For over five years we have heard about Iran’s “pursuit of nuclear weapons”.  And since Operation Iraqi Freedom we have watched waves of Islamic jihadist coming from nations that are our “allies” attack our soldiers and kill thousands of other Muslims.  Also, we have  discussions of getting Russia and China on board for economic sanctions against Iran, and the USA is trying to work through President Karzai and the Pakistani government to respond to the continuing assaults from Al Qaeda.  Many are anticipating and even hoping for Israel to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities if they  they appear to have the ability to make a bomb.   And finally, there are those that want the United States to conduct a strategic strike against to “set them back a few years”.  As president, I would take a completely different approach.

Obviously, sanctions have not been working to stop Iran.  First, the economic impact of the sanctions is either pushed onto to the people of the nation, who even when they try to voice their objections through an election, they are repressed and disenfranchised.  Also, as long as China and Russia refuse to back strong and consequential measures, the existing penalties will not be enough.  And both nations have been contributing to the regime through trade and technological assistance.  Also, Russia and China have declared their opposition to the United States position as the dominate world power.  So they are not particularly upset about the problems a nuclear armed Iran pose for the USA.

I am also unimpressed with the notion of using an airstrike to cripple their weapons making plant.  Most military observers that I am familiar with have said that such a strike may not even get the job done.  The issue is more than our military capacity.  If the facilities are deep enough, and if the intelligence is off, then even our bunker busters missles may not be able to completely eliminate the threat.   And even if the attack was successful, many analysts say that it would only set them back for two or three years. 

And then, Iran would have an een greater rallying cry for the jihadists.  If Israel attacks them, then the Middle East will explode into chaos and war.  Islamic factions that are fighting one another may actually unify to wage war on the Jews.  Iran would call this an unprovoked attack on them, and much of the already anti-Israel European groups would condemn Israel, and they may even aid the Iranians.

If the USA does this, then off course it would be another example of the Great Satan oppressing the Islamic world.  Whatever would be gained by “setting  them back” two years would be lost in the destabilization that would take place. 

For how I would deal with this problem, we have to go back to the beginning of George Bush’s second term.  Bush announced that he felt that Iran building a nuclear bomb was “unacceptable behavior”.  I liked George Bush’s position on national strength and denouncing evil, but I disagreed with this statement, as well as those who said that they should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons.  My objection is not that I want them to have a bomb, a most certainly do not.  The problem is our complicated relationship with them made demanding they give it up more unrealistic than the media makes it out to be.  And by stating that we were not going to allow it, we strengthened the regime’s standing when they showed that could do it anyway.

The United States worked with Iran to combat Al Qaeda in the 1990’s, and we cooperated with them during the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars.  At one point, Iran almost went to war with the Taliban.  Madeline Albright issued an implicit apology for the 1953 ousting of their elected Communist president.  For the Iranians, that was not encouragement for better relations, and did not increase their respect for America.  Instead, it demonstrated that we could be messed with. 

I would have first, in the time when the new Iranian bomb crisis emerged, ignored the weapon issue and called on them to end their practice of Gender Apartheid.  I would have called upon the Islamic world to stop subjugating the women of the Middle East.  This redirection would have  forced them to try to justify it, the way South Africa tried.   Then we force the world that is so mad at America to either join us in opposing this bigotry, or show that they do not care. 

If they did  not back us on this, then I would tell them “shut the hell up about how much you don’t like American arrogance.”

The problem is not that a nation we do not like will has a nuclear bomb.  The problem is that nation’s president said he wanted to erase our ally from the map.  This statement should have been verified publically, framed, and declared an act of war.  Allan Combs once said he did exactly say this.  What he said should be played in its original form, then directly translated, and put into some official transcript that is regularly addressed so that there is no confusion.

I would have told Iran “go ahead, make your stupid little nuclear bomb.”   Then, I would have made it clear that we have an intelligence operation inside their nation watching to see if Iran is prepared to attack Israel.  During the Six Days War, the Israeli’s saw that Egypt, Jordan, and Syria were about to attack them and took action.   They even had an operative that tricked the Syrians into giving away their hidden artillery positions by having them plant trees there. 

In 2008 George Bush did announce that the USA was using covert means to help the Iranian people oust the regime.  I believe this was a good move, even though many questioned why one would announce this publicly.  It put pressure on an already paranoid group of leaders, and it gave some sense that we were actively supporting the Iranian resistance without making any type of overtly subversive move that we would not follow through with.

I would tell Iran that we will know if they are trying to attack Israel.  I believe that if we give our international intelligence operatives the correct support and funding, we can know this.  Then I would tell them that if they even so much as smelled like they were going to use that weapon on Israel, that the USA would invade Iran the full force of our military.  We would invade to remove their nuclear capacity, we would invade to remove their ENTIRE regime, their despot president, Khomeini and all rest of their supreme religious counsel. 

