February 07, 2006
Simply put, Iran’s nuclear weapons program, combined with the murderous comments of that country’s president, is the political equivalent of a man running toward your children’s school holding a hand grenade and shouting “I hate kids. I welcome death.” The risk of taking time—to think, to talk, to analyze, to co-ordinate with other countries – is just too high. We know where Amadinejad and the mullahs work, and we ought to know where they live. (And if we don’t know, the Israelis do and would be more than happy to lend a hand.) We have cruise missiles, Stealth fighters, and B-1 bombers that can fly from the US to Teheran, drop their lethal loads, then return to the US without ever landing en route. We have skilled, courageous Special Forces teams that can get themselves on the ground in Teheran quietly and fast.The question is whether we still have within us the instinct for survival. If we do, then our only course is to act – now, this minute, however we can – and to take out the mullahs. Tonight.
Now there is a certain wisdom to that proposal, for the threat posed by the program is not found in the nature of the weapons themselves, but in the propensity of the Iranian leadership to use those weapons. The United States has very little leverage with the radical government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the present convulsions in the Middle East over the Danish cartoons makes the likelihood of Iranian compliance very small. So it may be that this is the best solution, given that the current situation is unlikely to become less stable.
Unless, of course, it does. Which leads me to wonder if MeyerÂ’s proposal is really the wisest course of action. But then again, what solution would be better?
Posted by: Greg at
01:40 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 360 words, total size 2 kb.
19 queries taking 0.0391 seconds, 28 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.