it was incompetent; and only one instance of doing it because a regime was both incompetent and unMuslim.
Guess which one that was.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 24, 2004 9:50 PMHarry:
One of the several examples is the Iranian Shi;'ites, which proves the point nicely. Unfortunately, the regime they got in its place is unShi'ite, so they're disposing of it too.
Posted by: oj at July 24, 2004 11:27 PMYou've been saying that for years, but it never happens.
Besides, saying the Iranian regime is unShia is like saying the pope is not Christian. I am aware you do say that, but nobody takes it seriously.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 26, 2004 12:30 AMIt's happening.
The mullahs take it seriously:
http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/014052.html
I assume there are some things you know something about, but Shi'ism isn't one of them. Your hatred of religion clouds your judgment about such matters.
Posted by: oj at July 26, 2004 7:09 AM