These are the grandchildren of the people who warned on December 8, 1941 that attacking Japan might lead to future Japanese bombings. "Attacking Iran May Trigger Terrorism: U.S. Experts Wary of Military Action Over Nuclear Program," from the Bandar Beacon, aka the Washington Post, with thanks to Sr. Soph:
As tensions increase between the United States and Iran, U.S. intelligence and terrorism experts say they believe Iran would respond to U.S. military strikes on its nuclear sites by deploying its intelligence operatives and Hezbollah teams to carry out terrorist attacks worldwide.Iran would mount attacks against U.S. targets inside Iraq, where Iranian intelligence agents are already plentiful, predicted these experts. There is also a growing consensus that Iran's agents would target civilians in the United States, Europe and elsewhere, they said.
An attack will trigger terrorism unless it does two things: destroys about 120 known or potential military and nuclear sites and decapitates the leadership. It will not be enough to bomb potential sites. The infidel west will have to decapitate the leadership. The Ayatollah came to power quickly and effectively because of his use of the imams and infrastructure of the mosques. The question is does the infidel west have the political resolve to end this attacking what it must. Cutting off the tail of the serpent will only make matters worse. There has been no deterrent to these barbarians unless they are overwhelmingly defeated. Humiliation is not enough.
Iran claims to have a million young Muslims on its “martyrs” list. Iran claims to have thousands waiting in line for the honor of killing and dying for Allah. Iran gave keys to 10 year olds it used as minefield clearing agents blowing themselves up for Allah in the Iran-Iraq war. We are in this mess because the Ayatollahs who have called the west the great Satan for 30 years with no consequences and have sneakily attacked wherever possible, think the west is spineless. These are Apocalyptic Moslems. They will not stop until there is an apocalypse upon them.
It will not "trigger" terrorism. You do not press the trigger of a weapon that is already firing at full power. For the love of Heaven, do any of these "experts" imagine that the enemy could hate us more than they do, or do worse against us than they are already trying to do?
" If you don't know what to do, don't do anything..."
My favorite phrase by Miles Davis! How appropriate...
"Attacking Iran May Trigger Terrorism:
Are'nt they already providing fuel for the fire in Iraq with agents prodding the terrorists', they probably provide material support as well.
They are already provoking terrorism by calling for the elimination of Israel and building up a nuclear arsenal, no a military strike would only make clear what is already KNOWN.
Our guards are up and a full scale operation would let them know that our true intentions are to remain free and humane and that we will never bow down to this vile ideology and the idle threats they make.
The handwriting is on the wall, why postpone the inevitable.
Iran is a rogue state as the country, whom are Persians and not Arabs, are now controlled by Islamic Idiots when they took over the country in 1979 thanks to Peanut Head Carter.
War on Terrorism, what an unfortunate characterization of the situation in which we find ourselves. The blunt reality is that we are at war. Period. A foreign enemy has arrayed his forces against us and has been conducting military, military, operations against Western civilians. That is Total War, Totaler Kreig.
In light of this unfortunate and undeniable fact, that we are indeed at war, does it really matter if an attack on Iran would result in more war? Hell, how much more "total" can this one get? The Allies firebombed Dresden into the stoneage. Even Hitler and Tojo couldn't do what today's enemy did to New York and Washington DC! Think about it.
Well here's the elephant in the living room that nobody has the courage to talk about in public: the enemy who assails us is not some ridiculously contrived concept that is mapped to a ficticious social space. We face an enemy composed of people, people who cling to an ideology that is fundamentally incompatible with our own, an ideology that incorporates core value doctrines that inculcate violent conquest and subjugation. That ideology is Islam, not Islamofascism, not "militant" Islam (redundant), not "radical" Islam, not terrorism, not any of the other lies. It is simply Islam. Our ancestors understood this well and they dealt with it appropriately. Curtis LeMay would have known what to do just as Thomas Jefferson did.
So what are we to do?
I take it that the WaPo story is supposed to make us scared that the big bad terrorists will hurt us if we try to stop them. Following this line of reasoning gives Iran a veto power over our actions because, if we do something they don't like, they can always activate their terrorist hordes. So, really, this comes down to the old protection racket run by the high school lunchroom bully; if you want to stay in one piece pay me and, oh yeah, I want your lunch too.
I do not fancy a nuclear capable Iran, led as it is by such a great collection of nutjobs. Nor do I fancy an Iranian missle lobbed at our bases in the area or at Israel. If terrorists are already in place, this will activate them and we have a chance to neutralize or capture them. This has to be done eventually and I'd rather it sooner than later.
This is typical gutless reaction from the Wash type elites! Iran is already at war, never stoped one moment, and are spending billions of dollars supporting it..l just hope more earthquakes take down their nukes! and all their immans!
