In a piece for City Journal, Mark Steyn offers a sobering analysis of the situation the West faces with Iran and its pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Frankly, we recognize that we cannot allow Iran to develop or obtain nuclear weapons, but we do not appear to have the will to do what is necessary to stop them getting nuclear arms, believing instead that we can simply talk Iran into abandoning its nuclear ambitions.
What folly. If Iran has decided that it is in its vital interest to obtain nuclear weapons, then the only way to persuade them otherwise is to make it clear to them their pursuit of such weapons will prove fatal to them. The problem is that those currently responsible for negotiating with Iran view the situation through a western, secularized lens and so misapprehend the situation. From the time of the French Revolution, economic issues have been of increasing importance in European politics, becoming the most important political issues after World War II. More and more, money and property have come to be seen as the sources of power, as opposed to things that are gained as a result of having power (i.e. My wealth is the source of my power. vs. My power is the source of my wealth.). Viewed in this light, Iran's intransigence makes no sense, especially in light of the carrots being hung in front of them (e.g. Russia's offer to enrich uranium for Iran). Although the EU-3 (Britain, France and Germany) seem to be waking up to the fact that Iran has no desire to surrender its nuclear program, they fail to apprehend why this should be so. Furthermore, even if the EU-3 were to get Russia and China have significant trade ties to Iran and so oppose any concrete action against Iran, be it economic sanctions or miltary action.
So, what can be done?
First of all, the United States, being the only country able to effectively prevent Iran gaining nuclear weapons, must take the lead on the issue. The Eu-3 have been engaged in futile negotiations from the start. Their efforts having failed, the weight of American military might must be brought to bear. To that end, a large chunk of the American forces in Iraq must be moved to the border with Iran. Similarly, most of the American forces in Afghanistan should be moved to its border with Iran. Any military campaign against Iran would be immensely difficult, but it is helpful that we can bring significant force to bear from two directions. It may also give Iran pause if we remind them of this.
From here, I think there are three courses of action that could possibly work.
The first choice is to foment revolution from within. The Iranian people may or may not be pro-American, but they certainly don't have any love for the mullahs. If we start to publicly encourage the people of Iran to overthrow the mullahs and promise to come to the aid of those opposed to the mullahs in whatever way necessary, including military support, it could very well lead to the downfall of the mullahs and an Iranian government that at least isn't hell-bent upon wiping the Great Satan off the face of the earth.
The second choice is a military invasion with or without UN approval (I'd prefer without because I find that the UN makes Jack Abramoff look like Goerge Washington.), with whoever wants to come along. We come in from the both the east and west, possibly enticing Russia to come down from the north by promising them a warm-water port (not likely, as Russia would either have to come through Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan or invade amphibiously via the Caspian Sea, which would make the capture of Tehran easier).
The third choice is the one I least expect to happen. The final solution is achieved diplomatically, but the nature of the sabre-rattling beforehand makes it highly implausible that this will be the course of action taken. This would involve the president traveling to, say Alamogordo, NM, accompanied by the likes of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld to deliver a speech on Iran's nuclear weapons program and what the U.S. intends to do about it. At the end of the speech, as a demonstration of the lengths to which the U.S. is willing to go to prevent Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, a live test of a nuclear weapon will be conducted behind the president (far enough away that no one is harmed by the blast, obviously). After the test is complete, the president should demand full, verifiable, unilateral disassembly of Iran's nuclear program as a precondition to further talks. Needless to say, there will be howls from decent people pretty much everywhere, but Iran should get the message.
Two world wars have taught us what barabrism we are capable of unleashing on one another. In Europe, this has led to a reluctance to use military force to resolve problems, lest a similar barbarism be unleashed again. In effect, many people in the West are afraid of our own power because we know the horror we can cause. In many ways, this is a sign of our moral advancement. The desire to not exact a greater toll than justice demands is a sign of civilization, and the mutual agreement of parties to adhere to civilized rules of war allows for something less than the total war nations of the west once waged on each other. However, when one side refuses to agree to the civilized standards, civilized nations must be willing to show that they can out-Attila Attila. Iran wants to wipe the U.S. off the map and create a pan-Islamic state with Tehran as its political center. The U.S. needs to show not only can it wipe Iran off the map right now, it is willing to do so to secure itself againt the threat of a nuclear Iran. Barring a miracle, only the legitimate threat to do the unthinkable can peacefully stop Iran's otherwise inexorable progress toward the bomb.
No comments:
Post a Comment