Andrew McCarthy, NRO:
Once again, the problem in Iran is the regime, not the nukes. The foreign policy of the United States should unapologetically and overtly be organized around the goal of regime change. That doesn’t necessarily require military invasion, although we should not shy from that when they kill and threaten us. But Obama — like his predecessors — is using the levers of American power in an effort to obtain a grand deal with the mullahs, myopically focused on nuclear power with no accounting of the regime’s much more serious decades of terror promotion and incorrigible anti-Americanism.
Why would we even think about cutting a deal with the mullahs — on nukes or anything else? Nothing this regime could say or do at this point could be trusted. We should not want a deal with these guys, so it’s just mind-boggling that we keep groveling for one. We should want them gone, we should be squeezing them every way we can toward that end, we should make no secret about it, we should support the regime’s opponents in Iran, and we should make other countries understand that if they want to have cordial relations with Iran, we are going to make their lives difficult.
Precisely right. Even were Hillary and Obama to pull off the rumored October surprise in which they strike an agreement with Iran on its nuclear program, why in the world would anyone with a lick of sense find that anything other than an insulting political expedient?
Obama promised to deal with Iran without preconditions. Romney was right last night to point out that the message the Obama administration was sending to Iran was that we would not act aggressively against it. Whether this shows weakness or suggests a complicity of purpose — and by that I don’t mean the promotion of terrorism, but rather merely a re-figuring of the power dynamic in the middle east, and in fact the world, which agenda fits in well with Obama’s own predilection for post-colonialist theory — depends on your viewpoint.
Either way, it signals to Iran that they may proceed apace. And that’s the wrong signal to send — and is in fact antithetical to the kind of message a free country rooted in human rights and the dignity of the individual should always send: we reject theocratic totalitarianism, and we are prepared to combat it in any and every way should it make the mistake of turning bellicose toward us or our allies.
And that includes with horses and Marine bayonets, ironically enough. Though we may have to hitch a ride over on a cruise ship.
But Jeff, Peace In Our Time man.
For an actor that guy is pretty sharp. I thought he was a commie like most of the rest of his ilk.
Speaking of NRO, Michael Mann has filed suit against them. Save some popcorn for future tasty Steyn goodness.
I think the word is “hudna”, more or a less a time of peace until Islamic forces are strong enough to destroy their enemy.
You would thing Obama had never seen the Star Trek (TOS) episode where Kirk, Lincoln, and some vulcan dude were up against three bad guys from various histories, including one Klingon who was notorious for negotiating while getting his forces in place for attack, the very thing that happened in the Star Trek episode which resulted in the death of the Lincoln character.
Of course, that’s assuming Obama’s not actively in on the game, which of course he is. He wants Iran to have the bomb. That way they can destroy Israel and neutralize what Obama sees as the evil influence of America in the region.
Mann likely does not understand what discovery is. This could finish him off.
On topic, what do we do with states that sponsor terrorism, or more exactly, states that send unofficial troops to engage in acts of war? Obviously we don’t do what we are doing now with Iran.
Do we respond militarily? The problem there is we have no clear target, as the supporting states certainly won’t take the blame. If we start bombing the frak out of those who we believe are at fault, it will likely turn more nations against us, including some of our allies.
We really need a new gameplan here. Wars have historically been conducted in a manner such that the participants and spectators have a clear idea of which nations are doing the fighting. That isn’t true any more.
Obama waives sanctions on Iran, and Obama waives sanctions against countries who use child soldiers (3 yrs in a row), but Obama can’t approve drilling permits in his own country.
The distinct opportunity to fundamentally oppose and be rid of the dictatorial Iranian regime was present in 2009, presented to the United States on a platter by the oppressed Iranian peoples themselves. There and there best lay the heart of our strategic gameplan at the time and Obama stabbed it dead. Though they are even more oppressed today than in 2009, the dissatisfied Iranian peoples remain in place. Let them understand that as we rid ourselves of Obama, so should they choose to rise again the United States will come to their aid.
On topic, what do we do with states that sponsor terrorism, or more exactly, states that send unofficial troops to engage in acts of war?
Send unofficial troops to engage in acts of war against our enemies, of course. Not the sort of atrocities that our enemies love so much, but sabotage against enemy assets and infrastructure could be fun. Hell, I’d chip in a hundred bucks just to pay kids to drop caltrops on expressways at rush hour, and then unfurl banners asking why Dear Leader can’t keep the damn traffic moving.
