1. Bill Narvey said:

Kenneth Timmerman’s Front Page article, Next Steps on Iran is an excellent snapshot of the situation at hand between the West and Iran.

I doubt anyone disagrees that the U.N. ultimatums thus far to gain Iran’s co-operation, have been limp and toothless and that Iran has contemptuously brushed them aside as it more brazenly declares its intent to pursue its nuclear agenda with all due haste and accompanies that declaration with its increasingly anti-Semitic and anti-Western threatening rhetoric.

Timmerman’s suggestions for specific sanctions short of war would seem tough enough to muscle Iran into submission to the will of the West. The problem with that is that America cannot go it alone and until now, while the EU is expressing increasing alarm over Iran, there has not been a willingness to do more than engage in teeth gnashing and to impose more weak UN ultimatum resolutions.

Perhaps the recent call by Britain to bring the matter of Iran back to the UN for consideration, which has been positively responded to by some other EU nations is a sign that at least some EU nations are ready to start getting serious in terms of imposing sanctions against Iran that this time have some meat to them. This may also signal that the EU is becoming more willing to ally with America to resolve that sanctions imposed will be put in effect if Iran once again thumbs its nose at the UN.

It was reported recently that Russia has signed an arms agreement that will substantially strengthen Iran’s military capacity. Also more recently reported is that Russia has expressed some concern with Iran’s policies and threatening rhetoric. It is unclear whether Russian concern over Iran will cause it to delay implementing the arms agreement it signed.

It would be helpful, if not critical that if America is to gain support and allies in its efforts to impose enforceable sanctions against Iran, Russia too must be on board.

It is not enough however for America to just negotiate with the EU, Russia and other Western nations to fine tune the language of UN ultimatums and commit to specific sanctions, should those ultimatums again not be heeded by Iran. It must also now come to a broad based agreement for a committed united allied war response against Iran should the ultimatums and sanctions fail.

If Iran again ignores the ultimatums and instead of choosing to suffer through the sanctions, Iran reacts in a precipitous military offensive action against any one or more Western nations or their interests, there will be no time to dither in meetings over what counter offensive is appropriate and getting allies on board.

The West must then and there, be ready, willing and able to launch a formidable counter strike to defeat Iran and force a regime change that incorporates the will of those Iranians unhappy with the extreme current Islamic regime, but powerless to do anything about it.

Mr. Timmerman says that “the Western world may be finally waking up to this long running con game” by Iran.

That is not what the West is waking up to however. It is inconceivable the West has not known since 1979 of Iran’s hatred of America, Israel and the West in general and its funding and support of terrorism against America, Israel and the West ever since.

The West, instead of seeking to deal with Iran by force has continued to pursue agreements with Iran by peaceful negotiations which is the way Western nations choose to resolve conflicts amongst themselves.

What the West is however coming to recognize is that Iran’s theocratic leaders have no interest in resolving their differences with the West through peaceful negotiations or agreements.

Iran has played along however, recognizing that by entering into an agreement with the West, tends to pacify the West and allows Iran to pursue its interests in its own way without being hassled until Iran’s breach of agreement again raises Western hackles.

The process is then repeated with Iran again entering into an agreement with the West that it has no intention of keeping, knowing full well that the West will again for a time delude itself into believing that this time Iran will keep its word.

Persisting in the doing the same thing the same way and each time expecting a different result meets one of the classic definitions of insanity. That classic definition can be used to fairly describe the West’s persistent and unchanging efforts to get Iran to honor and keep its word, only to invariably find that those efforts repeatedly fail.

What the West is waking to is the realization that Iran is inexorably forcing the situation to come to a war with the West, which war the West shudders to think about and has therefore tried so mightily to avoid.

2. Ed D said:

I am old enough to remember WWII, both before and after. The US was aware of the Japanese and German threat long before we entered into a formal war with them. We were lucky to able to mobilize and win the wars; however, thousands of American lives were lost before we gained that capability.

We are, again, threatened with another war with Iran and we hear pundits say that we cannot man another war because we are to spread out. That's bull! What we should have done back in 2002 was to initiate the draft, build up our manpower, our technology, our armaments and sacrifice some of the luxuries that we now have. We did this in WWII.

We have waited until we have our backs to the wall, but it's not to late. Should we have to go to war with Iran, we should have one million troops on the Iraq/ Iran border and in Pakistan along with a powerful armada available to launch aircraft and land marines. It is amazing how many minds could be changed looking into the barrel of a weapon. The major problem with my idea is the US Congress who moves at a snail's pace; however, we need to be ready for any moves toward war this time.

Israel is not the only country threatened by Iran. It endangers countries in the far East, Russia, the Caucus countries, the Middle East and Europe. It behooves these countries to be aware of the dangers facing them and they, too, need to prepare. Although sanctions have been proposed in the UN, be real, they have no power. Iran, know of this, is taking this passive world to the threshold and beyond.

If this has not been convincing, think about the cost of oil if the total control of the oil that flows from Iraq and Iran, one might see the cost of a barrel at $2 or even more. By eliminating this threat, the heat in the Middle East would cool down to a simmer, but it is important to step up to the plate and very soon.

3. kuhnkat said:

Ed,

I read a recent article where Israel is exchanging aircraft basing with Turkey and Greece!!!! I could hardly believe it. I think Ahmadinejad's mouth has done what everything else thay have been doing couldn't. Convince his neighbors that they are a worse problem than Sodam Insane was. Remember that Sodam himself convinced the Saudis and others to allow the US to attack.

The fact that Turkey pulled back on our Iraq invasion, but, is now allowing in Israeli air force tells me that they are taking this seriously and that we can expect at least Israel to hit Iran in a much more reasonable attack configuration than what I had been expecting!!

Oh, and the rather hurried wrapping up of our Iraq commitment is probably due to our preparing for possible involvement in Syria and/or Iran also!! The best defense is a strong offense. We keep talking about how we are to keep Iran from controlling the Shia'a in Iraq?? How about if they are fighting for their lives?? Won't be able to send much help to their bad boys in Iraq.

I can vaguely imagine small units hitting and running on Iranian Nuclear and military installations. Any concentrations of military would be bombed into dust if not deep underground. If deep underground small units woud go in and use demolition to make sure they didn't surface again. Wouldn't need to actually collapse the bunkers, just SEAL them, and destroy any attempts to reopen them.

In Afghanistan we were able to allow the locals to do most of the fighting. In Iraq we needed to go in and do most of it until we could train the non-sadam types to take over. In Iran there is a more organised military that will be easier to hit like Iraqs. There is also a population that would LOVE to have a DEMOCRATIC gubmint if the military and Ayatollah types could be knocked off. I could be wrong but don't see a lot of different armed groups running around in Iran other than the already known actors involved in Iraq. With Syria in the middle of a revolution (ex Syrian politicos calling for it now) the same old players could be divided enough for it to happen!!!

Yup, we could have been reading the US admins intentions wrong!! I would love for this little fantasy to play out and me be somewhere around it!!

4. leonard said:

As much as I hate to mix sports with politics - may I suggest that if Iran were to be banned from the Soccer World Cup that would serve to contrate the minds of the masses in Iran as to the misdeeds of her current rulers and make the president extremely unpopular. There is a precendent for this in the 1980 Olympics following the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Economic sanctions seem to be difficult at the moment since it would result in oil prices being forced up to 100 dollars a barrel.