Thomas Sowell explains that it all comes down to Iran and the global jihad:
[...] While all sorts of gushing is going on in the media, and posturing is going on in politics, the biggest national sponsor of terrorism in the world-- Iran-- is moving step by step toward building a nuclear bomb.The point when they get that bomb will be the point of no return. Iran's nuclear bomb will be the terrorists' nuclear bomb-- and they can make 9/11 look like child's play.
All the options that are on the table right now will be swept off the table forever. Our choices will be to give in to whatever the terrorists demand-- however outrageous those demands might be-- or to risk seeing American cities start disappearing in radioactive mushroom clouds.
All the things we are preoccupied with today, from the price of gasoline to health care to global warming, will suddenly no longer matter.
Just as the Nazis did not find it enough to simply kill people in their concentration camps, but had to humiliate and dehumanize them first, so we can expect terrorists with nuclear weapons to both humiliate us and force us to humiliate ourselves, before they finally start killing us.
They have already telegraphed their punches with their sadistic beheadings of innocent civilians, and with the popularity of videotapes of those beheadings in the Middle East.
They have already telegraphed their intention to dictate to us with such things as Osama bin Laden's threats to target those places in America that did not vote the way he prescribed in the 2004 elections. He could not back up those threats then but he may be able to in a very few years.
The terrorists have given us as clear a picture of what they are all about as Adolf Hitler and the Nazis did during the 1930s-- and our "leaders" and intelligentsia have ignored the warning signs as resolutely as the "leaders" and intelligentsia of the 1930s downplayed the dangers of Hitler.
We are much like people drifting down the Niagara River, oblivious to the waterfalls up ahead. Once we go over those falls, we cannot come back up again.
What does this have to do with today's presidential candidates? It has everything to do with them.
One of these candidates will determine what we are going to do to stop Iran from going nuclear-- or whether we are going to do anything other than talk, as Western leaders talked in the 1930s.
There is one big difference between now and the 1930s. Although the West's lack of military preparedness and its political irresolution led to three solid years of devastating losses to Nazi Germany and imperial Japan, nevertheless when all the West's industrial and military forces were finally mobilized, the democracies were able to turn the tide and win decisively.
But you cannot lose a nuclear war for three years and then come back. You cannot even sustain the will to resist for three years when you are first broken down morally by threats and then devastated by nuclear bombs.
Our one window of opportunity to prevent this will occur within the term of whoever becomes President of the United States next January....
Wrong: "the biggest national sponsor of terrorism in the world" is not Iran. It is Saudi Arabia.
John McCain is no Abraham Lincoln, not even a Ronald Reagan, but he is still far more realistic about the enormous threat from portions of the Islamic world than Barack Obama is. Concerning this I have zero doubt. I also have little doubt that Obama and the Dhimmicrats think that man-made global warming, arguably the most hyped fraud of all time, is what America really needs to worry about. The choice in November is a stark one indeed.
"Our one window of opportunity to prevent this will occur within the term of whoever becomes President of the United States next January...."
Don't think so. For the most part, we either 1. hate our selves, our western ways and culture or 2. think everyone else is just like us or 3. are complacent, in fear of appearing to be like #1.
Not a triumphant recipe.
am surprised to see this thread. had thought that sowell's essay was hysterical. we will not see american cities being blown up one by one.
not to say that we ought not destroy the iranian weapons system. in fact, the lack of aggression against pakistan may (as someone here suggested) be a hugh mistsake that will be remembered, generations later.
i just think the description was too simple, too apocalyptic. it is the iranian tightening of control over other countries in the region, and the proliferation of nuclear weapons to the sunni states.... step-by-step disaster is the more likely future.
Sowell's right. #1 is Iran.
But he may turn out to be wrong insofar as the options he suggested. Personally, I believe Bush will bomb Iran before the end of the summer.
The US will not be able to do anything about Iran without cooperation from China, Russia and Europe. What signs have come from any of these quarters that such cooperation would be forthcoming, regardless of whom we elect in November?