You don’t even need to be subtle about it. I mean, everybody knows that the regime will blame it on the Great Satan, so why bother with intermediaries or plausible deniability? Just have a press conference and say, “Nonsense — you guys will be blaming your power outages on us next.” (Never mind that we just wrecked a handful of their distribution substations.)
Oh, and give syphilis to their concubines, just for spite.
Or what sdferr said. That would be good, too.
I’ve kind of thought paying back in kind was a good idea (e.g. we ought to be arming Syrian rebels and perhaps training some of them in how to train others —assuming we could smuggle people out of country). Of course, it would help if the CIA was worth a damn.
As to the very real liklihood of facing nuclear terrorism someday, I think we ought to have a publically stated policy of retaliating in kind against known state sponsors of terrorism. Don Corleone’s speech about “blaming some people” if Michael were struck by lightning comes to mind.
The “in kind” part throws me a little. I think it should follow the “they kill one of ours, we kill 100 of theirs” kind of ratio.
Do we make a list of the places we will hit if we are attacked? Do we show proof of the bad actor if we find him? Do we only respond to the bad actor or do we respond immediately against everyone on list? Do we warn them first? Do we hit only military targets?
Also, for this plan to work, I think we need to show proof of our resolve by destroying a significant target before any acts of nuclear terrorism occur. We need not use nuclear weapons to do it, and we can probably warn them first that we are going to do it, but it would need to be done.
In my book, attacking Iranian enrichment facilities would be a good way to prove we mean business.
“You don’t even need to be subtle about it. I mean, everybody knows that the regime will blame it on the Great Satan, so why bother with intermediaries or plausible deniability? ”
Well the thing about the Great Satan is that it’s VERY pious to fight the great Satan in an alien city through surrogates.
But when the Great Satan crosses the ocean and gets off of a troop ship, kicks a hole in your thousand year old city wall, takes your best punch, and then tells you that he might let you keep the top of your head and your kids if you kneel and kiss the end of his blazing, spiked, cork-screwed, demon dick in front of an ABC remote news crew, well…the prophet and the most high, just might forgive you if you cunningly call for a decades long hudna…nonverbally. With your mouth.
In the fullness of (enough) time ALL is part of glorious Jihad(including letting your great grandkids handle it in 80 years). Just be careful your beard doesn’t catch on fire as you deceive the Great Satan with your falsely submissive acts of oral martyrdom.
The caliphate to be needs way more splodey than it has dopes, which is why confronting this crap usually quickly dispels the illusion of historical ontological divinely inspired inevitability the jihadi’s try to build. Without public wishy-washiness and a Quisling culture cultivated in the target nation most ‘jihad’ fails quickly as it proves to be difficult and expensive and dangerous.
We apparently still haven’t learned to stand up to it. We STILL want to buy it candy and teach it manners. We STILL think jihad culture is basically a good but misguided kid from a broken home who needs a mentor.
Palaeomerus for Secretary of Kicking Ass and Taking Names.
Or, as the government euphemistically calls it, “Defense.”
I much prefer warning the Iranian government that the next terrorist attack against any American will result in a brand new radioactive glass parking lot formerly known as the Tehran International Airport.
Call it the “Glenn Beck” solution.
No, I don’t care of Iran is responsible or not. Someone needs to feel the wrath of America. Iran is as good a target as any.
Of course, another solution is America leaving the ME entirely and telling the EU that we’re tired of looking out for them. Of course, this is after we no longer need ME oil.
I’m saying that if San Diego (or Tel Aviv or Birmingham or Paris*) disappear in a mushroom cloud and some Islamist Jihadi group no one ever heard of before that day claims responsibility, we take out Tehran. And Pyongyang. And maybe Damascus and Islamabad too. I’m saying even if no one takes credit for it, we light ’em up like Hiroshima.
And we let everyone know that we’re going to as a matter of national policy.
* Well, maybe not Paris
I think Flock of Seagulls should be Obama’s new goto band for his campaign.
” I walked along the avenue.
I never thought I’d meet a girl like you;
Meet a girl like you.
With auburn hair and tawny eyes;
The kind of eyes that hypnotize me through;
Hypnotize me through.
And Iran, Iran so far away.
I (just) ran, Iran all night and day.
I couldn’t get away.
