January 28, 2007
It’s time to wake up to the reality in Iran
Iran is now working on an underground nuclear facility that will give the Iranian government an additional 3,000 centrifuges. By all reasonable assessments, this initiative represents another major step forward in the Islamic Republic’s drive to acquire nuclear weapons.
Iran has been a supporter of terrorism since long before the recent troubles in neighboring Iraq. Since the establishment of the current Islamic government in Tehran, Iran and its proxies have been causing death and destruction throughout the world. The Islamic Republic of Iran’s stated mission is to spread Islamic governments throughout the Middle East, and it is willing to take any steps needed to accomplish this goal.
Bankrolling terrorism in Lebanon, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Greece
In the early 1980s, Tehran began founding radical Shiite madrassas (Islamic schools) in southern Lebanon. These efforts blossomed into Hezbollah---the organization responsible for the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983---and countless terrorist attacks since. Iranian proxies in Lebanon took scores of hostages throughout the 1980s. In June 1985, they hijacked a TWA flight that originated from Athens. The terrorists diverted the flight to Lebanon and murdered one of its American passengers, throwing his body out on the tarmac in the Beirut airport.
Iran bankrolled a bombing campaign in Kuwait in 1983 (the handiwork of the so-called “al-Da’wa 17). More recently, Tehran funded the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. About 400 people of various nationalities were killed in this attack.
The above is only a partial accounting of Iran’s long terrorist rap sheet. And now the country’s radical leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has demonstrated his determination to turn Iran into a nuclear power. Ahmadinejad has also publicly stated that Israel should be “wiped off the map.” In light of Iran’s history, what can we expect Ahmadinejad to do with nuclear weapons if he acquires them?
There are no good options in the ongoing confrontation between Iran and the world. But the worst option would be to allow Iran to build its nuclear bombs. During the Cold War, the reality of mutually assured destruction (MAD) kept the United States and the Soviet Union from destroying each other in a nuclear exchange, despite several close calls. But the Islamic Republic of Iran--- unlike the former Soviet Union-- was founded on a philosophy of religious fanaticism that glorifies martyrdom. A willing martyr with nuclear weapons is a frightening scenario, to say the least.
Time for surgical strikes?
In 1981, Saddam Hussein was intent on arming his Ba’athist state with nuclear weapons. Hussein had also threatened to annihilate Israel. The Israeli government took matters into its own hands, and destroyed Saddam’s nuclear facilities at Osirak. Saddam blustered in response; but the world gained a respite from the Iraqi nuclear threat.
In the mid-1980s, Iran conducted a terrorist campaign against international oil tanker traffic in the Persian Gulf. Tehran’s objective was to disrupt the petroleum income of the Gulf States, which supported Iraq in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War. The Iranian navy mined sea lanes in the Persian Gulf; and Iranian Pasadran militia units carried out suicide attacks against tankers. Iran also fired shore-launched Chinese Silkworm missiles at tankers that passed near the Iranian coastline.
The Reagan Administration responded with Operation Praying Mantis: a get-tough approach that included destroying Iranian oil platforms (which were used as staging areas for attacks on shipping) and the sinking of Iranian gunboats used for suicide missions. As Operation Praying Mantis began, Tehran threatened to turn the Persian Gulf into the “graveyard of the U.S.” But Iran backed down once they saw that the U.S. meant business.
The point here is threefold: 1.) surgical strikes have worked in the past when dealing with rogue governments in the Middle East, 2.) we do not have to chose between throwing up our hands and doing nothing---or committing ourselves to a long and bloody occupation like the one in Iraq, and 3.) Tehran will only improve its behavior when faced with dire consequences.
At present, the Iranian leadership is convinced that the United States is hopelessly bogged down in Iraq. They also know that the United Nations and the European Union will continue to engage in yet “another round of negotiations” ad infinitum. This means that Iran effectively has a free pass to build its nukes, or so Ahmadinejad believes.
Can we expect reason from Tehran?
Since the days of Ayatollah Khomeini, the Islamic Republic of Iran has never shown a predilection for acting in its own best interest---until and unless it has absolutely no other choice.
In 1982, two years into the disastrous Iran-Iraq War, Khomeini had an opportunity to end the conflict with $70 billion in reparations. But the imam was intent on pursuing a messianic vision that involved the establishment of an Islamic republic in Iraq. (When that was done, he planned to “liberate” Jerusalem.)Khomeini didn’t cry uncle until 1988, after Iran had depleted much of its manpower. (“Human wave” suicide attacks were a favorite tactic of the Iranian generals.) Khomeini’s clerical and civilian government advisors finally pressured him to end the war when conditions had become horrendous inside Iran, and the government faced the real possibility of a general insurrection.
The Iranian government has never been fond of listening to reason; and Ahmadinejad seems to fancy himself as the heir to Khomeini’s bloody legacy. Despite our desire to play nice with Iran, we can’t deny the history and the facts on the ground. In the end, Tehran will yield only to the exigencies of self-preservation.
The sooner the world realizes this, the sooner we will all be rid of the Iranian nuclear menace.