We have been sounding the alarm about Iran for a long time and what has it gotten us but years of hot air exchanged between Iran and the EU-3? If any of these countries are concerned about Iran, there's no time like the present.
In short, they're not concerned. At least not concerned enough to assume any of the risk that confrontation would bring. With respect to Thomas Sowell, it doesn't matter who wins in November, at least where Iran is concerned, for the simple reason that the US is not a goliath. Even if he wanted to, the president cannot single-handedly impose his will on Iran. Events will have to unfold, as they did in the 1930s. People have refused to learn from history. We are all condemned to repeat it.
President Bush has the opportunity to create the circumstances where the surrender platform of the Demoncrats will not resonate well with the Voters.
Absolutely, flowerknife.
The fiasco in Iraq is a fairy-tale: The Boy(s) Who Cried Wolf. They didn't know enough about Islam, didn't gauge properly the evil of Saddam Hussein, as against his conceivable use as a brake or breakwater against the Iranian tide. They misled the Senate, they misled the public, and of course they very much misled themselves, about the nature of Iraq, and this weaponry.
But what is worse is that they never understood that once the invasion had taken place, and the weaponry sought was not found, that did not make the enterprise silly or wasteful. What made it silly and wasteful was the switcheroo in policy, the new substitute goal, of bringing "freedom" to "ordinary moms and dads" in the Middle East, the whole idiotic Light-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations project. Had they spent, these Makers of Grand Strategy, the months and years since 9/11/2001 studying, studying, studying Islam, studying the points of weakness, the points of Infidel purchase, in the Camp of Islam, they might still have found the silver lining in their great Cloud of Unknowing, understood that the undoing of Saddam Husssein, his sons, his aides, meant that from here on out, whatever else happened, the Shi'a Arabs, who constitute 65% of the population of Iraq, would never again relinquish power, the power they had in Basra and the entire south, and the power they had, by dint of demography, even in Baghdad. Had they understood the aggression, the violence, the inability to compromise with enemies, the hyseria, the hate, the conspiracy-theories, the history-haunted dream-world they would have understood that the Shi'a would never give back what the Americans had inadvertently made possible and that the Sunnis, in turn, would never accept their loss of power, nor - anywhere in the world of humiliated Sunnis outside Iraq -- the permanent loss of fabled Baghdad to the Shi'a, those "Persians," Baghdad the madinat al-salaam, the city of Haroun al-Rashid, for 400 years the most glorious Muslim capital, rivalled in importance, in Arab minds, by Cairo.
But just as in the admonitory story about the Boy Who Cried Wolf, the Wolf really does Arrive. And the Wolf is Iran, or a nuclear-bomb-producing Iran. And because the Administration, clinging to Tarbaby Iraq, has squandered not only men's lives, and money, and morale, but has used up so much political capital, and has helped to make Washington safe for the likes of Barack Obama at his conceivable worst (just as Hillary Clinton, by arrogating to herself so much, by stopping in their tracks the campaigns of other, worthier canidates, made the Democratic Party safe for Barack Obama and Obamolatry), this Administration has made more likely that the Islamic Republic of Iran will indeed acquire such weaponry.
It has, therefore, a special duty -- a responsibliity, coute que coute -- to deal with Iran's nuclear project. The I.E.A.E. is just as alarmed as the Administration, but can be alarmed without being inhibited, as the Administration may be, with what should have been seen as transparently mendacious, that "National Intelligence Assessment" about Iran's nuclear project, composed, with such insidious art, by a few who were clearly determined to phrase things in a most misleading fashion -- and most journalists reported in the predictable uncomprehending way -- so as to make an attack on Iran politically impossible.
