WHAT’S
NEXT, GEORGE?
In the near term, say three years, I think what we do differs as between Iran and North Korea. In that time frame, the easier country to deal with is North Korea. I think there is little threat to the United States from the Koreans. Its government, cruel and vicious certainly, is just as certainly not bent on terrorizing America directly thereby risking Armageddon. Besides there are mature countries surrounding North Korea who have a stake in the outcome. China, Japan, Russia and South Korea border North Korea. It is they who have a more critical problem than we. Endless palaver is the best way to finesse the North Koreans though I wouldn’t give them any money, trade or technical assistance. Public civility and private strength should be the twin pillars of our diplomatic stance. I would find American negotiators with iron backsides who never tire of the game of talking each and every point into bureaucratic oblivion. And to underscore South Korea’s responsibility, I would withdraw all American troops from South Korea over a twelve month period, sending them to Iraq to relieve the reservists on duty there. We have been in Korea since I was in the Marine Corps and that, plainly, is long enough. Iran is different, difficult and dangerous. As with the Koreans, the Iranians are not about to nuke New York. But they could easily take out Jerusalem, Haifa or much of Israel; they could surreptitiously use tactical nuclear weaponry against coalition forces in Iraq; they will likely supply al-Quaeda, Hizbollah and the rest of that gang to do the dirty work and those groups would nuke New York, Los Angeles or The White House with no qualms indeed with anticipatory joy. There is indeed an endless supply of virgins in Allah’s Heaven. The Mullahs are a far greater risk than the Koreans for precisely the opposite of the reasons that tend to hem in the Koreans. Iran is surrounded by no great Western or other nation with a different bent; their central authority is theocratic not military/political; Iran’s Mullahs literally hate the West whereas the Koreans politically oppose the West. They will, with the usual negotiating tactics of Middle Eastern nations, feint, jab, dodge and stall, but they will not stop until they have nuclear weapons or someone destroys Iranian nuclear research and development locations. Iran can do serious economic damage to the West if it can control or shut down Middle Eastern oil; Korea can do nothing in that field. Iran could cow the toothless Saudis, whose sole response to everything is cash. But even Saudi cash cannot buy-off the religious left of Iran, especially when those lefty-loonies have a real nuclear weapon. Iran is politically damaging to the United States today as some of its people and much of its government foments and supports the attacks against Americans in Iraq. And so, the question remains: What next, George? If it was correct to preempt Iraq from becoming a nuclear power, is it equally correct to preempt Iran? After all, it’s right next door and its government is nuttier. Hussein was many things but crazy was not one of them. The Mullahs are crazy; true zealots; the religious left with nuclear weapons. If Mr. Bush fails to preempt Iran, then I think, he is open to fair criticism that his Iraq preemption rationale was a charade for something else. Since he hasn’t said what the something was, he’s in an illogical, political box within which the Democrats are trying to pen him. That said, in the near term, Iran, through its terrorist allies will possess nuclear weapons which they will be able to smuggle into the United States. Who will stop them? The Border Patrol? The Border Patrol can’t stop Mexican peasants. How will its agents stop determined jihadists. Will we allow the fanatics to obliterate an American city, then have them threaten to do the same to several others? We will have to believe them; who would want to take the risk of not believing them. Their ransom will be Israel and more. Then, after we cave, and we will, they’ll blow us to Hell anyway. Would you trust them? I suppose the best answer is to wink and let the Israelis take out Iran’s nuclear facilities. They did it to Iraq in the ‘80s. What’s the cost to us? Those people who hate us could not hate us any more; once you “hate”, you’ve gone all the way. Israel would create no new enemies in Araby, Old Europe or the United Nations. I would wager that at least some of its critics would secretly be pleased with the result no matter what their formal position might be. Surely the Administration would hold that position. If the Israelis don’t do it, who will? Will we exercise preemption, again, in the name of precluding danger before it becomes imminent? I doubt it, at least not until after November, 2004. The
choices are to do nothing and let the jihadists nuke New York or to
have Israel destroy Iran’s nuclear program. To those who say
that the terrorists will do nothing hence the first choice is false,
I say I hope the city they destroy is yours, not mine. And, were I
the president, I wouldn’t take that risk. Nope. I’d let
the Israelis be our jihadists. Alternatively, I’d wait until
November 3, 2004 and do it jointly. Doing nothing is not an option. |