Through a glass darkly...

Closely following the signs of the times

DJohn

DJohn
Location
Virginia, United States
Birthday
December 30
Bio
Marine, Christian, Libertarian and forty-something, suburban dad trying to make sense of the world around him.

MY RECENT POSTS

DJohn's Links

Salon.com
SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 10:02PM

Enough Talk, Bomb Iran NOW!!!

Rate: 1 Flag

The Obama Administration says that it wants to "talk" with Iran about these new developments.

Why bother? I mean really? What's the point? Does anyone out there realize that we have been TALKING to Iran and imposing sanctions of one kind or another since 1979?

That's right. Since 1979, the United States Government, along with some of it allies and eventuall the UN, has been imposing sanctions on Iran of one kind or another.

In an article today by Michel Ledeen in the Wall Street Journal he states:

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said last October at the National Defense University, that "every administration since 1979 has reached out to the Iranians in one way or another and all have failed."

Here is what has transpired over 30 years:

February 1979-The Carter Administration tries to establish good relations with the revolutionary regime by offering aid, arms and understanding. Iran demands that we honor all arms deals with the shah, remain silent about human-rights abuses being carried out, and hand over Iranian "criminals" who had taken refuge in America. In November of that year the American Embassy is seized.

1980's-The Reagan Administration seeking to repair the relationship with Iran and to see the hostages freed sold weapons to Iran and provided military intelligence about Iraqi forces during the Iran-Iraq War. All of this came to a crashing end when the Iran-Contra Scandal erupted.

1990's-The Clinton Administration lifts sanctions imposed by  Carter and Reagan. It also allows Iranians (including the national wrestling team) to enter the U.S. for the first time since the '70s. In addition, the administration also hosted Iranian cultural events and unfroze Iranian bank accounts. At one point, President Clinton and Secretary of State  Albright publicly apologized to Iran for purported past sins, including the overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh's government by the CIA and British intelligence in August 1953. The result of all of these gestures of goodwill? In 1999, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei proclaimed that we were their enemies.

2000-Present-The Bush Administration, although criticized for NOT talking with the Iranians actually did quite a bit of it. (See the BBC documentary: "Iran and the West.")

And as Mr Ledeen describes in his article:

At the urging of British Foreign Minister Jack Straw, the U.S. negotiated extensively with Ali Larijani, then-secretary of Iran's National Security Council. By September 2006, an agreement had seemingly been reached. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Nicholas Burns, her top Middle East aide, flew to New York to await the promised arrival of an Iranian delegation, for whom some 300 visas had been issued over the preceding weekend. Mr. Larijani was supposed to announce the suspension of Iranian nuclear enrichment. In exchange, we would lift sanctions. But Mr. Larijani and his delegation never arrived, as the BBC documentary reported.

So that effectively describes the "talking" part of our involvement with Iran. But what about the sanctions? Consider the following:

President Carter issued an executive order forbidding the sale of anything to Tehran except food and medical supplies.

President Reagan banned the importation of virtually all Iranian goods and services in October 1987.

President Clinton issued an executive order in March 1995 prohibiting any American involvement with petroleum development. The following May he issued an additional order tightening those sanctions. Five years later, Secretary of State Albright eased some of the sanctions by allowing Americans to buy and import carpets and some food products, such as dried fruits, nuts and caviar.

President Bush (W) took spare parts for commercial aircraft off the embargo list in the fall of 2006. In 2008 he revoked authorization of so-called U-turn transfers, making it illegal for any American bank to process transactions involving Iran—even if non-Iranian banks were at each end.

In late 2006, the United Nations started passing sanctions of its own. In December of that year, the Security Council blocked the import or export of "sensitive nuclear material and equipment" and called on member states to freeze the assets of anyone involved with Iran's nuclear program.

In 2007, the Security Council banned all arms exports from Iran, froze Iranian assets, and restricted the travel of anyone involved in the Iranian nuclear program. The following year, it called for investigations of Iranian banks, and authorized member countries to start searching planes and ships coming or going from or to Iran. All to no avail.

So as you can see, nothing has worked and much has been tried. The simple fact of the matter is this: the government of Iran has made it's choice and that is now clear to the rest of the world.

Iran WILL continue toward it's goal to create and mass produce nuclear weapons unless it is stopped from doing so.

We could have tried a coup and maybe toppled the regime. The time to do that was this summer when the people rose up in rebellion. The Obama Administration said they didn't want to "meddle" in their affairs. So be it.

That window is now closed.

We have another one still open but it will also soon be closed.

Soon Iran will receive it's long awaited shipment of S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems. As reported in December 2007 in The Guardian:

Russia is to supply Iran with a new and lethal anti-aircraft system capable of shooting down American or Israeli fighter jets in the event of any strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Russian defence experts yesterday acknowledged that the missile system, originally designed in the 1970s, would significantly enhance Iran's ability to shoot down enemy aircraft.