The Bush Administration, in its failure to truly understand Islam, its failure to get beyond terrorism to Da'wa, the Money Weapon, demographic conquest, its squandering of political capital (so that perfectily justifiable measures for security, or the setting-up of special courts for terrorist-related offenses, both necessary, will be unecessarily difficult to achieve), has done great damage to the very things it hoped to accomplish. Its messianic sentimentalism in Iraq ("freedom" for "ordinary moms and dads") is now seen as comical by almost everyone. But what is not seen as comical, what is not seen at all, is how easy it would have been, and still is, to exploit rather than to deplore, the sectarian and ethnic fissures in Iraq.
In any case, Iran always was the greater problem. Last month, last year, five years ago. If Barack Obama is elected, there very likely will be no dealing with Iran properly, but a period of "negotations" by someone whose naivete is equalled only by his remarkable, and unmerited, self-assurance.
This, therefore, cannot wait.
PMK: With respect, I would ask of what real importance is China, Russia or Europe if America (or Israel) decides that military strikes to set back Iran's nuclear infrastructure is the way to proceed? Why would any of these entities really matter? Yes, they'd almost certainly officially condemn an American or Israeli hit on Iran, while at almost the same time unoffically indicate relief that America or Israel had the balls to do it. That's the way the game is played but I don't see why they're instrumental here in any significant way. For sanctions and freezing assets and stuff like that, yes, but for a military endeavor, none that I see.
As always, Sowell cuts through the political hyperbole, targeting the real issue at hand.
While every presidential election is framed as a turning-point for our nation, this election could well have catastrophic repercussions that will determine the future of the United States and her allies.
While we remain mired in partisan bickering, political posturing and a culture so politically correct we fail to even name our enemy accurately, that enemy continues to capitalize on our lack of cohesion, intellectual honesty and strategic vision.
What's at stake is the survival of millions of innocent people -- not jut Israleis and Americans but Iranians as well.
Of course Amadenajad doesn't believe that. He believes that he has an ace up his sleeve in the form of the 12th Imam, who will come out of his well and save him and his nation from the retribution to come.
How does Obama expect to negotiate with someone like that? Does he expect to negotiate away the beliefs of a fanatic like Anadenajad? Does he believe that he can captivate Amadenajad with one of his pretty speeches, and convert him into a reasonable negotiating partner - much as Chamberlain thought he could do with Hitler? Hitler later referred to Chamberlain as a Worm. He said "I know because I saw him at Munich."
That's exactly how Amenajad will view Obama -- as a worm, a babe in the woods.
Why should he accept anything from Obama when he knows that the 12th Imam will give him everything?
I can easily visualize Amadenajad smiling and speaking softly to Obama, and all the while his engineers are assembling a nuclear device, and in his childishness Obama won't suspect a thing.
Give this man the White house, and we're doomed.
"Our one window of opportunity to prevent this will occur within the term of whoever becomes President of the United States next January"
I agree... except that given the choice of candidates we are left with, I think we have already missed "our one window of opportunity."
Whether it ends up being osamessiah or mcLame, I think we are already in deep du'du'. I shudder to think what the next four years will bring us!
I wrote about combating this multi-headed Hydra Islamic-Cult earlier, and in that scenario Russia and China sit it out, along with the no-help EU, when we strike at the snake’s head.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/021171.php#c544885
We’ll be on our own, with Israel watching our rear. The Allah Cultists are not capable at seriously striking the US, contrary to Sowell’s dire predictions, but Europe is at risk, and of course Israel. They should be more concerned in Tel Aviv or Madrid, perhaps Rome, Paris, London, the usual targets of their cultish hatreds, but not likely New York or L.A., though they’d love to ‘strike terror’ into our hearts. Iran’s mullahs are masters of deceit, hostage taking, humiliation, so expect plenty, but not a direct hit. Al Qaeda’s suiciders got one good shot, the mullahs’ suiciders won’t get another. Watch your rear.
The presidential hopefulls line-up is pathetic, one must admit, but that's the breaks in a democracy: If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with.
Wellington,
Russia and China are allied with Iran. They are providing it missile technology. They are likely aiding its nuclear program. Both can provide Iran with replacement armaments. Russia can provide fuel. China owns our debt. They make spare parts for our military. We are not self-sufficient in military matters. Sure we can buy weaponry but what will we do if others won't sell it?
