-
ObamaCare Rate Spikes Revealed
May 13, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Quick CISPA Survey
April 18, 2013 | 1 comment
-
To Each His Own Audience (…or Enemy)
March 29, 2013 | 11 comments
-
They Say They Want a Revolution
March 20, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Senate Access Shutdown
March 12, 2013 | 1 comment
The Spectacle Blog
Over at National Review Online, Clifford May, the President of the National Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has written an excellent piece detailing our options for delaying or degrading a nuclear Iran.
His thoughts are illuminative for several reasons. First of all, he outlines historic antipathy between the United States and the Islamic Republic. Secondly, he summates the implications of a regional arms race. Third, and most importantly, he reviews the policy options available to the president, members of Congress, and candidates for the GOP nomination. As he notes, they aren’t numerous.
From his perspective, diplomacy and outreach have failed — now is the time for robust engagement with opposition leadership. Cyber attacks and “the untimely deaths of a number of Iranian scientists” are instructive of our covert action. Cold War era containment is inapplicable — Soviet Russia was an atheistic state while Iranian theocracy runs on a millenarian countdown to the eschatological End Times. Appeasement, posturing and temporizing, “a fair description of both American and European policy toward Iran over the past three decades,” demonstrates an inability or unwillingness to adequately address the threat posed by a nuclear Iran. However, May recommends we lead from behind, thus allowing Israel to demonstrate her “ingenuity and determination,” buttressed by American support.
And finally, should all else fail, the military option:
A last resort, after all peaceful efforts have been exhausted, would probably feature an aerial campaign to destroy or degrade Iran’s nuclear facilities — with no boots on the ground. The risks and uncertainties of such action should not be minimized. By the same token, standing up to Khamenei and Ahmadinejad will not be easier once they possess a nuclear arsenal.
Allow me to expand upon said “risks and uncertainties.”
Regardless of whether an aerial assault is conducted by the United State or Israel, the ramifications would be colossal. Military action would guarantee an increase in violence against American targets, both at home and abroad. Iran would win sympathy in the Arab street — and across much of the Muslim world. Historic rivalries and antagonisms would undoubtedly fall by the wayside. We would allow the Islamic Republic to escape its current international isolation, and assume the “heroic” vanguard of anti-Americanism. Perhaps most importantly, air strikes would unite the Iranian people in their opposition to intervention, and cement support for what has become an increasingly unpopular ruling cabal. Moreover, it would harden the country’s collective nuclear ambition.
All this for the sake of degrading — not demolishing — Iran’s nuclear program. Something to consider before we pull the proverbial trigger…
Speaking proverbially, there’s another “nuclear” option May fails to mention. Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL) has proposed legislation designed to “collapse the Central Bank of Iran.” It’s expected to garner overwhelming bipartisan support. Previously, Senators Kirk and Shumer wrote the administration calling on the president to impose sanctions on Iran’s central bank, which 92 senators signed. Sounds good on paper, but economists caution that such a measure would deal a devastating blow to a fragile international economy. Likewise, it remains to be seen whether manufacturing economic crisis in Iran will persuade the mullahs to abandon their date with nuclear destiny.
View all comments (27) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Reid Smith
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/11/17/preventing-a-nuclear-iran
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The (Real) Great Divide
- Razing Reagan
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Grzmlyk| 11.17.11 @ 3:40PM
In other words, we're screwed.
That's ok, though: If you're a liberal, you will be convinced till the end of time that Iran isn't even engaged in pursuing nuclear arms (the whole liberal romance with "noble savages" and all that). And if a nuke happens to explode in Israel or the U.S., well, for the majority of liberals, that will only prove just how evil the conniving Dick Cheney is.
The libertarians, of course, are wondering why Iran doesn't get it done faster. They dream nightly of a mushroom cloud over Israel. Unfortunately for them, should that occur, most of them will lose about half their slogans along with half their reason for getting up in the morning, but at least in the short term they'll celebrate like there's no tomorrow -- and they'll always have the Fed to rail against.
And some liberals will reach out to the libertarians in a touching show of solidarity: "That'll show them Jews," they'll say in unison. What's disheartening for me is how many American Jews will be uttering those words.
Iran's nuclear arsenal is a fait accompli. The best we can hope for is that their blackmail demands won't be too great and, of course, we can always hope that, wherever the bomb hits, we won't be there.
On second thought, I'm sure if we all hold hands and wish REALLY hard, and show those nices mullahs how CARING we are and how happy our elites will be to live under Sharia Law, they might spare the liberal enclaves and simply make us convert. Might be worth it to see Jeanine Garofalo in a Hijab after her, uh, surgery.
Then again, with America sinking below the waves as a power of any kind, does it really matter what happens? We're out of gas. Literally. Our happy suicide is almost complete. Let Islam and China fight it out for hegemony over the 21st century world.
Since we've chosen serfdom, does anybody really care who our masters are?
WJ| 11.17.11 @ 4:24PM
WTF does serfdom in the USA have to do with a possibly nuclear armed Iran? Are you seriously stating that a nuclear armed Iran is going to enslave us? Your credibilty goes down the toilet with such nonsense.
Our serfdom is and will be entirely home grown. It started under Bush and has accelerated with Obama.
Quit worrying about the bogeyman overseas when we have plenty of them here.
Grzmlyk| 11.17.11 @ 4:33PM
Because a nuclear armed Iran can and will blackmail us and what's left of the EU. We will lie supine before them - and so, with respect to foreign policy, we will subjects to the powers that be, whether it's China or Islam.
And, incidentally, our serfdom hardly started under Bush; your credibility - such as it is - goes down the toilet with such n0nsense. Our serfdom began in under FDR, but was kicked into high gear with the Great Society of LBJ.
As far as Bush advancing the ball for serfdom, yes, he did, but then again he did nothing that Democrats wouldn't have done far more profligately had they been in office from 2000--2008. The goal of the Democrat party is, after all, to have every person working for the state.
Grzmlyk| 11.17.11 @ 4:48PM
I would also point out that Sharia is making inroads in the US, and the goal of fundamental Islam, is, of course, to conquer all infidel lands. Since liberals, in their ultimate vanity, are courting Muslims as the new, chic "protected group" (there's that noble savage fetish at play), they won't be happy until Muslims have gained far more political power in this country than they have already amassed. You have noticed that their influence has increased since 09/11, haven't you?
Islam has begun to encroach upon constitutional law in the U.S., and that will only accelerate as immigration increases - you may want to look at what's happening demographically in Europe, because that's our future as well.
Thus one doesn't have to take too great a flight of fancy to surmise that, once the economic back of this country is broken - and it already is broken - in 50 years or so, Islam will have encroached much further in the US than today's complacent, preening elites think is possible. And, given the rush of our culture to commit suicide, I have no doubt that there will be an endless supply of liberals lining up at the local mosque to prove just how completely they embrace diversity.
The fools won't realize until too late that fundamental Islam doesn't mess around. Just like they didn't realize until too late that Keynesianism is snake oil - indeed, they STILL don't realize it.
As I say, when you're a serf, does it really matter who your master is? A totalitarian kleptocracy like we are currently institutionalizing, or a burgeoning China or an expanding Caliphate?
Red Phillips | 11.18.11 @ 9:00AM
"the goal of fundamental Islam, is, of course, to conquer all infidel lands."
Even if that is true, how do you think they are going to do that? We could easily repel any Islamic military invasion with a typical Fall Saturday allotment of deer hunters. (I am consistently amazed and offended at what little faith interventionist alarmists have in their fellow Americans, as if we are all going to lie down and allow the country to be invaded.)
You have a very fertile imagination. You should write science fiction.
The only way Islam is going to make inroads in America is through demographics and the democratic process, which is why terrorism on our shores has always been immigration problem, not a military problem. Don’t allow people from high risk countries or high risk groups to immigrate here and don’t make their kids born here automatic citizens. (A misreading of the Constitution anyway.) Problem solved without having to drop any bombs on anyone.
Skippy| 11.17.11 @ 6:23PM
GWB also kept the Islamic horde busy counting virgins for 8 years.
Something Prince Bambo only does one Helllfire at a time.
stephen| 3.2.12 @ 4:06PM
China is threatened by a nuclear Iran as well and will likely be an ally in the future. Right now they are pre-occupied with economic concerns regarding Iran's oil. China is taking advantage of this while they can.
Occam's Tool| 11.18.11 @ 1:06AM
EMP, WJ.
It took two nukes for Japan to bow. How many would it take for us to go down?
Of course, everyone talks about how well protected the sites are against bunker-busters. I, of course, do not attack where my enemy is strong, but where he is weak.
We should destroy Iran's sources of water purification and treatment, and her electrical grid. She will kneel quickly when that is done. I care not aboout her people or their welfare.
Red Phillips | 11.18.11 @ 8:47AM
"I care not about her people or their welfare."
