You know, once upon a time, Iraq had a nuclear (or was it nuculear?) weapons program. Realizing that it was a threat to their own security, Israel (the Jooos) bombed the Bejesus out of it, destroying the Osiraq Facility. The Arab world flinched, and did not counterattack Israel. So much for brotherhood. Or was it something else, perhaps? Maybe everyone in the region was secretly relieved that his utter batshittines, Uncle Satan, was stripped of his atomic toys. I'm sure that the course of Iran/Iraq, Persian Gulf I and II would have been MUCH different had the Israelis not stood up for themselves and the rest of the world. That takes Balls.
Now it is clear that Iran is developing Both a weapons and non-weapon atomic program. Iran. With Nukes. I am not yet 33, (gimme a few weeks) but I still remember 444 days of terrorism in 1980-81. This was the founding act of their new gummint. And, if you'll recall, this was the event that founded Nightline with Ted Koppel. Talk about insult to injury. The Shah's out, the ayatollah's in, we're here, we're crazy, we're fundamentalist, and we don't give a damn about international condemnation. Attitudes like that, i.e., having the will to act unilaterally, take Balls.
{Random thought, completely off-topic} How come no one ever asked for a timeline for troop withdrawal from Saudi, Kuwait, Lebanon, Korea, Kosovo, Sinai, Bosnia ("They'll (US Forces) be home by Christmas."--Bill Clinton, 1995) or any of the other Myriad places soldiers get sent around the globe?
Back to the Balls.
In 2001, Iraq was named along with Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan as being terrorist supporting, dangerous, a threat to our security, etc. by the President and we applauded. We were so happy to hear a man speak plainly about what we all knew-these folks were crazy. And something needed to be done. Realistically, we are working on the threats in order of precedence.
I think that Syria is a bigger threat than Iran on the support terrorist/crazy people side of the house. Iran, however, wants to play with the bomb. The threat of dirty bombs is all too real, and anyone who has EVER visited the middle east knows that "When do the trash men come?" is an all too unheard of phrase. Trash is put wherever it won't be seen by the person who threw it out, over a garden wall will suffice, or just put it in a closet. So what do we expect they will do with their nuclear waste? I'm certain they aren't losing sleep over it. They'll just dump it out in the desert, right?
And when it seeps into oil reserves and contaminates them?
And when someone scoops up some plutonium-rich waste and puts it in a container headed for a US Port, which detonates while still on the ship (and you thought the chesapeke was polluted now.)
And when the sandstorms scatter radiation all over the middle east contaminating water, food, and oil?
And when the Iranians put a warhead on a ballistic missile, and shoot it at Iraq (the only Democracy in the region) or Israel, or a US Carrier group in the Gulf, then what?
And when they secretly give a small or medium sized nuke to say, Hezbollah, then what?
The 9-11 commission outlines the Iranian threat and support for terrorists quite well here: http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing3/witness_gasiorowski.htm
Although the summation that "If we don't threaten them, they won't use terrorists" is flawed logic, (more likely, if they don't respect our willingness to use our power, they'll continue to dictate terms to us, because of our fear of terrorist retaliation.)
So what do we do? We take the nuclear option away from them. Bombs. Big, conventional bombs. Strip the nuclear payload from either minuteman or MX missliles, replace with respectable sized conventional warheads, (I like fuel-air incendiaries, but whatever's laying around will do) and reach out and touch them. Not from a stealth bomber, or any other plane. No special operations assaults, nothing like that. Send them and everyone else with aims to come sit at the big table a strong message:
"We can hammer the shit out of your most secure facilities from our own heartland, and you can't shoot down a MIRV. We have the strength of will and the righteousness of cause to keep you from possessing a weapon that you have never shown the maturity to possess. Next time, the warheads may not just go boom." Have the Commander in Chief do a press conference right outside to Silo (Okay, at minimum safe distance from the launch. I'd like to put the press chairs on the silo doors, but just for my own twisted amusement.) Broadcast the attack live. Even with advanced warning, the only thing the Iranians would be able to do is evacuate personnel. (Bet they wouldn't, so they could inflate the bodycount for those who condemn the attacks later.) Put cameras on the MIRVs so we could watch them hit their targets. Risks for loss of American life: 0%. Need for occupation? None. It would obviously piss off the Iranian gummint (who would call this an act of war (Not unlike the Embassy Siege [Soverign soil], could be our reply.) The man in the Iranian street would burn US and Israeli flags, rally, chant, etc. (really, it's rather played out, isn't it? Do they really think that pisses us off any more?) And they would be relatively impotent to do anything remotely retaliatory, without using terrorist-led attacks. Which they support anyway. So we basically end up in the same situation we are currently in, where Iran supports terrorists, uses them, and does all sorts of other nasty tricks, but does not possess the means to kill hundreds of thousands or even millions in a well-placed attack.
And the message to other countries is clear.
All it takes is the Balls to do it.
--Chuck
No comments:
Post a Comment