Israel might be able to make pinpoint attacks on specific targets but that's it. Iran's a lot bigger than Iraq. The US and Europe will have a harder time without support from Russia and China. While those two countries won't join the fight against us, they have the power to make it more difficult.
The EU cannot be counted on to join us in any action against Iran and a fight would require coordination on many fronts, financial as well as military. Otherwise all our efforts can be undone by just a few turncoat countries helping Iran behind the scenes.
There is no reason it ever had to get this far. EU could have joined us to stop Iran three years ago. Instead, they pressed for negotiations. What have those negotiations produced? A new president cannot change the stance of the EU. Rather than take a stand, they're using our elections as an excuse to dither even more. Next it will be the congressional elections and after that the 2012 election. There's always a reason to wait. It'll be 1939 all over again before you know it.
Ever notice that Obama is critical of only the shia? I've never heard him say anything negative about Saudi Arabia. I can't wait for the gloves to come off and expose the real goals of the democratic hopeful. McCain may not be the true conservative's pick but I don't think he'll have the patience to deal with waiting for things to get better on their own.
"Just as the Nazis did not find it enough to simply kill people in their concentration camps, but had to humiliate and dehumanize them first, so we can expect terrorists with nuclear weapons to both humiliate us and force us to humiliate ourselves, before they finally start killing us."
Thomas Sowell
I'm wondering why Sowell says "terrorists" instead of "Islamic Terrorists." He says "Nazis," why not name our current enemy - Islamic Terrorists? You know he means Muslims - why doesn't he say so?
I have to agree with StephenDvd! We are SO screwed! The choices our political "masters", ie; the Rs & Ds national committees, have given us aren't even what the People need! (Remember when the polititions actually pretended they worked for US???) We need a leader and a Congress who'll toss this PC/multi-culti BS (and all it's sucidal implications) into the "dustbin of history", where it belongs. A little less "touchy-feely" and a LOT more practicality is what we need to survive as a nation! NONE of the candidates, proposed, have even a CLUE as to how we're to sucessfully solve our national or international dilemmas!
Iran must be stopped NOW, by whatever means! I'd suggest an immediate & massive crippling of their military and police forces and covert support for a suitable (truly peaceful) replacement government! That may not eliminate their nukes, but it'd sure cripple their ability or inclination to use what they DO have! (The only alternative, I see, would be massive military strikes, with the attendant "collateral damage", ie; massive civilian losses. Thus making any future reapproachment, with Iran, impossible.)
I just read his column again.
Sowell never says the words "Islam" or "Islamic," he only says "terrorists," and with a small "t."
That is immensely disingenuous. Name the enemy, Mr. Sowell - don't just allude by references to "Osama bin Laden" and "beheadings."
Don't overanalyze the terminology. Sowell is not given to political correctness.
While there are no doubt many in the West who would accept the humiliation and destruction the jihadists have in mind for us, I believe there are others who would not. Moreover, if the ultimate goal is (as always) the advancement of islam, I believe they could be foiled, since there are some intended dhimmis who would endeavor to destroy every last artifact of islam, right down to the grand mosque and kabah, before submitting to islamic rule.
"Don't overanalyze the terminology. Sowell is not given to political correctness." --posted above
I'm not "overanalyzing." How complicated is it to use the words "Islam" or "Islamic?" Not complicated at all. That's who he means by "terrorists," is it not? So why not use the appropriate words?
How complicated is it to use the words "Islam" or "Islamic?" Not complicated at all. That's who he means by "terrorists," is it not? So why not use the appropriate words?
by darcy
Sowell appears to be drawing a line between Muslims and terrorists. He also doesn't use "jihad". The danger, to him, comes from this small group of people. No mention of the threats the Iranian leaders themselves have made, only those the terrorists have made. Here again, a line is drawn between "the Muslims" and "the terrorists". The entire article is about the danger posed by a nuclear Iran but it's highly unlikely a non-Muslim group would gain access to Iranian weapons.
