Response to all

Submitted by NT Ham (United States), Feb 2, 2010 at 14:51

It was a facinating suggestion of Dr. Pipes as posited, and the comments from readers make some valid points such as the US being currently overextended militarily, possible inflammation of the middle east, etc. The problem is that the scenarios as predicted pale in comparison to what the civilized world will face if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, and then causes it to be used. (Note I said "causes it to be used"as opposed to "using it itself "and acknowledging such).

Unfortunately, events have developed in such a way that there are no painless options in dealing with Iran, so long as Russia and China continue to play the role of enablers by preventing meaningful economic sanctions that would cripple the regime- such as a ban on importation of refined petroleum products and the necessary blockade to enforce same. You can place blame on all U.S Presidents back to Jimmy Carter if you wish. Why not Eisenhower? Wasn't he the President who authorized the CIA backed coup that brought us the Shah- and all the ill will that ultimately came about when he was ousted in 1979?

We are, for whatever reasons, at a certain point in time and history.

I believe this is 1938 redux. Serious evil is in a position of power and no one wants to deal with it head on. Our only hope is Israel. They have the means to seriously compromise the Iranian nuclear program through air strikes, and in my opinion, the only nation with the resolve to do it. Their very survival is at stake. Iran will in response mine the Straight of Hormuz, unleash its proxies (Hezbollah, Hamas) to wreak havoc on Israel's Northern and Southern Border, and probably sponsor other assorted acts of terrorism wherever they opportunistically can. Oil will surely go to $150.00 per barrel and beyond.

However the United States at that point will have no choice but to use its military to keep the Straights of Hormuz open and oil flowing as much as possible. Anything less is economic suicide and even President Obama with all his left leaning proclivities and aversion to force This would be primarily a naval and air force operation, so in theory it shouldn't interfere with the very different ground operations underway in Afghanistan and Iraq- albeit ones heavily reliant on air support. This would result in a serious degradation of Iran's air, naval, and defensive infrastructure. If the west were then to keep a stiff spine and give Israel the green light to do whatever is necessary to inflict punishing defeat on Iran's proxies (notwithstanding the expected carping and whining from the UN, European Union, etc.); then at the end of the day the overall equilibrium may just be shifted in such a way that the world is a safer place.

There will be casualties- both military and civilian. But the longer we wait- the worse the consequences will be. If Hitler had acquired a nuclear weapon, do you think for a minute that he would have hesitated, or had even the slightest moral reservation, about dropping it on London?

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".