Ultima Thule

In ancient times the northernmost region of the habitable world - hence, any distant, unknown or mysterious land.

Saturday, July 15, 2006

Look to Iran, Mr. Bush -- it is our war

By Aussiegirl

And while we are on the subject of Iran, two important articles today are must-reads to understand the ongoing war in the Middle East -- this one by Bill Kristol and an article by Salim Mansur, which I have posted separately. Iran is the culprit, and as Bill Kristol so ably points out, this raises it to a new level and differentiates it from previous conflicts between the Israelis and the Arabs -- precisely because this is no longer and Arab-Israeli conflict. It is the first large-scale, open battle of the ongoing war on the civilizational West that was declared decades ago, as pointed out by Kristol.

Until we recognize that we are in this civilization struggle with Islam we cannot properly fight it or defend ourselves and our way of life. We are not merely attempting to "bring to justice" a bunch of evildoers who have hijacked a peaceful religion, we are at war with Islam itself, because Islam is at war with us. To fail to recognize this is to risk defeat. And Iran is the primary nexus of this war. We must seize this opportunity to take out Iran's nuclear facilities now, while we have the opportunity and the provocation and the pretext. This opportunity may not present itself again.

Iran has calculated that the U.S. is not prepared to take action at this time, and looks to our reactions to the recent trumped-up crisis with North Korea's missile tests (pushed behind the scenes by China), and our appeasing policy of seeking talks with Iran, which they humiliatingly tossed back in our faces and refused (as we should have known they would). They saw that there was little world reaction to the terrible bombings of commuter trains in Mumbai. And can we not safely assume that all of these incidents coming so close together are not just coincidences? That the increasing violence in Iraq, and the attacks by Hezbollah, and the kidnapping of Israel soldiers, and the constant rocket barrages of Israel towns is not a coordinated strategy by Iran and its surrogates in its war with the West? And what has been our reaction? To offer to talk -- to North Korea, to Iran and to continue our policy of hearts and minds in Iraq. On a note of encouragement, President Bush, speaking from the G-8 summit, has insisted on Israel's fundamental right to defend itself, and has rightly placed the blame for the violence on Hezbollah.

Iran has smelled the weakness of the West and has decided that now is the time to strike. It is probably not coincidental that all of these attacks and provocations come just prior to the U.N. considering a resolution on Iran's refusal to give up its nuclear weapons. Let's remember that the last time Iran was scheduled to be considered at the U.N. that Iran staged and provoked the Cartoon Jihad.

We are already under attack from multiple fronts, while we wave diplomatic papers in the air and declare that talks and U.N. resolutions will bring us peace.

Now is the time to engage the battle before it is too late. We must take out Iran's nuclear facilities, or at least damage their infrastructure to such an extent that they are set back many years, and it wouldn't be a bad time to take out those missile launching sites of North Korea either.

Either way we play it, there will be war. We either engage it now while our enemies are still relatively weak, or at least do not possess deliverable nuclear weapons, or we fight an unthinkable war later which will inevitably involve a nuclear exchange -- probably with Iran or North Korea striking first. That cannot be allowed to happen. History hangs in the balance. It's not the time to be eating wild boar and toasting friendship with Russia on the international stage.

It's Our War

[...]The war against radical Islamism is likely to be a long one. Radical Islamism isn't going away anytime soon. But it will make a big difference how strong the state sponsors, harborers, and financiers of radical Islamism are. Thus, our focus should be less on Hamas and Hezbollah, and more on their paymasters and real commanders--Syria and Iran. And our focus should be not only on the regional war in the Middle East, but also on the global struggle against radical Islamism.

[...]For while Syria and Iran are enemies of Israel, they are also enemies of the United States. We have done a poor job of standing up to them and weakening them. They are now testing us more boldly than one would have thought possible a few years ago. Weakness is provocative. We have been too weak, and have allowed ourselves to be perceived as weak.

The right response is renewed strength--in supporting the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, in standing with Israel, and in pursuing regime change in Syria and Iran. For that matter, we might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait? Does anyone think a nuclear Iran can be contained? That the current regime will negotiate in good faith? It would be easier to act sooner rather than later. Yes, there would be repercussions--and they would be healthy ones, showing a strong America that has rejected further appeasement.

But such a military strike would take a while to organize. In the meantime, perhaps President Bush can fly from the silly G8 summit in St. Petersburg--a summit that will most likely convey a message of moral confusion and political indecision--to Jerusalem, the capital of a nation that stands with us, and is willing to fight with us, against our common enemies. This is our war, too.


At 6:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The strike against Iranian nuclear facilities at Natanz is already being organized. I doubt that it shall ever be implemented.

At 8:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with your trenchant analysis, Aussiegirl, we should strike while the iron is hot -- but we won't. Your last paragraph put me in mind of Churchill's famous statement: Britain and France had to choose between war and dishonor. They chose dishonor. They will have war. Here, for "dishonor", read "appeasement". War is surely coming, and the sooner we start, the better off we'll be.

At 8:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, I messed up -- the previous comment was posted by me, Pindar.


Post a Comment

<< Home