The American Spectator

Print Email

Text Size

TAS Live

(Page 2 of 2)

Reliable reports, including those related in Richard Miniter's Shadow War, say that Osama bin Laden may be operating and traveling in Afghanistan and Iran under the protection of Iranian intelligence. According to Miniter's sources, this results from an agreement between bin Laden and Iranian grand ayatollah Ali Khameni after bin Laden sought sanctuary from the American attack on Afghanistan. Iran has admitted to harboring about 500 al Qaeda leaders, supposedly under arrest. Convenient jailbreaks (December 14, 2003) and transfer of some to Saudi custody (March 2003) probably arranged the release of most or all who were in custody. To call Iran a terrorist nation is a great understatement. It is the epicenter of Islamic jihadism, and its ambitions to global power will soon be vouchsafed by European appeasement.

Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Iran is entitled to "peaceful" use of nuclear power. But a nation that sits on about 94 billion barrels of oil and some 25 trillion cubic meters of natural gas doesnt need nuclear power to generate electricity. It is building nuclear weapons and developing missiles to threaten any nation that would impose limits on its jihadist agenda. A nuclear Iran, with the means to deliver its weapons, would be able to increase its support for al Qaeda and their ilk with impunity. Any nation that would interfere with Irans terrorist operations would risk nuclear war. And Mullah Strangelove wouldn't hesitate to arm terrorists with nuclear weapons. For just those reasons, President Bush has said that Tehran will not be permitted to possess nuclear weapons. Iran has been lying about its nuclear weapons program to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N.'s purblind nuclear "watchdog," for about two decades.

Three EU nations -- Britain, France, and Germany -- have been negotiating an endless stream of agreements with Iran which are supposed give Iran better trade relations as the price for its ceasing to develop nuclear weapons. When Iran violates each agreement, the EU-3 step up and negotiate another. The EU-3 have apparently accepted the fact of a nuclear Iran, and Iran is playing them -- and the U.N. -- like well-hooked fish. Undersecretary of State John Bolton has been pressing the IAEA to report Iran's apparent violations of the NPT to the U.N. Security Council, with a view toward imposing diplomatic sanctions on Tehran. But every time America presses the IAEA, Iran talks to its European appeasers, and cuts us off at the diplomatic pass. Just last fall it happened again.

In November, when we pushed for U.N. debate on Irans nukes, the Europeans negotiated another agreement with Iran. Under their November 15 agreement, Iran promises suspension of its nuclear program in return for continued negotiation on long-term economic benefits to Iran.

This agreement is exceedingly dangerous for many reasons. The least obvious is that the EU-3 "recognize that the suspension [of uranium enrichment, a key step in developing fissionable material] is a voluntary confidence-building measure and not a legal obligation." In diplo-speak, that means the EU nations have agreed that what Iran is doing -- weapons-related or not -- is legal for it to do. On that basis, the IAEA again decided everything in Iran is tickety-boo, and went back to sleep. While the IAEA sleeps, the Iranian nuclear and missile programs go on. Iran plans its first satellite launch in 2005. If it succeeds, Iran's missiles will be proved capable of shooting objects into orbit, which means their soon-to-be-had nuclear arsenal will be able to reach essentially any nation.

CONVENTIONAL WISDOM SAYS that our only options to deal with Iran are U.N. diplomacy or full-scale invasion. The first is useless, the second beyond our reach. We must choose to be less conventional and more ruthless in order to reach the necessary result in the short time we have. Iran may have nuclear weapons in less than two years. Some sources say that it already has one to three weapons, and is working hard to mate them to its missiles.

Tucked away in the November EU-3 agreement is the sentence, "Irrespective of the nuclear issue, the E-3/EU and Iran confirmed their determination to combat terrorism, including the activities of al Qaeda and groups such as the Mujahideen e-Khalq."

It is impossible to conceive of any Western government agreeing to that sentence without the assistance of hallucinogens. The EU-3, floating along like Timothy Leary, have affirmed that the central jihadist nation is combating terrorism. But the rest of that statement -- referring to an otherwise obscure Iranian opposition group -- shows how much the Mujahideen e-Khalq (MEK) frightens the mullahs.

MEK is a nominally-Communist Iranian opposition group thats on Americas list of foreign terrorist organizations. And why is the MEK on our terrorist list? Because, in 1999, the Iranian government asked us to list them. According to the October 9, 1999 Los Angeles Times, "One senior Clinton administration official said inclusion of the [MEK] was intended as a goodwill gesture to Tehran..." Only the Clinton administration could slap the label "terrorist" on a group at the request of the principal terrorist regime in the whole bloody world. But any group that causes such great fear among the mullahs can't be all bad.

American forces bombed MEK positions in Iraq on one day in April 2003, trying to deprive Iran of an excuse to move its forces into Iraq. A month later, MEK voluntarily surrendered to American forces more than 2,000 tanks, artillery pieces, and armored vehicles, and some 3,800 MEK fighters are now in American custody at Camp Ashraf, north of Baghdad.

According to a July 21, 2004 letter to the "people of Ashraf," Gen. Geoffrey Millerthen -- deputy commanding general of multi-national forces in Iraq -- informed the MEK members and their families at Camp Ashraf that they have been declared "protected persons" under the Geneva Conventions. By definition, that means they cannot be terrorists. Moreover, Miller's letter says that they have signed an agreement renouncing terrorism. MEK hasn't committed a terrorist act against American interests for about 25 years. Incoming Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice should order an immediate review of MEK's status with a view toward taking them off the terrorist list. Once thats done, we can -- secretly, and through proxies -- rearm them and put them back in action against Tehran.

THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS we can exercise against Iran. Air strikes on their nuclear weapons surface sites won't stop the program, but can slow Iran's progress for months or years. We should not hesitate to do it. Our B-2s can get in and out without the Iranians having a clue until it's too late. Some, including former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, decry military action as unlikely to stop the program. But they offer no better idea to slow it for sufficient time for opposition groups -- such as MEK and Iranian would-be revolutionaries -- to gather strength and oust the mullahs.

The idea of imposing economic sanctions against Iran is laughable. Europe, Japan, and China aren't going to embargo Iranian oil exports because their own economies are dependent on them.

But encouraging the Iranian populace to agitate is not something we should dismiss. The Internet is increasingly accessible to the Iranian internal opposition, and we should doing everything we can to help them organize, fund, and prepare to topple the mullahs. We cant now foresee the time for revolution in Iran, but its up to us to help those who would mount it. Moreover, we should be broadcasting information into Iran on every radio, television, and Internet link Iranians can reach. Irans borders are porous, and we should be sending people, resources and other support for the Iranian opposition across them in a continuous stream. We wont be able to topple the mullahs by some slick covert operation. But by covert means, we can help destabilize Iran and make it ripe for revolution.

Iran is not the only problem, only the biggest at the moment. President Bush knows, as we all should, that this war wont be over when he leaves office in January 2009. The next four years won't be peaceful ones here, and we cannot allow them to be in the jihadist nations. The long road home from this war reaches out past the horizon. Like it or not, the road home leads through Tehran, Damascus, and wherever else the jihadis gather.

topics:
Trade, Television, Religion, Islam, Law, Military, Iraq, Iran, Nuclear Weapons, Energy, Oil