by Austin Bay
March 17, 2010
The media speculators have returned,
pondering the likelihood of an attack by the U.S. or Israel on Iranian nuclear
weapons sites. Every week, the Beltway spins forth another series of articles
quoting anonymous State Department officials, a pontificating general or two,
or a terse national security adviser. The phrases "growing fears" and
"new war" punctuate the political science jargon.
Wake up, world, and grow up, Washington.
Iran's mullah-led regime is already at war. It is at war with Iraq. It is at
war with Israel. In historical terms, the descendant regime of the Ayatollah
Khomeini has been at war with the United States since, oh, 1979? Moreover, the
corrupt dictatorship is fighting a civil war in slow motion with the Green
Movement, the hodgepodge Iranian opposition coalition that reflects the
disenchantment of an estimated 70 percent of the population.
The phrase "new war" is
diplo-speak for an American or Israeli raid on Iranian nuclear weapons
production facilities. The raid would really be a new battle in this complex,
long-running conflict. The Khomeinites in Tehran would portray the raid as
escalation, an attack by the Great Satan on the Islamic Republic and ultimately
all Muslims. The Israelis would portray the raid as genocide prevention -- and
a warning to anyone labeling Israel a "one bomb state."
The Obama administration would portray
the raid as ... as ... well that is not (yet) quite clear.
The blame for the Obama
administration's Iranian policy conundrum begins with the president himself.
The "no pre-conditions" to negotiations pledge Barack Obama made to
the mullahs and his Cairo apology to the Islamic world have proven to be what Obama's
critics called them: fillips to the "Blame America" habitues of the
American left. In terms of forging an effective policy capable of coping with
the dysfunctional regimes afflicting the Middle East, however, they were naive,
myopic and culturally ignorant gestures. Dictators interpret apologies and
kowtows as weakness. The smug thugs in Tehran touted Obama's apologias as a
triumph for the Khomeinists' revolution.
Green Movement protests after Iran's
troubled June 2009 elections revealed the regime for the failure it is:
hideously corrupt, internally despised and domestically violent.
It is also internationally dangerous.
Khomeinist Iran, though no global power in the traditional sense of economic,
political or military might, is globe-girdling in terms of involvement in
controversy, revolution and armed conflict. This flows from the Ayatollah
Khomeini's claim Iran would lead a global Islamist revolution.
While the ideological appeal has paled,
the associated violent troublemaking hasn't. By one count, the regime is
involved in at least 17 international conflicts, most of them in the Middle
East or Central Asia, but its tentacles even touch South America.
This foul regime seeks nuclear weapons.
Yes, a nuke would strengthen its hand domestically, playing to a certain type
of nationalist sentiment. A nuke serves a defensive purpose, a form of regime
protection. These are, however, narrow truths all too easily abused as
arguments for inaction. The broad fact: A nuclear Iran tilts the entire Middle
East toward further violence.
Obama minions have said as much, and we
hear that Iran will not be allowed to get nuclear weapons. Tough economic
sanction talk is one thing -- actual sanctions another. Right now, the U.S.
can't get Brazil to support harsh sanctions. We also hear Beltway gossip that
contends Obama is already resigned to containing a nuclear-armed Iran. What we
do not hear articulated is how the regime would be contained.
Iraq is the best base for executing any
competent containment regimen. Obama, however, failed to support the U.S
liberation and democratization of Iraq, which are the predicates to an
Iraqi-U.S. alliance against the Khomeinists. He still insists on an accelerated
withdrawal of U.S. combat units.
Now the Beltway spin turns to "new
war." Why? Because it must. The Khomeinists are 15 months closer to
possessing nuclear weapons. A successful democratic revolt in Iran would get
Obama -- and all of us -- off the terrible hook. Obama, and the rest of us,
however, cannot bank on such fortune. In its own awkward, benighted and belated
fashion, the administration of the American messiah of perpetual peace has
begun preparing for "the military option" -- massive air and special
operations strikes on the mullah's nuclear arsenal.