We would not be there to nation build, we would be their to remove the evil threat from existence.  It would be a war just like WWII. 

I believe this attempt to prevent a nuclear armed Iran has been an embarrassment for both the Bush and Obama administrations.  The Iranians have lied and ignored the world call for them to cease this threat.  It has shown many who want to diminish America that Iran cannot really be stopped through diplomatic and economical means.  The USA bans trade with Iran, but many of our products and mon ey still end up in Iran through nations  we cannot control.

As far a the jihadists, I would call together all the region’s presidents, and tell them that the had two choices.  The people attacking are troops are coming from somewhere, and they will be stopped at the source.  If they are coming from your nations, you have a very short time to control your borders and help us keep them out of the areas we are trying to secure.  If you cannot stop them, then we take this as your relinquishing your sovereignty, or that you are not capable of maintaining it.    Therefore, either we will “help” you get control back or we are taking your inaction as a deliberate facilitation of the jihadists.

Either way, we are dealing with these people not as insurgents and terrorists, but as soldiers fighting for a particular force.  I call this force The Union of the Caliphate, as Bin Laden, Syd Qyd, and the Muslim Brotherhood all spoke of their designs on forming one Islamic Nation in the Middle East under sharia law and their control.  Anyone funding these efforts would be publicly identified to the American public, and defined as helping the evil. 

Firms in our country who do business with these creeps would just have to deal.  If our brave fighting men and women make sacrifices, so can they. 

The jihadists would be dealt with the way we dealt with the Japanese and German combatants during WWII.  We would fight them with massive response and would go to the source. 

This may seem extreme to some, but we cannot go on like this. We cannot ask some to put their lives on the line to contain something that cannot be contained.  If the mission is worth them being there, then it is worth us taking it to final resolution .

These are not isolated cells of  angry natives. Islamic fascism is a coordinated effort that is being controlled and funded at the top by people who intend to overthrow the non-sharia governments in the Middle East and ultimately destroy the USA.

I would confront that as an act of war against the American people, and deal with it today…….. If I were president.

Categories: Uncategorized
  1. Jim Means
    April 18, 2010 at 8:51 pm

    Massive military action is so 20th century. We no longer need to invade a country like Iran to bring about regime change. Look at the results Reagan got in dealing with Qadaffy by blasting his residence. Look a our current strategy of taking out Al Qaeda leaders with relatively small missiles. There is no sense in risking the life of a single American military person on the soil of Iran. War has become a video game with drones spying on the bad guys and our soldiers sitting at computer consoles on military bases right here in America directing missiles at the targets on the other side of the world. We can take out Ahmadinejad’s house this afternoon if we want to.

  2. April 19, 2010 at 7:52 pm

    I have to disagree. Clinton tried strategic bombing in 1999, and it did nothing. This is a different time than the era of Reagan, and if American an Israel bombs the facilitiy, it will mean a war anyway. And taking out Ahmadedinejad or house would solve the problem, because he is not the leader of th nation. And war is NOT A VIDEO GAME, American soldiers are need on to fght th enemy. And if an invasions are not necessarry, why did so much of the conservative community advocate the SURGE for Iraq and Iran. If itwere that easy, why are we still dealig with AFghanastan and Iraq. We tried the whole strategic high tech distant thing, and we are still dealing with the problem. One way or the other, we we have to finish this. Again, i said invade, ONLy i they tried toattack Israel, not to remove the nuclear program. What if we findout they bought a bomb, or had one smuggled in? Do we bomb them then? War is still war. Either do it or don’t.

  3. April 19, 2010 at 8:08 pm

    Reagan Kadafi situation was during the Iran Iraq War, as well as a Islamic War aainst the USSR, where the mujahideen was getting weapons from us, and Al Quaeda was fighting our Communist enemy. Also,Eqypt was on verge of invading Lybia throughout the Carter years, and Carter actally talked the OUT OF IT. Iranis not in that situation, and they will retliate so strongly to an airstrike that accelerated miliary action will be neccessary. An what isthepint of setting them back 2 years. Unless you ply to bomb them again in which cse that is petty much a war.

  4. Jim Means
    April 19, 2010 at 11:54 pm

    Whether or not the surge or the invasion itself has done any good in Iraq will not be known until at least a couple of years after we leave. Can Kurdistan, Shiiastan and Bathistan stay united in this artificial nation called Iraq? No one else has accomplished anything lasting in Afghanistan and I doubt we can do any better.

  5. Dave
    April 26, 2010 at 2:10 am

    War propaganda….blah blah blah WMD’s….same old set of lies we heard about Iraq.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: