"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government." Thomas Jefferson
logo

Why Coexist With a Mortal Iranian Threat?

Melanie Sturm | @ThinkAgainUSA Read Comments - 15
Publish Date: 
Thu, 02/12/2015

 

Imagine catching a lethal, fast-growing yet operable cancer in a child before it’s spread. The doctors assure a high survival rate, assuming traditional protocols.  Meanwhile, a third opinion proposes no treatment believing the child can co-exist normally with cancer.

 

Entrusted with the awesome responsibility of ensuring the child’s healthy future, how long would you Think Again before opting to remove the cancerous “Sword of Damocles” – and fear – hanging over precious life?

  

Alas, too often leaders charged with safeguarding life have sacrificed it on the altar of “normalization,” preferring inaction to threat-mitigating albeit difficult operations.

 

Regretful that Western powers didn’t avert World War II by restraining Hitler, Winston Churchill lamented “There never was in all history a war easier to prevent by timely action than the one which has just desolated such great areas of the globe.” Craving Hitler’s partnership in a stable Europe, and trusting he’d abide by international treaties, European powers negotiated the Munich Agreement without Czech participation, permitting Germany to annex Czechoslovakia’s “Sudetenland.”

 

Today, a confrontation-wary world faces another genocidal, fanatical, and global threat – radical Islam and its various savage and infidel-hating manifestations. Like the Nazis who pursued a “master race” through ethnic cleansing, Islamic radicals seek a sharia-compliant “master faith” – though disagreeing on the master -- to crush other faiths, including Islamic ones.

 

Increasingly brazen, headline-grabbing terrorist organizations include ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Boko-Haram, the Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Yemen’s Houthi’s. ISIS’ propagandistic snuff videos of executions by beheading, live burial and burning attract recruits willing to commit atrocities, even in Western capitals.

 

If ISIS is radical Islam’s “JV” team, as President Obama called them, Iran is its Olympic team. Long recognized by the U.S. government as the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism, Iran is the planet’s “most dangerous regime,” the title of Ted Koppel’s documentary about the anti-Western theocracy. Required by Allah to wage global jihad until their Messiah’s return, apocalyptic mullahs uphold their constitution’s commitment to “a universal holy government and the downfall of all others.”

 

Since its 1979 Islamic revolution, Iran has sought Middle East dominance. As American leadership and involvement receded, to our allies’ dismay, Iran’s influence and terrorist activities -- financing, weapon provisioning, intelligence, safe harbor and logistical support -- expanded.

 

As enemies of freedom, peace, human rights, and international law, militants target the beating hearts of these bedrock values – America (Great Satan) and our most reliable ally Israel (Little Satan). Though denying the Holocaust, Islamic militants and their Iranian overlord want to trigger a second one by obliterating Israel, as Hamas’ charter promises.

 

“If they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide,” Hezbollah’s leader boasted. As French Jews stream into Israel following the anti-Semitic attack at a Paris kosher butcher, it simplifies the fulfillment of their “Judenrein” ambitions, especially with Israel’s neighbors – Syria, Lebanon and Iraq -- now firmly within Iran’s grip.

 

Fearing nuclear-backed Islamic extremism and proliferation, successive US presidents and Congresses have affirmed America’s peace-through-strength strategy, insisting “all options are on the table” to derail Iran’s nuclear ambitions -- even Obama. “I don’t have a policy of containment,” he declared in a 2012 speech, promising “to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” with military force if necessary.

 

Unfortunately, if you like Obama’s election-year pledges, you can’t keep them. In November 2013, just as ratcheted-up sanctions were forcing Iran to choose between economic collapse and dismantling its nuclear program, the administration announced its pivot to Iran engagement. In return for “freezing” it’s nuclear program, Iran could become “a very successful regional power,” the President said.

 

Amid echoes of Churchill’s laments, America’s premier nuclear arms negotiator, Henry Kissinger, testified before the Senate about the agreement administration officials want to sign, potentially by March 24th. Having negotiated without the involvement of fretful Mid-east allies, the administration aims to skirt Senate ratification, extraordinary given the far-reaching international security implications.

 

According to Kissinger, what “began as an international effort… to deny Iran the capability to develop a military nuclear option” has morphed into a “bilateral negotiation over the scope of that capability.” The impact ”will be to transform the negotiations from preventing proliferation to managing it,” he said, predicting, “We will live in a proliferated world in which everybody – even if that agreement is maintained – will be very close to the trigger point.”

 

The truth is we can’t coexist with a metastasizing cancer like a nuclearized Iranian terrorist state. That’s why in 2010 the Senate voted 99-0 – against Obama’s wishes -- for intensified sanctions, since relaxed, and why there’s overwhelming bi-partisan support to restore their negotiation-strengthening effect. Entrusted with safeguarding civilization’s future, shouldn’t our leaders act while the cancer is operable?

