Home  |   Jihad Watch  |   Horowitz  |   Archive  |   Columnists  |     DHFC  |  Store  |   Contact  |   Links  |   Search Friday, January 19, 2018
FrontPageMag Article
Write Comment View Comments Printable Article Email Article
Font:
Do We Strike Iran? By: Frontpagemag.com
FrontPageMagazine.com | Thursday, October 11, 2007


[The Britannica Blog is hosting a forum on Iran this week and has invited Frontpage's managing editor, Jamie Glazov, to join the discussion. Below is Mr. Glazov's contribution, which is a rejoinder to the posts of Scott Ritter and Ervand Abrahamian. To visit the Britannica Blog, click here. -- The Editors] 

Scott Ritter attributes the “root cause” of the animosity in U.S.-Iranian relations to Israel’s hostility to the Iranian regime and to, among other things, “America’s unquestioning support of the Israeli position.” Because of these realities, in Ritter’s view, the chance of “meaningful diplomacy” is negated.

There is a chance that Israel’s reluctance to embrace the Iranian Mullahs might have something to do with Iran’s open sponsorship of anti-Israeli terrorism. It may also be connected to Iranian leaders’ repeated calls for the destruction of Israel – and the Iranian president’s pledge to wipe the Jewish state off the map.

It is clear that if Iran gets a nuclear bomb, the chances are high that the Mullahs will not hesitate from using it against Israel and also exploiting it as a tool of blackmail against the West. The horrifying reality here is that the fanatics who rule Iran are not, like our previous communist adversaries, interested in self-preservation. So the ingredients of the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) paradigm, unfortunately, do not apply.

Contrary to the fantasy world that Ervand Abrahamian (also in this forum), lives in, in which Bush has “shown little interest in pursuing a diplomatic route,” the fact is that the United States has made every effort to deal with Iran diplomatically. Those efforts have not worked. Sanctions have also proven ineffective in stopping Iran’s nuclear odyssey — no thanks to the intrusions of Russia and China.

It seems to escape the likes of Ritter and Abrahamian that Iran has declared was against the U.S. long ago, and that the U.S. is already at war with Iran – it’s just that Iran is the only one fighting it. The Islamic Republic has a long history of attacking the United States directly. And to counter Ritter’s Israel-made-them-do-it thesis, Iran didn’t need any instigation from the Jewish state. It seized the US embassy in Tehran in November 1979 at a time when Israel was covertly supplying Tehran with weapons; Iranian intelligence operatives coordinated the April and October 1983 attacks on the US embassy and the US Marines in Beirut that killed nearly 300 Americans; and former FBI director Louise Freeh has testified in court that Iran was also behind the June 1996 Dhahran bombing, that took the lives of 19 U.S. Airmen.

Thomas Joscelyn has meticulously documented Iran’s Proxy War Against America, which has involved Tehran’s cooperation with various terrorist groups, including Hezbollah and, yes, al Qaeda. And Kenneth R. Timmerman has provided an extensive, detailed account of Iran’s involvement in the 9/11 plot in his book, Countdown to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran. His account is based on documents reviewed by the 9/11 Commission but ignored by the mainstream media, and on interviews with Iranian defectors claiming to have first-hand knowledge of the long-standing Iran al-Qaeda ties. Timmerman was also the first to document Iran’s military involvement with the Iraqi insurgency, and provided photographs of Iranian Quds Force officers in Iraq.

The bottom line is that Iran is an outlaw regime that is ready to use nuclear weapons and it cannot, therefore, be allowed to have them. Yes, there are worrying consequences to an American military strike on Iraq, but the consequences of Iran with the nuclear bomb are much graver. Norman Podhoretz has masterfully outlined the legitimacy and urgency of a strike against Iran in his Commentary piece, The Case for Bombing Iran. Every participant in, and reader of, this forum should consider Podhoretz’s thesis and the empirical evidence on which it is based.

In the end, a military strike against Iran may not completely destroy its nuclear program, but it will retard it, which means, if anything, time will be bought for the West. And time is of the essence on many realms, including giving the West time to figure out how to effectively achieve regime change, which can involve the Iranian people overthrowing their oppressors on their own.




We have implemented a new commenting system. To use it you must login/register with disqus. Registering is simple and can be done while posting this comment itself. Please contact gzenone [at] horowitzfreedomcenter.org if you have any difficulties.
blog comments powered by Disqus




Home | Blog | Horowitz | Archives | Columnists | Search | Store | Links | CSPC | Contact | Advertise with Us | Privacy Policy

Copyright©2007 FrontPageMagazine.com