But people who want to end foreign aid or assume a policy of neutrality are raging anti-Semites. You're too much for words Occam.
crazy| 11.17.11 @ 3:51PM
As painful as it may be to recognize, nations operate in their own perceived self interest. Stopping a nation from developing a new weapon (nuclear or otherwise) by force is unrealistic unless you're prepared to invade and conquer that nation. Surgical or sustained strikes on known or suspected weapon development facilities may delay deployment but can not prevent continued development. Containing Iran as the USSR was contained is a debatable proposition but increasingly is the only realistic option. The price of developing nukes wasn't high enough to stop Iran but the price for using them or threatening their use must be made prohibitively high or there will be nothing to stop the mullahs from pursuing a global caliphate by force.
Skippy| 11.17.11 @ 6:26PM
OK
I'm ready to invade and conquer Iran.
Or dedicate the Islamic Republic of Iran Memorial Testing Range.
Jack in Wi| 11.17.11 @ 4:01PM
More nonsense from the old neocon hack Cliff May. Iran gave up it's nuclear weapons program program in 2003. That has been confirmed by our all our combined intelligence services in the NIE [ National Intelligence Estmate ] of 2007,reconfirmed in 20011. The Estimates were put out in a revolt of all our intelligence services to stop Cheney and the neocons from lying and manipulating us into another war with Iran like they did with Iraq, using their intelligence. They wanted it made clear that they were not going to stand for that again. Well it worked and Iran was not attacked.
It is long since time to send an ambassador to Iran and negotiate all our outstanding differences. The Iranians have been offering to do that since 2003. We made peace with Mao's and he murdered a hunded million people and they still have many nuclear weapons pointed at us. We had one of the greatest mass murderers in history Stalin as our bossum ally. He even helped Hitler in starting WW2.
There is a huge debate going on in Isreal right now about bombing Iran. Meir Dagan, and Ephraim Halevey former heads of the Mossad are against it and call it stupid. They have been joined by Yuval Diskin the former head of the Shin Bet and other key members of the Israeli military and intelligence services. Why the hell can't we have an open and forthright discussion in this country bedore we jump off the cliff again?
Kingofthenet| 11.17.11 @ 4:07PM
Eureka! I got the solution! Obama needs to call Benjamin Netanyahu and say, Ben I need a Peace Deal NOW between the Palestinians, I don't care HOW it gets done, just get it done. In return I am going to authorize a MASSIVE US Air Strike against Iran with the goal of NOT ONLY removing their nuclear weapons capacity but Regime change. I than see the Congress changing the Constitution to allow Obama a third term, and ANOTHER shared Nobel Peace Prize with Ben.
WJ| 11.17.11 @ 4:27PM
You said it all. Cliff May , a tired old neocon hack who tossed away his believability after Iraq is back, expecting people to believe his foolishness.
May, and writers like him are why I never read the National Review anymore.
anon| 11.17.11 @ 4:49PM
Is Iran a threat to Israel? Yes. A threat to the US? No. Why not let Israel handle it? But however they decide does not mean we endorse it and will fight their wars for them.
c.j. acworth| 11.17.11 @ 5:08PM
I wonder if things haven't gone so far that we can't stop Iran from getting a bomb. But won't there be a test shot first? Can we wait until they actually test one to take action? If we wait and they test, will that give us a better standing to take action, since then their possession of a bomb will be incontrovertable? Of course if we wait and they decide to test it in New York or L.A......
B. Hill| 11.17.11 @ 5:32PM
If Obama is re-elected, not only will Israel get allot worse, but everything we have ever known America will get allot worse.
conservative bob| 11.17.11 @ 6:09PM
We have been unwilling and unable to effect their aspirations.
At every opportunity their leadership says to anyone who will listen that they intend to wipe us and our allies out.
We have been at war with Iran since Jimmah was president.
We (Jimmah) crated this monster and we will live to see it go get nukes and use them.
This is a country which, our military leadership has reported ton congress testimony is/was actively killing our service personnel in Iraq and other places around the world. Our response has been hand wringing because we are so concerned about the Arab street. Our sanctions have done nothing but allow spineless Europeans and our government to thump their chest and claim to have done something.
I believe the Arab Street understands one thing and one thing only. Brute force.
We are watching the 'Arab Spring' deliver to power across the entire Middle East governments that are more radical and hostile to our interests.
Who anywhere believes that we or our European friends will be willing or able to join in thwarting the ambitions of a Nuclear Iran any more effectively than we have acted to prevent them getting these weapons? Hint recall the cold war, where they did all they could to appease the USSR.
Western Civilization and Islam are on a collision course and to date the west is not winning. At some point we will either find the will to defend ourselves or perish.
We are already in a shooting war with Iran; just wait to see how malleable they are with Nukes. It is my firm belief that they will get them and they will use them and as we consider our response you will read the exact same hand wringing weakness in an effort to temper our response. “It was only one city; we surely do not want to lose the Arab street. We should try all diplomatic efforts first.”