This is crazy. The logic here is: this mad-dog state will unleash attacks all over the world if it is prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons. So let them acquire them, and everything will calm down. How can such an argument be made with a straight face? Could it be the likes of Gary Sick, the man who wrote a book full of false charges against the Reagan Administration, and who was Carter's adviser on Iran when the American government, led by Carter and the equally, and unnervingly, ignorant-of-Islam Brzezinski, did nothing to bolster the Shah and instead declared, as Carter memorably put it, that Khomeini as a "man of faith" (as opposed to that bad old faithless Shah, who was corrupt and therefore necessarily to be deplored, while Khomeini was famously ascetic -- a famously ascetic fanatic full of hatred for Infidels)? Could it be Shireen Hunter, the Iranian Lady-Macbeth wife of the most undistiinguished Robert Hunter, who managed on the thinnest of reed-ladders to climb to being ambassador to NATO, the same Shireen Hunter, now the head of some "program" at one of those Washington think-tanks (is it the Center for Strategic This-and-That, or is it the Center for Strategic That-and-This? I forget whichi), and whose nasty remarks, at dinner parties and other encounters, J. B. Kelly recently reminded me about? Who else in this galere?
What one realizes is that the Iraq fiasco has made dealing with Iran harder, not easier. One more reason to depart. And if even Tom Friedman has begun to parrot what has been mentioned here over the past few years -- that the American soldiers in Iraq are hostages to Iran's fortunes, and should be removed so that they cannot be easily reached, and so that the ensuing mess in Iraq, caused by those within Iraq, will help to disrupt and unsettle and preoccupy Iran's govenment.
The country of Iran is about 50% Persian. The Persians have not treated the Baluchis (in the south-east), nor the Arabs (in oil-bearing Khuzistan), nor the Kurds (next to an autonomous, and possibly independent Kurdistan), nor the Azeris (why should they not wish to join a Greater Azerbaijan)? The parts of the country inhabited by the ethnic Persians have almost no oil and gas. That is a feature one finds elsewhere. In Sudan, it is the Christian and animist south that has the oil, but revenues will be taken by the Arab Muslim north. In Nigeria, all the oil is in the Christian-populated south, but much the revenues have gone in the past to Muslim rulers and the Muslim-run army. In Saudi Arabia, the oil is in the Eastern Province (Al-Hasa), populated by Shi'a persecuted, and sometimes killed, by the Wahhabi Sunni government.
What needs to be discussed is not merely what can be inflicted on Iran militarily, but how Iran itself, should it dare to retaliate in the ways so direly predicted above, be dismantled, from within, bit by bit -- by Kurds, by Arabs, by Baluchis, by Azeris. The Islamic Republic of Iran is not in any positiion to be threatening, in any way, the United States. It could be put into all kinds of trouble, trouble that those within its borders would create, for their own reasons, and would only need a little diplomatic encouragement, and some equipment, and some air cover.
There are ways to make known to the Islamic Republic of Iran that this is what is being contemplated. Do it now, so it has time to sink in.
I am affraid that our administration is awash with terrorism and national security experts like Richard Clarke and Condoleeza Rice - who, between them, have not killed one (1) terrorist in their entire lives. In fact, I would be surprised if either had injured a terrorist's self-esteem.
Little wonder that primitives with boxcutters bedevil us five years after 911.
This is no different than Germany in 1938. Either we act now or face the consequences when Iran has more capabilities. Islam - not just a part of it - but all Islam wants conflict with the western society. Nothing we say or do -short of surrender- will avoid conflict. Let it be now and our terms.
there are most likely kaos planned within the iranian borders by the US/Brits, what makes me sick is that these secrets are so important, that politicians are proven to be unreliable and even dangerous, and their accomplices NYT enables them.
The US can pull out a bit (letting the trained Iraqi soldiers,,mostly Kruds) and let Iraq bleed some more before they can be controlled by a secular goverment.
As one Iranian dissident put it, if the mullahs get nuclear weapons we can all start digging. Either start digging bomb shelters, or start digging your grave.
Did they say what NOT attacking Iran will do?
Did they mention what Iran is already doing?
Or what would happen if we wait until after Israel is nuked?
Too few questions asked, it appears.
"Iran would mount attacks against U.S. targets inside Iraq, where Iranian intelligence agents are already plentiful, predicted these experts. There is also a growing consensus that Iran's agents would target civilians in the United States, Europe and elsewhere, they said."--from the article.
All the more reason to deal with this threat now, force the issue now, before it gets worse. If it is known that there are Iranian intelligence agents here now, then let's deal with them too. The longer we wait in forcing the issue with Iran, the more civilians they will kill.
Islamisbad-
A lady I know who moved from the Netherlands to the U.S. in disgust at the Islamic invasion of the her birthplace (and its ineffectual response to the creeping Muslim demographic overthrow of her home) said:
On September 12, 2001 the Islamic world should have been given the coup de grace by America. Then added: What are you waiting for!?!
I explained:
We are used to "proportional response" in the West and that, in order to avoid "looking like monsters", we would have to wait for a million dead in the U.S. before anything serious was done in answer to this global Islamic threat.
Wouldn't want to look bad to those trying to exterminate us? she replied.
That's how the idiot Great Geopolitical Game works, I said.
I think, now, it will take 5 million dead.
And the sooner, the better.
Before it needs to be 50.
Weren't those Iranian 'dipolomats' in NY a few years ago taking 'tourist' pictures of bridges etc.?
I'm thinking that Israel is already working on the Iranian fiasco....Glass for everybody!