The S-300 had a range far superior to that of the US Patriot system, experts said. It could also shoot down cruise and ballistic missiles, they added.

"It's a formidable system. It really gives a new dimension to Iran's anti-aircraft defences," said one Russian defence expert, who declined to be named.

"It's purely a defensive system. But it's very effective. It's much better than the US system. It has good radar. It can shoot down low-flying cruise missiles, though with some difficulty."

Once this happens the risk to pilots on a bombing mission will be too risky and most likely THAT window will also be closed.

Some have said that perhaps a Naval blockade would work to strangle Iran from receiving any supplies since it imports just about everything.

There is just one problem with that: Hezbollah and Hamas have the capability to hit US Naval ships sitting off their coast with anti-ship missiles if necessary and they take their orders from Iran.

We are quickly running out of options people and we need to act and act soon.

It's either that or we allow Iran to continue down this path until one day in the near future we will wake up to a "Breaking News Flash" that Iran has joined the exclusive club of nuclear equipped powers in the world.

Then it's too late.

From that day on we will have to TRUST that Iran will use this power responsibly.

That's right, TRUST them.

It's worked well so far. Right?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574442901560824682.html#mod=most_emailed_day

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
I wonder why the Iranians would want nuclear weapons? It's not like anyone is threatening to attack them, is it?
After 30 years of resistance, I think the Iranians should just throw open their borders and allow the US and Israel to occupy them. Ledeen would make a good president, wouldn't he? He sure seems to know everything about Iran. Of course, he might need to take a few language lessons first.
If bombing worked, the US would have brought its troops home from Iraq in May 2003.

In fact, Iran has no weapons that can reach the US, and it never will. The Iranians pose no threat to the US.
Ditto what I said about your fine "Distracted President" post. Also rated.

I hope you're finding other outlets for your thorough research.
Wow, the sheer naivete of some of these comments is absolutely stunning. After all if Iran DID get the technology to make a nuke it's not like they would sell that to bin Laden, Venezuela, Cuba, etc. Right? The simple fact of the matter is this: if WE don't hit them Israel will. It's GOING to happen.
Have you thought this through DJohn? I know stupid question.

So you bomb Iran to delay their program. Then what? Keep bombing?

As you already pointed out Iran has been sanctioned to near death. And yet even as backwards as they are from a 21st century development perspective, they have been able to develop/obtain this technology.

So how do you prevent that from happening in the other countries and groups you seem to have a future problem with? Venezuela will have the money and access to the technology, are they next in line for bombing? Canada?

Got anything other than a one dimensional plan?
While I recognize the satisfaction such an action would give to those living in fear, and especially those making money off that fear, I agree that Iran has not been very responisible or trustworthy in any arena.
But I have 2 questions for you:
1) Why Iran? Why not North Korea? (Hell, why not Pakistan?) I've just named 2 other countries involved in selling weaponry to anyone, and are already nuclear. Why start with Iran?
2) Why only posit the last 30 years of Iranian history? To me one major reason to be involved in any fashion diplomatically with Iran is the fact that 60 years ago we were busy overthrowing their legitimate government in favor of a CIA puppet, the Shah. So, just for a moment, pretend YOU are Iran and tell me why you should trust ME, the USofA, or any other power that generally "negotiates" at the point of a gun?

Where does this all end?
Mark-this is just the first phase of the plan. Teh bombing will set them back 3-4 years. That gives more time (if we are willing) to bring down the regime from within. The PEOPLE of Iran don't want this anymore and they are ready to fight for their freedom. We should do everything we can to help them. When Saudi Arabia gives you the green light to bomb a fellow Islamic country you know there is fear in the Middle East. Not only will it set them back but it will also put the rest of the world on notice. Iran will NOT thumb it's nose at the United States without consequences. Like I said we either do it now or Israel will. It's GOING to happen and soon.
Tim-Why Iran? Why not North Korea? (Hell, why not Pakistan?) I've just named 2 other countries involved in selling weaponry to anyone, and are already nuclear. Why start with Iran?

That's easy..they ALREADY have the technology and can use it. There is an international treaty against using nuclear weapons that's why nobody has done so since WWII.

Why only posit the last 30 years of Iranian history?

Because that is how long the outlaw regime of the mullahs has been in place. THAT is how long they have held an iron grip over their people and committed human rights abuses.
Another one of your non-answers.

I granted you the delay. The question was: then what? What changes do you see in your strategy from what has been tried in the past? What do you propose to do with the time that hasn’t been tried yet? Do you think Iran hasn’t been attacked/invaded before?

