Site Presented By
Thursday, Nov 26, 2009
Is Iran next? Pundits are long on hawkish bluster, but short on a plan. Plus: Even Bill O'Reilly blasts Swift Boat Vets' "bitter personal attacks" on John Kerry -- and defends Kerry's war record.
Aug 18, 2004 | Since National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice warned last week that the U.S. won't tolerate nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran's mullahs, the political right has cranked up the volume. War hawks have long viewed the invasion of Iraq as the first critical step to uprooting terrorism in Tehran and establishing democracy in the Middle East. But with Israel growing agitated and threatening a preemptive strike, as it did against Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981, many experts are skeptical of a military solution. Nor does diplomatic pressure appear to be working; Tehran recently agreed to cooperate with international inspections, only to backpedal defiantly.
The political right is again ringing the alarm bells but isn't offering much in the way of problem solving. Writing in Mens News Daily.com, Colorado columnist Tom Marzullo, a former special forces soldier in both the U.S. Army and Navy, frames his warning in near apocalyptic terms.
"While the lukewarm intellects of the media sit in their respective corners drooling over pictures of the most recent car-bombings in Iraq and the Botox-enhanced cragginess of this seasons DNC meat puppet, near-term pivotal events that will predict the long term success or failure of U.S. policy in the Middle East are barreling towards us Irans Islamist government has been working diligently for well over a decade on two major projects that, if both are completed, will catapult Iran into position as the lynchpin of a new Islamist empire, impervious to all aspects of Western culture."
Marzullo sees an imperialist Iran hungry to seize power in Iraq, and then Saudi Arabia.
"The first project is fashioning Iran as the safe-haven for Islamist organizations throughout the globe. In this the Mullahs have been increasingly successful and in September of last year hosted the equivalent of a summit meeting of international terror. We have already seen the effectiveness of the Iranian trained and supplied militias in southern Iraq. If these succeed in creating a de facto Iranian-ruled enclave in Iraq, then the next step must be to the south where Saudi Arabia and its riches are already under internal attack by Islamists."
He believes an Israeli military strike against Iran is only a matter of time.
"We already know that the first Iranian atomic weapon is due to be rolled out in 2005 and that the Israelis are expected to try to stop this program as they did Saddams nuclear program. As Irans version of the 'SS', the fanatical Islamist Pasadran, are already in charge of this project all of the diplomatic yapping in history will never derail this essential juggernaut. Therefore the Israeli strike is all but inevitable."
But "Iran's mullahs are not so stupid as to fail to learn from the Iraqi nuclear disaster," Marzullo adds, "so it is reasonable to suspect that they have laid plans to trick the Israelis into striking the wrong targets while they foment the Islamist takeover of the Middle East.
"Our nation's job should be to see that it doesn't and time is getting short."
Marzullo doesn't specify how the U.S. should handle that ominous scenario. Nor does former Wall Street executive Brian Trumbore, now editor of StocksandNews.com, who also believes the U.S. war on Iraq ultimately follows a road to Tehran.
"I dont think for a minute that leaving Saddam in power would have been a good thing. Of course the president made some colossal mistakes, well catalogued in this space, and U.S. credibility is at an all-time low. But Ill tell you whats about to hit us in the face: Iran. And it will be further proof that we, the West, had to begin to effect change in this entire region before the fundamentalists totally took over. If not now, when?
"The mullahs are desperate. They not only dont want the Iraqi experiment with democracy to succeed, they desire a full nuclear arsenal. The U.S. and Israel, as well as France, Germany and Britain are all in agreement that Iran restarted its weapons program in total defiance of the UN and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Iran is pursuing its quest to enrich uranium which would leave it one step removed from terrorizing the world, especially when one considers the proxies Tehran could line up to act on its behalf."
But if war hawks see Iran as the key to transforming the Middle East from terrorist swamp to democratic frontier, Trumbore sees some daunting obstacles -- not least a Bush White House with a major credibility problem.
"The timetable is faster than once thought and there is the chance that Israel could act before the West does. Where the U.S. suffers, of course, is in losing credibility over the WMD issue. It hurts the White House big time. Margaret Thatcher would say 'its no time to go wobbly,' yet there [is] renewed talk of pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq sometime in 2005. I know Im repeating myself, but the future is grim unless we keep the heat on, now more than ever."
But with the mullahs poised to wield nukes, he's concerned there's no plausible military solution.
"As to its burgeoning nuclear weapons program, and the ultimate nightmare, the marrying of fundamentalists and the bomb, former CIA Director Robert Gates believes Iran 'can go with a weapon whenever they want to.' So much for the 2-3 years timeframe being parroted in some quarters. The facilities are all spread around, including urban areas, so its hard to envision where a surgical strike by the U.S. or Israel can take care of the problem. And as Iran's ambassador to the UN said when asked about possible sanctions against his country, 'Our integrity is not to be bargained or up for sale.'"