 

Think Again – To avert the tragic fate of the Jordanian fighter pilot, we mustn’t let the Iranians cage us, leaving us vulnerable to their nuclearized Sword of Damocles.

Share this

Your Churchill quote is very

Your Churchill quote is very telling. I often wonder about that moment when the Mullahs overran the Shah and claimed Iran. What a world changing decision that was on Carter's part to not lift a finger to help our ally. The resources needed to turn them back at that point would have been minuscule.
Where the nuclear ambitions of Iran are ominous, they are proceeding apace without it. Telltale evidence in Yemen; we see the same takeover tactic and the same result.

I remember it well when I

I remember it well when I realized that "Iran" can be translated as "Land of the Aryans." How can the Western World be letting this happen again? Didn't we grow up seeing documentaries in school about man's inhumanity to man at the extermination camps and say "Never again"? I have the same thoughts, of course, about our abortion holocaust, about which our children do not see documentaries in our schools..

The comparison to

The comparison to "co-existing" with Germany between WW1 and WW2 are frighteningly accurate. Our foreign policy has devolved to treating friends like enemies and enemies like friends.

This certainly explains

This certainly explains Obama's ill-disguised animus toward his White House predecessor, as well as towards Israel in general and Mr. Netanyahu in particular. President Bush viewed the Iranian mullahs as part of the "Axis of Evil" and sought to pressure them with western military forces and US-friendly governments to Iran's east in Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the west in Iraq, and to the south in Shiite wary Saudi Arabia. Obama has managed to undo all of that, while actually increasing Iran's standing and influence in the region, and makes little effort to hide his contempt for Mr. Netanyahu and his blithe disinterest in Israel's survival.

Well-written, as always and

Well-written, as always and impossible to argue with. I agree completely.

A must read. I personally

A must read.

I personally made such a decision to undergo heart surgery to replace an enlarged aorta and badly stretched aortic valve. Choice was monitoring and hoping to catch an inevitable deterioration OR open heart surgery with a 90% chance of full recovery. For me, choice was easy.

Obama declared his choice in 2008, but was elected anyway. Now the cancer has metathesized in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.

Thank you. These are

Thank you. These are dangerous times, even if some of our leaders hope that the threats will simply go away. But, as has been said before, hope is not a strategy. Peter in Washington DC

The column about Iran is

The column about Iran is right on point. The problem with Iran is two fold. First, many Americans don’t see Iran as an American problem, if a problem at all. One can attribute that to lack of national leadership highlighting the threats, to war weariness, or other causes. But it presents a huge barrier against taking any action to stop Iran’s march toward nuclear armament.

This was exemplified by the remarks of many at the Aspen Institute’s Great Decisions session this past Tuesday, where Iran was discussed in the context of Middle East sectarianism and strife. Many if not most in the large group were very relaxed about Iran, characterizing Iran as its neighbors’ problem if it is a problem at all. One participant even claimed that Iran isn’t a problem because it is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. He was willing to ignore the paragraphs in Wikipedia detailing Iran’s violations of the NPT, as if a country that ignores its obligations under the NPT could be trusted to honor a treaty with the U.S.

The second problem with Iran is that its nuclear program could have been stopped relatively easily years ago but successive American and European governments have not been serious about stopping it. Now it would take a massive military effort to do it. The irony: when it would have been easy nobody was willing to marshal the small force to do it, and now that it is a huge threat nobody is willing to marshal the huge force necessary. In short, we have been outflanked by an Iran that apparently understood our inherent caution all too well.

At the same Institute session most people said they didn’t believe Iran’s announcements that it would destroy Israel. One level headed participant said, “the problem is, what if you are wrong?” Instead of reflecting on that retort, one apologizer for Iran said, “well, what would you do about it?”

That last response might not seem productive in identifying a threat or dealing with one once identified, but it does sum up the dilemma. What is the U.S., let alone the trembling Europeans, willing to do about it?

"Until you deal with Saudi

"Until you deal with Saudi Arabia’s funding of terrorism, you can play whack-a-mole indefinitely."

I don't understand why more people don't get that. Any presidential candidates facing this truth?

Until you deal with Saudi

Until you deal with Saudi Arabia’s funding of terrorism, you can play whack-a-mole indefinitely.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • No HTML tags allowed
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

Type the characters you see in this picture. (verify using audio)
Type the characters you see in the picture above; if you can't read them, submit the form and a new image will be generated. Not case sensitive.


Article List

Thu, 09/10/2015

Thu, 09/12/2013

Thu, 06/06/2013

Tue, 01/15/2013

Thu, 05/24/2012

Thu, 03/15/2012

Thu, 07/07/2011

Thu, 03/31/2011