While there are no doubt many in the West who would accept the humiliation and destruction the jihadists have in mind for us, I believe there are others who would not. Moreover, if the ultimate goal is (as always) the advancement of islam, I believe they could be foiled, since there are some intended dhimmis who would endeavor to destroy every last artifact of islam, right down to the grand mosque and kabah, before submitting to islamic rule.
Posted by: Infidel33
But how many people will have died in the meantime? Would the jihadists be foiled before or after a nuclear weapon has been detonated in a Western city? It's likely not even those who are prepared to oppose shariah rule would take preemptive action. We can't even deport them or keep more from coming in. That means thousands of people, at a minimum, would have to die before the Islamic world is made to pay. If it's a small enough device in a small enough city with an "acceptable" level of casualties, it might not happen even then. Destroying the grand mosque would be considered "extreme". We'll hear how all Muslims shouldn't have to pay for the actions of a few "extremists".
PMK: Thanks for your response. Much of what you state is true, though I'm not all that certain we depend on Chinese technology, other than to a minimal degree, to keep our military going. After all, it's the Chinese (and many others) who steal American military and technological innovations left and right. But "all" we (or Israel) need to do, for now, is set back Iran's nuclear program a few years by military attacks. This doesn't require any cooperation from anyone. Yes, China and Russia are aiding Iran, but so what? Actually, they'll be impressed, though they will say exactly the opposite publicly, if we strike Iran and do what I indicated should be our mid-term goal (i.e., something between long-term strategy and short-term tactics). After all, the only thing the Russians and Chinese really respect is force. They'll respect us all the more for it behind the scenes. And meanwhile we can send a clear message to Iranians that they need to get rid of their whackjob President and all those damn, troglodyte mullahs.
I'm not quite sure what you meant by the EU being able some three years ago to help us stop Iran's nuclear enrichment program. How? By sanctions? Freezing assets? Withholding something? Hell, these things don't really work, especially with religious barbarians. I'm sure you think, as I do, that the EU is a gigantic wuss (I hope lots of Europeans are reading JW because this is really what a hell of a lot of Americans think about Europe-----that it's lost its testicles), so having them on our side doesn't add up to much, other than some good police work and intelligence here and there. No, I'd still say that direct military strikes are the only way to go to stop Iran's nuclear build-up and we can do that (or Israel can) on our own.
Meanwhile, here in the Forgotten Borough, I’ve joined the most peculiar e-mail group. You see, a couple of months ago, the owner of a group I belong to that’s devoted to English history allowed the owner of one that’s concerned with pre-Islamic Iran to plug for new members.
This is their Yahoo.ca group website. (Dig the chick.)
http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/Persian_empire/
Although there are quite a few non-Iranian members, most of the posters claim to be in-country, and all of these identify themselves as Zoroastrians (!), with handles like “Ardeshir”. At first, given the cheesiness of the chick pic, the warning on the website about avoiding political discussions, and the use of a Canadian Yahoo group, I was suspicious. Was this the much JW/DW-vaunted Taqiyya? Could this be an attempt by the mullahs to lure dissidents? Would the FBI soon knock on my door?
Now that I’ve been there for a while, I can confidently report that these people are sincere. They are proud of their pre-Islamic Persian heritage to a degree that’s shrill with naïveté. (Cyrus: gooooooood. Alexander: baaaaaaad.) Islamic topics are seldom mentioned, and comments about Islam are usually negative. Surprisingly, the Iranian posters feel free to call the current government “idiotic”.
I recently got myself in hot water for a posting they regarded as impolite. All I did was innocently speculate that perhaps the ancient Parthians supported biblical Zealots in the same way that Iran supports Hezbollah. An Iranian poster admonished me that in future I should say “the current Iranian regime” rather than simply “Iran”. It was an insult to Iranian culture to associate their entire country with terrorists!
