Blog has moved, searching new blog...

Saturday, April 15, 2006

Iran: Bad, Getting Worse

Mark Steyn and Victor Davis Hanson consider Iran and offer the same observation: We face a choice between bad and worse.

On this point I disagree. Dean Barnett has it right. The West doesn't face a choice between going to war with Iran or not. Iran has been waging a not-so-covert war against us since 1979. Once they build nukes they will use them. We could afford to bide our time and hope moderates would come to power before. We no longer have that luxury.

That some continue to assume there is a choice is testimony to the corrosive effect the forces of self-doubt and self-loathing have had on the West. We are the most powerful most righteous force on this planet and yet we stand by impotently as the most nefarious most untrustworthy state alternatively skulks and blusters its way toward nuclear weapons. If we can't gather the strength or clarity of purpose to stop such an obvious travesty then what hope is there left? The umma and ulema are already trying to impose their irrational demands and killing infidels around the world with impunity. Does anyone seriously think once these spoiled psychopaths have nukes they're going to turn happy and peaceful?

On 9/11 the passengers of flight 93 were faced with a similar non-choice. They could sit and hope against all reason that their deranged hijackers would not fly them into some building. Or they could rise up and take charge of their destiny. We may hide behind the excuse that our situation is more murky, our doom less certain, but we have had a wealth of time to contemplate history and plan actions far more thoroughly than the passengers of flight 93. It is worse than useless to negotiate the unnegotiable with prevaricators. We waste precious time. We gain nothing.

UPDATE: Two related links via LGF.

Robert Tracinski says:
There is no need to invoke the doctrine of pre-emption against Iran. Iran is already fighting a war against the United States. We just haven't been fighting back. We have held our fire as if Iran were protected by a shield of nuclear weapons. How much more aggressive will the Iranians become when they are actually protected by such a nuclear shield?
Thomas McInerney says:
Iran's leaders have threatened to unleash a firestorm of terrorism in the event military action is taken against them. Any country involved in the attack would be subject to retaliation by Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and al Qaeda, the Iranians have claimed. If nothing else, this threat demonstrates how closely tied Iran is to terrorist groups.
It is also a hollow threat. These groups already attack us from the shadows. Let them "retaliate" and bring themselves out in the open.


Post a Comment

<< Home