| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses what to do about the Thug-In-Chief and the Mad Mullahs:
Perhaps there are still those in Washington who still counsel avoiding military action against Iran for fear of offending those who, within Iran, are just waiting to "overthrow the mullahs" and who are "our natural allies." The first category consists of people who largely despise the clerics for limiting their daily lives, and above all for being crooks. The second class, of those who would welcome the West in any form, is very small. Then there are those Iranians in exile who, in the manner of the Shi'a Iraqis who presented a “moderate” face to Washington (sometimes calculatedly, sometimes because they had been out of Iraq so long, and become so westernized themselves, that they really had lost touch with what most of those in "Iraq" were really like), counsel everyone in Washington that really, truly, everyone is just waiting for the Americans. But, they go on, we mustn't think of bombing those nuclear facilities because it will make the task of "those Iranian reformers" harder.Such people are not good guides to anything. From their point of view, perhaps, in order to make their task, as they see it, easier, we should not bomb Iran's nuclear project. But the Infidels cannot wait, cannot hope that the Iranian regime will be rational. Nor can we hope that the one that replaces the one that is there now will be rational. Nor can we place our hope in the one that ultimately replaces that one. Iran, as long as it remains Muslim, cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons.
What is the likely effect of an American campaign to destroy as much -- not all, necessarily, but as much -- of the nuclear project as possible? At first, a flair up in Iranian rally-round-the-flag sentiment. But only at first. Once it is clear that the regime has suffered a blow, its proudest effort lying in ruins, with brave talk of "getting back to work" but knowing that at any time the Americans or someone else can come in to finish the job, or at least to keep at it, nibbling away, bit by bit, then the humiliation will set in. Those who hate the regime, but who were momentarily diverted into joining the urrah-patriotism of the moment, will remember how much they hate it. Then add to that hate the general ridicule that the mullahs already receive in Iran, and the regime, far from being more secure, will be much less so. In every way, bombing the nuclear project makes sense. And if it is not done, then everything that has been done up to now in Iraq, a venture that can only be justified as having been undertaken to deprive an aggressive Muslim ruler of weapons of mass destruction, and to undo that regime -- would then have been in vain, and pointless.No, worse than pointless -- because the Iraq tarbaby would be seen by posterity, rightly, as what prevented the United States from acting as it should with Iran.
How stupid can the American government be?
We are going to find out.
What about the oil weapon? There is no oil weapon. There never was. The pricing of oil, the availability of oil, by the members of OPEC has always been a market matter, designed to maximize the value over time of whatever reserves a particular state may happen to possess. This was discussed long ago in an article by Douglas Feith in "Policy Review."
There may be trouble with the oilfields in Iran, but it will not be because the Iranian government would ever cut off its only real source of income. It could happen because the ethnic Arabs of Khuzistan might begin to attack those oilfields, possibly taking a leaf from the Iraqi playbook, in order to weaken their Persian masters. Others who might relish such sabotage of whatever oil fields and pipelines may be within their particular range might include those Persians within and without who cannot stand the Islamic Republic of Iran and wish to weaken it. Still others are representatives of the Baluchis, or the Azeris in the north, a once-and-future part of Azerbaijan, possibly, and no longer part of the detested Islamic Republic.
The threat is as false as the Saudi threat, over the years, to employ the "oil weapon."
And not only would the Iranians never wish to cut off their only source of funds, but whatever forces they possess could be quickly eliminated by the Americans.
Besides, it is not the Americans who should worry about the Iranians blockading oil shipments in the Gulf. It is the Iranians who should be worrying about the Americans blockading oil shipments.
And at any point, in case of dire necessity, it would not be hard, it would be easy, it would be a matter of four brigades, for the Americans to seize, for "the good of the world," the gas of Qatar, the oil of Kuwait, Abu Dhabi, and the eastern Shi'a-inhabited province of al-Hasa in Saudi Arabia. All on the up and up, of course. All done with whatever funds received held "in escrow" and perhaps even spent on the locals, bypassing the royal families of these assorted tribes with flags, and their usual cut. Screaming, outrage, marches in Karachi and Gaza and possibly Cairo (but muted once it becomes clear that the Americans can cut Egypt off without any more jizya, and that getting away with the mixture as before will not be possible).
Why doesn't the American government issue, or let one of its blunter and less delicate representatives -- say, John Bolton -- suggest that this threat to "block oil supplies" should not be repeated by Tehran -- for it might give "some of us ideas"?
Posted by Robert at January 26, 2006 7:33 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
"Iran, as long as it remains Muslim, cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons."
I couldn't agree more.
Very good post, Mr. Fitzgerald.
Posted by: Foehammer![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 26, 2006 8:25 AM
Better than Bolton, we need a "crazy" general in the Curtis LeMay mold to issue the appropriate borderline loony response. They need to think we're on a hair trigger right now. In fact, we should be on hair trigger alert.
We can't wait until Tel Aviv is a radioactive pile of rubbish.
Who would have thought we'd be pining for LeMay?
Posted by: Rebecca JW at January 26, 2006 8:47 AM
No Curtis LeMay is necessary. No need to find someone who is a wild man, or reputed to be. That would make an easy target for those who wish to counsel inaction. A real "wild man" might not have learned the varied lessons of the Iraq venture, one of which is not to expect "explosions of joy" from an American removal of the regime in Teheran that would "make Kabul seem like a funeral procession" (Bernard Lewis, 2002).