A (mushroom) cloud appears above your head;
A beam of light comes shining down on you,
Shining down on you.
The cloud is moving nearer still.
Aurora Borealis comes in view;
Aurora comes in view.
And Iran, Iran so far away.
I (just) ran, Iran all night and day.
I couldn’t get away.
Reached out a hand to touch your face;
You’re slowly disappearing from my view;
Disappearing from my view.
Reached out a hand to try again;
I’m floating in a beam of light with you;
A beam of light with you.
And Iran, Iran so far away.
I (just) ran, Iran all night and day.
And Iran, Iran so far away.
I (just) ran, I couldn’t get away.
…I didn’t get away. “
Good idea, but it won’t work. Not the oil part, the leave the rest of the world to it’s own devices part.
The last time we tried that we wound up policing the whole world. If we tried it again, the end result would be us ruling the entire world. So, for the world’s sake, we need to stay involved in the world. Because we’re givers like that.
Ernst, have you read Wildfire by Nelson Demille?
Nope.
By the way I am terrified that Radio Shack(TM) and basic cheap drone technology can give the new would be caliphate enough dopes to go with all their splodey. Cheap cell-phone IED’s have changed armored warfare. ‘Rolling in the tanks’ is no longer the check mate it was in the 60’s.
MRAPS and advanced, expensive, but slow flying “wild weasel” type signal warfare aircraft may not be enough of a reaction to counter the use of small jury rigged drones in asymmetric warfare operations against hated infidels and the careers of their stupid leadership.
The idea of toxic, dirty, incendiary, or explosive payloads on a beefed up toy with no survival instincts, that is kind of fun to deploy, that can be controlled from an iPad or a hacked Kindle Fire like a video game, really scares the hell out of me. So does the idea of home made remote controlled one shot mortars.
Secret policy that we nuke Mecca, etc. if there’s ever a nuke set off in the US. Of course some bad right-wingers try to do so to solve the Middle East problem.
DeMille rocks – General’s Daughter, Plum Island, Up Country, etc.
The problem with indiscriminate retaliation plans like that is you have to take Russia, China, Pakistan, and India into account. Plus you give great incentive for the rest of the ME to nuke up.
Best just to tell them when it comes to mushroom clouds, we believe in an eye for an eye, and leave it at that.
In keeping with the bellicose spirit of the thread, I feel compelled to say, you’ve got that ass backwards Lee. Russia, China, Pakistan and India have to take us into account. And the surest way to see the entire ME nuke up is to
allow Iran intofail to keep Iran out of the club.Yeah, I don’t think I have it backward so much, I know they do take us into account, I’m just pointing out complications. Extenuating circumstances. Bulls in china shops.
Strength is only useful when controlled, and announcing a set retaliation against other players regardless their culpability just seems like fear, not strength.
I don’t know…maybe I could go along if it was only Mecca, and the responsible actors once they are identified.
What we need is a “Big Jake” foreign policy, where we turn to the world’s known sponsors (and yes, include the damned Saudis on that list), and say
“Now you listen to me. Anything happens, anything goes wrong, we’re going to blow your heads off. No matter what else happens, and no matter who else gets killed, your fault, my fault, nobody’s fault: We’re going to blow your heads off. We won’t send troops; we’ll just deliver the load by missile, because killing only the ‘guilty parties’ isn’t worth the time and trouble, let alone the bones, of a single American private.”
Of course, they won’t take it seriously until we do it.
And it isn’t being bellicose. It’s simply the long-overdue enforcement of the “Leave Us The Hell Alone” doctrine.
And when it comes to “deniability” by “non-state actors”, our response should be “This group claiming responsibility has offices / is headquartered in your territory, or this is where the attack took place. We are going to erase this spot from the map. If you want to deny that it is part of your country, nor are its inhabitants your citizens, and you will not defend it or them, we won’t include other cities in your nation on the target list… this time.”
Nice. “Either you have control over this bit of territory and these people — in which case we’ll be happy to serve you with a proper declaration of war — or it’s an isolated spot that you have no control over, in which case you won’t mind if we level it.” I like that.
Can we practice this doctrine on our neighbor to the south?
They’ll probably want to reciprocate (not that I’d have any objection). One hand washes the other…
Yeah, you’re likely right. Since we’re not controlling chunks of our own country, we have it coming too.
Caroline Glick: Red Line for Iran