How do you see the USA as so different from Iran? A good portion of rest of the world saw Bush as an unstable leader. You yourself claim that your current president is unworthy to hold office. You have a long history of human rights abuses, from the native Americans to the slave trade to modern day torture. Perhaps a preemptive self strike is in order.

Personally I feel that Ahmadinejad is a mental case. I also believe the reports I have read that indicate he is in charge of nothing in Iran. A distraction. The election meant nothing, the people have no power.

You likely believe this too if you’ve read much about the situation. How after all they have suffered can you expect the Iranian people to initiate a regime change?

So for you is this a religious war like Iraq was for Bush? Are you hoping for the battle against Gog and Magog? Is it the prospect of the end-times that has you so excited?
"Tim-Why Iran? Why not North Korea? (Hell, why not Pakistan?) I've just named 2 other countries involved in selling weaponry to anyone, and are already nuclear. Why start with Iran?

That's easy..they ALREADY have the technology and can use it. There is an international treaty against using nuclear weapons that's why nobody has done so since WWII."

So your answer to the attractive proposition of bombing Iran and not the other 2 countries mentioned is that those 2 countries already have nuclear weapons and can use it? I dont get the logic in that. I suspect the limitations in this kind of communication is the cause. Please explain.

Regarding the "outlaw"regime of the mullahs, are you saying the prior regime, the US installed Shah was not outlaw but the overthrow of him by the people of the country of Iran IS outlaw? This makes zero sense, unless your starting point for legitimacy is anything the US does.

I remain unconvinced.
Mark-I never said that Ahmadinijad had power. Everyone knows that the mullahs pull the strings. He is the figure head. So now you are using the moral equivalency to compare the US with Iran? I heard there were people out there that did that but I never met one. So the US is a terrorist state intent on wiping out Israel. Interesting. Mayve you've been in the thin air too long.
Tim-So your answer to the attractive proposition of bombing Iran and not the other 2 countries mentioned is that those 2 countries already have nuclear weapons and can use it? I dont get the logic in that. I suspect the limitations in this kind of communication is the cause. Please explain.

I didn't think I needed to but ok. Yes, they have nukes already. If we attacked them they would use them maybe yes? That would be BAD. The idea is to STOP Iran BEFORE they get the nukes. See how that works?

And by the way the "people" didn't overthrow the Shah...a movement of Islamic radicals (including the current President) did and then subjugated the country under the iron grip of fear.

Did you think that the rebellion this summer was because the people LIKE their government?
Stellaa-Better a mushroom cloud over a nuke plant in the middle of the desert than one over Jerusalem or NYC.
"So now you are using the moral equivalency to compare the US with Iran?"

No. I was using an example of what they call perspective. You may want to try and get some. Before bombing a nation maybe a thought or two could be spared.

I can conclude from your usual avoidance that you have no plan after the bombing. No wonder Bush/Cheney are your heros.
mark-You CAN read yes? What part of this do you not understand? "This is just the first phase of the plan. The bombing will set them back 3-4 years. That gives us more time (if we are willing) to bring down the regime from within. The PEOPLE of Iran don't want this anymore and they are ready to fight for their freedom. We should do everything we can to help them."
THAT is the plan. Bomb first. Support the opposition (weapons, training, etc), bring about regime change.
All we did yesterday was give Iran legitimacy and buy them MORE time. That's a victory for them. Stall, delay, stall, delay and then one day soon...SURPRISE! Look at what we made!! North Korea did the same exact thing to us. How do we know that the Qom facility that was just revealed was the ONLY one in existence. Look how long it took for us to find that. If there are 2 or 3 or more of these hidden facilities then they have the necessary infrastructure in place to build their weapons...once they get to that point.
Well you’ve been involved in regime changes before, with a pretty sad track record of implementing positive results.

So what group do you support this time? How do you intend to break the powerful hold the mullahs have on the minds of their flocks? Do you think bombing their compatriots will have a positive effect on that effort? This will help the war on terrorism?

Don’t you think there have been covert operations in place to facilitate a regime change already? If not, you must think Bush was really asleep at the wheel (Iran has been rattling this nuclear saber for quite a while). If so, why hasn’t it worked yet?

Did you read your own responses? You have no idea how many facilities there are. You have no idea if they really are intending to generate energy with some or all of them. Just bomb the whole country to ensure you get all the facilities? Apparently you can’t rely on your intelligence agencies for accurate intel. And bomb now, don’t wait for the inspections. Remind me again, how did that work out in Iraq?

Sounds like a plan.
mark-I don't have all the answers but there is one thing that I know for sure. The longer it takes to act the closer they get to having a bomb. Time is on THEIR side not ours. Israel will most likely do what we are afraid to and hit them first anyway.
What I would do is establish a blockade with the understanding that force would be used if they didn't dismember their enrichmenrt facilities. This would be a surgical strike. So as to avoid collateral damage. Great post rated
Comments are now closed.