So, I’ve gone back to just posting archeological news for them.
“O brave new world that hath such people in it!”
Even if they are a bit weird.
Thomas Sowell: I admire you enormously; if only YOU were the first black Democratic nominee for President of the United States!
Wellington,
It's not so much that we rely on China for technology as we do for basic items. If your machine breaks down and you can't find a replacement part except in China, because the American manufacturers moved all their operations overseas, what will you do? Your advanced weapon is useless because you lack a switch or some other seemingly minor item.
China makes our military uniforms. We have shut down our textile mills.
Where the EU is concerned, my question is: what have they been doing all this time? The Bush administration was concerned about Iran's nuclear program three years ago and was persuaded by Tony Blair to go the negotiations route. What has it accomplished? The Iranian program continues apace. Europeans won't take hard action because they do business with Iran. They sold us out in Iraq, with oil-for-food.
China and Russia may respect force but that doesn't mean they'll sit back. The Arabs respect force and Arabs are more likely to cheer in the privacy of their homes. Russia and China are different. They have a vested interest in the future of this regime. Iran is their ally, for various reasons. The Russians won't want to see American forces closer and closer to their land border. As I said earlier, they're updating Iranian weaponry as we speak. They will make it harder and harder for the US to bring down the Iranian regime. They won't have to meet our forces on the field. They can trip us up merely by providing advanced weaponry to Iran and making it possible for them to detect and shoot down planes.
Russia and China have enabled Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons by using the veto in the UN Security Council. We couldn't have pursued the first Gulf War if the Soviets had not stood back and let us do it. It's not clear that they will stand back and let us pursue military action against Iran. Unless your vision of military action is a single bombing campaign and no ground forces, it's hard to see how that can be done without at least the consent, if not the support, of China and Russia.
PMK: I envision no ground forces by either America or Israel where retarding Iran's nuclear development is concerned, but rather a bombing campaign of short duration. My only goal here is setting back Iran's nuclear ambitions several years' worth. Now, I understand that Iran has buried their nuclear technological efforts way under ground over some seven sites and that it will be difficult, but not impossible, to take them out. That's what I think needs to be done.
As for the Russians and Chinese, the day America starts worrying too much about what these two people will think of an American military effort, that's the day when we will have crippled our military far more than a dearth of uniforms or spare parts will. Time to move and to hell with the Chinese and Russians. We're the great power and we should be intimidating the authoritarian states, not the other way around. As for the EU, I think we're in agreement that it's pretty much worthless where defending civilization is the issue at hand. My best to you and yours.
Wellington,
My concerns about Russia and China are purely practical. It's not so much a matter of worrying what they will think but what they will do. It's also a question of whether we will have any impact if they can undo everything we try to do. (We destroy the nuclear sites and they (or the French?) rebuild them, for instance.)
If our goal is to bomb the nuclear sites we have to guard against the gesture. That's what we got from Bill Clinton for eight years. We can't go in and find one site and bomb it to smithereens and go home all satisfied, thinking it's mission accomplished. We run the risk of complacency. It's not enough just to make a statement.
They claim to represent the meek. But generation after generation they oversee mental superstition and economic stagnation. Officials exercise power and embezzle natural resource profits. They promise to bring nuclear holocaust to enemies. Youth are taught Sharia must be enforced and foreign societies with competition and liberty are evil.
PMK: With respect to your last post, we are in complete accord. A gesture is not nearly good enough, as Clinton fecklessly engaged in from time to time during his Presidency. Obliteration, which would give America and Israel some breathing space, is what is necessary.
SFOD, Your post makes everything sound so hopeless for the Iranian people. Just what makes the majority tow the party line? What are the people most threatened by with the regime? It seems to me that if the people decided that they were sick of being controlled by the mullahs that they would revolt against the regime and take back their goverment. What would you have them do?
"...the biggest national sponsor of terrorism in the world-- Iran-- ..."
the biggest sponsor is Islam...where ever you find it.