The Ticking Clock

The Iranian government seems to be preparing itself and its people for war. This is not neccesarily news, as most sane people have seen this coming for years. However, in recent weeks, the agitating of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has become more pronounced. His threats and insinuations against Israel continue to intensify, to the point where he is now openly elaborating on what a potential war might look like, and how battle lines might be drawn. A complacent world can no longer reassure itself that Iran poses no threat to anyone.

Doubtless the recent apparent action by Israel against Hamas is stoking Iran's anger. Israeli agents brazenly took out a hit on a Hamas leader, using European passports to infiltrate a hotel in Dubai where the target was staying. The incident has created a diplomatic mess, but it illustrates Israel's refusal to conduct its own War on Terror by any sort of politically correct rulebook. Israel and Iran are on a collision course, and Israel is clearly not going to blink.

Meanwhile, discussion of a potential conflict remains muted and sparse in the U.S. We continue to call for sanctions and warn that our fuse is running short. This is all well and good, but idle talk had better give way to preparation. What will we do if Israel ends up fighting a multifront war against Iran and its neighbors? What if Iran sees no distinction between Israel and the U.S., and includes our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan as part of its list of potential military targets when things get hot?

The writing is on the wall, and we had best start gearing up for the inevitable. The last thing I want to see is a third front in our current war against Islamic terrorism. However, events are moving rapidly in the direction of armed conflict. We better figure out how we intend to respond.

Back in 2003, some said that Iraq and Iran were equally threatening to world peace, and that any military action against one or the other would still leave us with a net total of one dangerous Islamo-fascist state. It's an interesting line of thinking. Here we are, seven years later, staring down a pissed-off and (possibly) nuclear-armed Iran. Of the "elective wars" that we could have fought, did we choose the right one? Would Saddam Hussein be as much of a threat in 2010 as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? I don't know the answers, but the questions intrigue me.

Nuclear Dreams Can Come True

Check out this lovely image of Iran's recent long-range Sejil-2 missile being tested. The projectile's launch, which "hit the defined target" according to Iranian officials, is a clear and frightening signal from Iran that it remains serious about developing a nuclear arsenal.

This test comes just as a British newspaper leaked word that Iran has been developing a trigger device that has no civilian application whatsoever: it is strictly a component used to build nuclear weapons.

It is easy to compartmentalize our Middle Eastern woes. Lately, as the question of the U.S. commitment to Afghanistan has been hotly debated, the public discourses on Iraq and Iran have died down somewhat. Our attention is fixed firmly on the question of our troop surge in Afghanistan, and President Obama's plans for that particular conflict. This is understandable. However, waking up to the sight of an Iranian-made missile, capable of delivering a nuclear payload up to 1200 miles, being tested is certainly uncomfortable. Accordingly, our policy towards Iran is being given a little more thought.

Inevitably, people will be disappointed with what they find upon closer inspection of our policy. Remember that nuclear missile defense shield program? The one that President Obama discontinued, in order to please our "friends" in Moscow? I wonder if anyone of the Pelosi/Reid mindset will take a second look at it, given the circumstances we now find ourselves with. It would sure as hell be a good time to have nuclear defense capabilities.

As for the renewed political and economic sanctions that President Obama has promised to level at Iran: have sanctions ever really worked? Have they ever proved a genuinely useful alternative to armed conflict or more strenuous diplomatic measures? In Cuba, they failed to bring about the downfall of Castro's communist regime. In Iraq, they failed to even remotely deter Saddam Hussein from his evil deeds. In North Korea, they continue to be employed despite Kim Jong-Il's continued nose-thumbing. As Congressman Ron Paul points out, sanctions may even have the effect of hurting the very people that hate Iran's government the most: its own citizens.*

In the coming months, President Obama and both houses of Congress had best retool the strategy considerably. Tepid sanctions and liberal grandstanding on the issue of nuclear defense systems are not in our best interests right now. Iran has taken the game to a new level, and we ought to carefully consider the threat now posed to U.S. interests, as well as a course that we can chart to safely defuse this situation.


*- Despite my respect for the man, I am not part of the "Ron Paul Revolution". Nor do I completely agree with everything he says in the above article. But on the particular issue of sanctions, I can see his point.