Occam's Tool| 11.18.11 @ 1:07AM
I seem to recall Iran committed an act of illegal warfare that they have never been punished for....
Reid, you are fairly useless.
Solo| 11.18.11 @ 8:39AM
I suspect that there is little we can do at this juncture to prevent Iran from getting the bomb.
They've had years to work on this project and the benefit of our having displayed our most advanced weapons for their review and consideration. In short: Those nuclear production sites are dug in like ticks on a hound.
We could seriously disrupt their progress, but, in the end, we won't be able to stop it short of nuking them ourselves.
What Iran really wants is the same thing Saddam wanted: To be the regional Hegemon and control the flow of oil from the Middle East.
Iran has threatened to disrupt the Middle East oil supply should we or Israel attack them. Interesting (and illustrative) that this threat is the first rabbit they pull from the hat. I think it telegraphs where they think the real power lies in this chess match.
There is only one viable alternative to this apparent CheckMate: We must remove their source of power by increasing the world oil production enough as to render Middle East oil supplies irrelevant.
While Iran labors in its version of a Manhattan Project, we should, in turn, pursue our own new "Manhattan Project" geared toward the urgent, all-out effort to bring as much energy production on line as we possibly can.
The Russians have been doing just that. They are, in fact, net oil exporters. Is it any wonder then that they are reluctant to help us rein in Iran's ambitions? After all, if Iran chokes off oil supply, thus raising prices, the Russians will be rolling in cash through these higher prices--all the better to re-animate the former glory of the Soviet Empire, this time under Putin.
Just about all the other players in this sick stage production are pursuing their own long term interests and no holds barred.
We, on the other hand, can't even water our crops in the Western United States because of a damned two-inch long fish living in the streams.
The first battle we need to fight in this particular war is right here on our own soil. We have to get serious about removing the obstacles to our own preservation as a sovereign nation.
In the meantime, should Iran demonstrate their nuclear capability, we should put them on notice that any attack against America or her allies with said nuclear weapon shall be considered an act of war against the Unites States and we will promptly reduce the sands of Iran to beaded glass.
Then we'll have to wait and see how "hot-to-trot" they are for the return of "The 12th Imam". My guess is that, what they're "hot-to-trot" for is wealth and power.
I pray I'm right on this or...we're in for some really "interesting" times ahead.
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.18.11 @ 10:10AM
cj Acworth above...
tickled the honest reality. I will take a "stab" at stabbing the reality.
Fact: Iran won't know if their "bomb" works until they test it.
The day they test it..and if it goes boom...we load up the B2s and bomb them into the stone-age.
...uh...we make that fact extremely clear to them before-hand.
Folks, for a lot of reasons this might be the most dangerous year in American history.
Andy | 11.20.11 @ 10:46PM
MOV to MPEG Mac,
MOV Converter to WMP,
Stephen| 3.2.12 @ 4:09PM
The uncertainty of the success in a pre-emptive strike by Israel is the main reason that Israel will not attack unilaterally. It is my opinion of the situation that if Israel would attack first, they would only embolden Iran’s position that Israel is a threat to Muslims (Persian and Arab), and must be counterbalanced and even destroyed. However if Israel were to show restraint and allow Iran to attain nuclear weapons, the situation will be that of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) providing some form of stability. The need will arise to contain and counter-balance Iran which will create an opportunity for Israel to have better relations with Arab countries. By not attacking, Israel also guarantees the support of the U.S. in the end, with a strategy reminiscent of the cold war containment, and defense. This situation is preferred because there is no shooting, no brinkmanship in tensions, and is a lot more manageable than a shooting war with nukes on the table for both sides. The main U.S. objection to Iran’s nuclear program is not that the U.S. cannot contain, or deter a nuclear Iran, but the inability to accept the Ayatollah well into the future. I see in the short term, the U.S. will try to isolate Iran even more from the international community with the hope that political unrest will bring about regime change. In the long run the U.S. will continue this policy, and Iran will ultimately have to find some allies, namely the “Stans” and Russia, maybe China. This may reinvigorate the old Cold War anti-Russian sentiments that many in the free world retain. Ultimately, the U.S. will have to come to terms with the regime in Iran and offer some kind of rapprochement and arms limitations deal, but there are many “ifs” before that happens.
The whole notion that because of the religious nature of the regime in Iran would mean that they would act differently than the Soviet Union did is wrong. Russia and even China may have been atheistic, but they had their own form of propaganda rhetoric aimed at brainwashing the people. One has to assume that Iran will act rationally on their best interests. They have proven they are rational actors by pursuing nuclear weapons in the first place. I don’t think any Iranian will see it in their best interest to destroy Israel if it means the destruction of Iran as well.