Israel's existence is a threat to the Islamic world, according to Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad this Friday morning. And some people do not believe he wants nuclear weapons. This just confirms the beliefs of many Americans as expressed in numerous blogs. People just can't agree on how to deal with the Iranian situation. Some people still can't decide who the real enemy is in this global war on terror (is it Islam?).
Rudy at Freedom's Zone and Democratic Peace says, "Iran--The Leader Of Islamist Terrorism" does his research and concludes:
In sum, the strategic arrow points to Iran. This means that the democracies must not allow this leader of the Islamist terrorist pack to get nuclear weapons. This is not a conditional. This is an absolute for the War on Terror and Western national security. source
His research includes writings (pdf version here) by Ladan Boroumand and Roya Boroumand, who are Muslim sisters from Iran and professional historians, who try to answer the question of "why?" we have Islamic terrorism, giving a historical summary from the beginnings of the Muslim Brotherhood to the present. Their high-points:
• the Marxist-Leninist and fascist sources of Islamism (missed by a large majority of American analysts);• the corresponding totalitarian nature of Islamism;
• that Islamism and its terrorism must be clearly distinguished from Islam;
• and that Iran is the home base of Islamism and its associated terrorism.
While interesting reading, I do not agree with all of the sister's conclusions, specifically "that Islamism and it's terrorism must be clearly distinguished FROM Islam'. On the contrary, if you have read any of my other posts on Islam and if you have ever read the Qur'an and related Islamic writings, I can only come to the conclusion that Islam at it's core is terroristic, teaches terrorism and world-wide rule under a Caliphate. Our (America and the free world) failure to accept this truth will be out downfall.
Asking the question, "Is Islam the Enemy?", Rudy says:
... some Muslim liberal democracies already exist—Mali, Senegal, Ghana, Benin, and Indonesia. Eventually, democracy also will subvert the worst outrages of traditional Islam.As for the modernists, who are our allies in the war, we should be careful not to drive these heroic people into the hands of the dictatorships or the traditionalists.
There is one and only one enemy, and that is Islamofascism. It is not so much an Islamic excrescence as it is an inheritor of the worst of the 20th Century—the totalitarian mortacracies. Islamofascism has to be recognized for what it is, and fought as we fought those evil ideologies of the past century and destroyed them. This IS the War on Terrorism. source
It is correct that this is a war on terrorism, but that terrorism is supported, perpetrated, and dictated by Islam.
If Iran is the center of Islamic terrorism, and it's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is hell-bent on getting nuclear weapons, wiping out Israel and conquoring the West to bring about his version of armageddon, what are we going to do to prevent his dreams from coming true?
Headlines are all over the map, "US may not strike Iran" where Shyam Bhatia says, "As US experts speculate about how quickly Iran could test a nuclear bomb, it has become evident that American generals are against a military strike and two members of the UN Security Council, Russia and China are against economic sanctions and other tough international penalties against the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."
I don't know which American generals he is talking to, but the ones I have heard are in favor of quick military action against Iran. Why do we need to act quickly?
In Moscow, visiting US Assistant Secretary of State Stephen Rademaker told reporters that a 3,000 centrifuge cascade, which Iran says will be built by the end of 2006, would yield enough uranium to build a bomb within 271 days. A 50,000 centrifuge cascade would need only 16 days to produce sufficient fissile material. In Washington, some US experts say it would take at least five to 10 years and maybe even more before Iran is ready to test. source
Reuel Marc Gerecht says, "To Bomb, or Not to Bomb, That is the Iranian Question".
It does not appear that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, let alone the president, really believes that "carrots" could satisfy the mullahs' two-decade-old appetite for nukes. To believe in such "realism" when it comes to the clerical regime, you have to believe that economics trumps politics among the ruling elite. Yet modern Middle Eastern--and especially Iranian--history clearly shows that ideology has run roughshod over economic pragmatism.... the Muslim Middle East has been an economic basket case in great part because the region's political elites have been repeatedly enamored of toxic ideas: Marxism, socialism, communism, fascism, and now increasingly Islamism,
In summing up Mr. Gerecht's very detailed and worthy article, he suggests that the Bush administration does not want military action with Iran because: "
1. If we bomb, we will kill off the internal Iranian opposition.2. If we bomb, the Iranians will rise in righteous indignation and a new generation of anti-American Shiite holy warriors will be produced (as if the Sunni terrorists weren't bad enough).
3. If we bomb, the international community will go ballistic.
4. If we bomb, the mullahs will hit us in Afghanistan and Iraq. 5. If we bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, we cannot fully verify the damage we've done without a land invasion. And Iranian terrorist reprisals against our troops, if sustained and deadly, might force us to consider the unthinkable: a large-scale land invasion of the Islamic Republic.
He rightly suggests that our military leaders are conjuring up 'theoretical' plans for all types of attacks on Iran's nuclear capabilities (I hope!); that we cannot depend on Russia or China for any help, especially in the United Nations; that we may have more support from Europe that we did in the run-up to Iraq; and that no matter how much the White House talks about 'diplomatic' solutions, they know that Iran is not going to back down.
In "The Essential Nobililty of U.S. Foreign Policy", James Lewis says:
Israel is not the only reason for the US strategy in the Middle East.As for Russia, it is once again an authoritarian corruptocracy, and China has never stopped being that.
Only the United States and the Anglosphere have the power and basic decency to stand for humane values. France would sell out at the first threat or drop of a bag of gold. England is being drawn ever deeper into the bureaucratic quagmire of the EU, a new, self-serving aristocracy which has never bothered with democratic elections
US policy in the Middle East is strategic in all these ways. It protects Europe as surely as it protected Britain in World War Two. The US strategic vision is long term, at the cost of short-term pain, sacrifice, and risk. It is an adult vision in a world of loud-mouthed infants.
Oddly enough, a century and a half after Abraham Lincoln said those words, the United States is still “the last, best hope of mankind.” source
I agree completely with Mr. Lewis and I think most free countries agree also. We have stood proud in the past and we are being called upon again to do the same. How will we respond?
Frederick W. Stakelbeck Jr. has a very interesting article, "A Doomsday Scenario", where he proposes a possible, yet very scary, situation and asks how the US would react.
Under attack from all sides by a numerically superior and comparably equipped force, Washington is faced with a decision that will affect the world for generations. Should it regroup its Middle East forces to defend Israel; engage the invading force using purely conventional means; launch several independent nuclear strikes forever destroying the region’s energy resources and killing millions of innocent civilians; or accept the new world order? Invasion. Could it happen? source
Today is Good Friday, Christians around the world will worship the death, burial and ressurection of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who stood for love, freedom of choice, respect of others, and never forced his beliefs on anyone. Jesus never led a battle, He never killed anyone, He never abused anyone physically or mentally. Can Islam say the same about Mohammad? No they can't.
______________________________________________________________________________
Linked with Publius Rendevous, "Good Friday Open Post'
Cross posted at In the Bullpen
Linked with Flopping Aces: Hitler Jr., At it Again
According to the left we should just continue to talk and talk with Iran until we are blue in the face. Even in the face of Hitler Jr. latest rant:Either this guy, and the leadership of Iran, is a bunch of madmen or this is a concerted effort to get attacked. They are uniting the whole world against them, and for what? Do they want to get attacked to “unite” the Muslim world? Do they really believe the world would allow them to destroy Israel?
Linked with Stop the ACLU, "Did Clinton Give Nuke Plans to Iran?"
Comments