Qualifications: sober brains at room-temperature, capable of planning unhurriedly but determinedly, with temperaments less fire than ice. Must work well with others. Neither enthusiasts for Changing the Middle East, nor scowcroftian "realists" insisting on Doing Nothing To Annoy Our Staunch Muslim Allies, need apply.
Posted by: Hugh at January 26, 2006 9:37 AM
I have no disagreement with the notion that Iran can not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. This regime has too long a history of supporting terrorists and open hostility to Israel for anyone to believe there isn't a realistic chance they will use their nukes in some fashion against them.
I understand, however, that Iran has dispersed it's nuclear program to various, well hidden facilities. Some are supposedly deep underground. So unlike the Israeli raid that took out the Iraqi reactor in 1981, taking out Iran's program would probably require a series of raids, a sustained campaign of air strikes hitting as many facilities as possible several times. Also, since it's likely the Iranians have facilities whose locations are unknown to us or hidden too deep for our weapons, an invasion with ground forces might be required to insure the program has been taken out. I don't know how good our intelligence is on where these facilities are, but I would not be surprised if there are some we know nothing about.
Therefore, I think to do something about Iran's nuclear weapon ambitions will require far more than a raid or two. It will require a sustained air offensive and possibly a ground operation as well. Not just to end Iran nuclear program, but to secure the oil fields in the surrounding area as Mr. Fitzgerald suggested. In other words, I think it will require a major war. Do the US and it's "allies" have the political and military will to do this? Do they have the "stones" to withstand the barage of criticism from the usual suspects and complete job? What will Syria and other Islamic states do? What will China and Russia do? Questions, questions, questions.
May you live in interesting times. Indeed we do.
Posted by: Proud Infidel at January 26, 2006 10:00 AM
Is there a tipping point ?
Is Chirac going to use real bullets ?
(did Hamas run into government to protect its leaders from assassination ?)
It is getting late in the day for our side to do anything but make success more difficult by further delay.
(pay less now or a lot more later)
Posted by: dgene at January 26, 2006 10:08 AM
This analysis is as intelligent as any I've seen in the big (or little) media. I just wonder what Hugh thinks about Pakistan and its nukes?
at January 26, 2006 10:39 AM
Acting now on the basis of what we know will likely have the sole result
of the U.S. being accused of acting unilaterily and being the loose cannon
of the world. Russia and China would certainly not sit back and let us
take the oil fields "for the good of the world"(they have held joint exercises
to send this signal). In addition, an attack may result in the death
or overthrow of Musharaf, and we would then have an Islamic nation with
nuclear weapons anyway. From my perspective, we will need to let things
progress until others in the world are convinced that action should be
taken. This is certainly not an attractive option, but the other seems to
be to open a possible world war with nukes exchanged. Give them enough
rope to hang themselves, the U.S can't go it alone.
at January 26, 2006 11:39 AM
I think at this point that the Israelis will have to
take care of it, with help from the US. That's
unfortunate, I hope it doesn't go nuclear, but
this isn't a cold war sort of standoff. Iran is
led by a nut who probably wants to bring on the
Mad Eye and so maybe he wants a nuke exchange?
I don't think there is an oil weapon, as Hugh says,
there is a market, but I wouldn't rely on an
optimization algorithm that assumes Homo Economicus
is in charge of Iran. More like Homo Islamonuticus
Shiiticus, just a bit different from the Sunni
version. So you could imagine him setting fire to the oil fields or something similarly crazy.
at January 26, 2006 1:08 PM
Not sure about that taxonomic Latin. Perhaps paying a pilgrimage to Uppsala, looking at Linnaeus's garden, and his manuscripts in the library, then coming home to crack those books on genus, species, and Latin diagnoses, would be just the ticket. If nothing else, such an enterprise helps keep us off the streets.
Posted by: Hugh at January 26, 2006 2:16 PM
Islam is a guide book to put one on their knees with "a terminal cancer".
Advocates and friends of Islam have produced an all encompassing Arab-Muslim psychopathic philosophy of sanctified hate. It's end and only products: rape, murder, terrorism, and a 1400 year world war, all blessed with a death wish for all kafir/non-believers as well as themselves. It's peace is only an end illusion brought on with lots of drugs on the way to Allah.
The recreation is a constant incest breeding habit producing still more miserable mesmerized Muslims in perpetual motion, a lock step with an evil principle. The importing or exporting of Muslims and Islam philosophy can only breed more sanctified Muslims that can be exported to create still more colonies of Muslims with the same mind set.
The only solution for this cancer, I believe, is give it what it wants, its own death.
at January 26, 2006 8:12 PM
The war of Iran, if it´s necessary, I hope there wouldn´t be an occupation. No more western lives wasted please.
Posted by: Franze at January 27, 2006 6:22 AM
I think if there's a ground invasion by U.S. forces, you will only see it after a civil war actually erupts inside Iran. This might be closer than many of us suppose. It's actually something I believe has been on the table for many years.
Posted by: Foehammer at January 27, 2006 6:27 AM
I think there is a possibility that Iran is already in possession of a deliverable nuclear weapon and any attack by Israel on any part of Iran's nuclear development complex will allow Iran to claim self defense in the response. Israel, hopefully has this scenerio in their contengency plans. Israel should take out the trigger pullers as well as the guns.
Posted by: pismopal at January 27, 2006 2:20 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)