To bomb or not to bomb Iran, America's most fateful decision

World leaders continue to focus on the global economic crisis, the fragile peace talks in the Middle East and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while the biggest threat to society remains unchallenged- Iran’s unfailing goal to annihilate America and Israel.

The goal of Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad remains undeterred and everyday that passes without world attention amounts to another day closer to their goal of nuclear proliferation.

As a defiant Iran barrels toward nuclear technology, the iron-fist ruler Ahmadinejad cracks down on those seeking to protest the current regime and their wish to join the rest of the Western world. While the Obama administration turns to the United Nations to seek resolutions, the leadership of Iran laughs at their attempt to level tougher sanctions.

The cat and mouse game plays into the rulers’ of Iran hands and many predict time is running out. A sit down with war-hero General John Singlaub and Roger Chapin produced alarming details about Iran’s capabilities and the need to act first or risk America’s very existence. This is General Singlaub and Chapin’s theory.

To bomb or not to bomb…

In spite of the indisputable fact that Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons puts our nation’s very survival in dire peril, this all-important life and death issue is barely part of the public dialogue. And although Iran’s President Ahmadinejad has vowed to “annihilate Israel” with nuclear weapons while envisioning “a world without America,” our President and key national security advisors have signaled their unwillingness to preemptively destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities. Yet this incredulous tolerance for living under the cloud of a nuclear doomsday has yet to engender hardly a word of protest from political leaders made paranoid over the prospect of being labeled warmongers.

It is nevertheless critical for us all to weigh in on the wisdom of Obama’s national security policy positions and to better understand the utterly catastrophic consequences for our nation that they could have. And most important, what are the chances of such consequences actually occurring and why.

But first let us realize that a single nuclear missile, fired from a freighter off any of our coasts and detonated some 300 miles above our heartland, could send our entire country back into the early 19th century. The explosion would generate what is called an electromagnetic pulse effect (EMP). It would render most of our computers and electronics inoperable and thus knock out most of our electric grid system, leaving the vast majority of the country without light, heat, power, running water, communications, mechanized agriculture and transportation, according to the congressionally authorized EMP Commission report. The Commission chairman estimated between 70 to 90% of the entire U.S. population would die from starvation and disease within one year – at least 200 million Americans!

An EMP attack could also be coordinated with chemical and biological attacks which would further devastate an already prostrate nation. Additionally, nuclear bombs could be detonated aboard freighters or yachts in a multitude of U.S. ports and along major inland waterways, causing massive loss of life and destruction.

And while President Obama is doing nothing to prevent or deter an EMP or other catastrophic attack on the U.S., he is also failing to deploy a single Aegis anti-missile ship along our coasts to intercept enemy missiles. Nor are we beefing up our infrastructure to mitigate the effects of an EMP attack, such as shielding vulnerable hardware and storing hundreds of hardened, super transformers (manufactured overseas) as backups for our electric grid system. By failing to very meaningfully improve our survivability we are leaving ourselves wide open to if not inviting an EMP attack.

If we received reliable intelligence that the chance of an attack by Iran or a surrogate was 100%, it’s hard to imagine we wouldn’t launch a preemptive strike. And even if the chances were 50%, very few of us would willingly risk a nuclear doomsday. So what about 25%? Surely one in four is still too high a risk to accept when our national survival is on the line. Even a 10% risk would be considered too high by most rational-minded Americans. In an effort to assess a realistic percentage of risk, it’s imperative that we fully understand the true mentality and goals of the radical Islamics.

According to their own pronouncements, the radicals are irreversibly dedicated to establishing a so-called Islamic Caliphate – with its repressive theocracy and Sharia law, throughout the Middle East and around the globe. We in the West cannot begin to grasp how fanatically and fervently the radicals are committed to achieving their goals – no matter what price they must pay.

Radical Islamic leaders such as Iran’s fanatical Ahmadinejad see progress and reform as ultimately marginalizing their influence and displacing their hate mongering, murderous regimes. They view the very existence of freedom and western civilization as an irrepressible force that will corrupt their people and eventually transform their countries. They know a largely backward, authoritarian society cannot indefinitely remain as it is in today’s fast-changing and shrinking modern world. Thus from their warped perspective, there can be no compromise, no in-between and no room for negotiation – it’s either them or us. It’s an irreconcilable war to the death in which radical Islamics believe the West hasn’t got the fortitude or the staying power to prevail.

Note what the Al-Qaeda charter says: “There will be continuing enmity until everyone believes in Allah. We will not meet (the enemy) halfway and there will be no room for dialogue with them.”

Not only is Ahmadinejad a totalitarian despot, but he is also a fanatical religious zealot and mystic whose overriding messianic mission is “to wipe Israel off the map” and engineer the downfall of the Great Satan (the United States), if not all western civilization. By bringing about such an apocalyptic event, Ahmadinejad believes he can satisfy the necessary cataclysmic preconditions to “pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam” or Mahdi and a new, chastened world in which radical Islam is supreme. In his address to the United Nations Assembly in October, 2007, Ahmadinejad closed with a prayer imploring God to hasten the return of the 12th Imam: “When that day comes, the ultimate promise of all Divine religions will be fulfilled with the emergence of a perfect human being (12th Imam) who is heir to all prophets and pious men. He will lead the world to justice and absolute peace.” The Shiite Muslims believe the 12th Imam was the last saint in the line of succession from the Prophet and was descended from him. The 12th Imam is said to have disappeared in 914 AD.

While some dismiss all this as the rantings of religious zealots, many other war-weary Americans oppose military force to stop Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons because they believe Iran would never use them against us for fear of their own obliteration. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Bernard Lewis, a leading authority on radical Islamics, pointed out the Iranian radicals are undeterred by the notion of mutual assured destruction (MAD). Even if they fail in a terminal struggle with the West, they (Iranians) will have gained eternal life and martyrdom for their families. Either way, in their minds, they will be the victors. Lewis adds, “For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint; it is an inducement.”

While no one can be sure of Iran’s timetable, one unalterable reality is working to greatly increase the early likelihood of what can only be thought of as a nuclear doomsday. Given Iran’s vow to annihilate Israel, the Israelis have no rational choice but to preemptively destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities. For Israel to fail to strike first in the absence of a U.S. preemptive strike would almost certainly be tantamount to their committing national suicide. This stark reality changes everything.

An Israeli strike on Iran, even if not as destructive as a U.S. strike, would eliminate any hope Iran has of accomplishing its goals. So from their radical leadership’s perspective, they would have lost everything without having gained anything in return. Facing such a grim and humiliating prospect, the radicals would quite likely preempt an Israeli strike by nuking Israel first. And, being fully aware of the disastrous consequences this would have for Iran, they would simultaneously hit the U.S. with an EMP or other nuclear attack, and most likely Western Europe as well.

While this would doubtless result in a horrific U.S. retaliation that would devastate Iran and kill many of its 70 million people, one can assume the mullahs would have provided for their own survival. We say this because one should also assume that the mullahs will have had clandestinely reached an understanding with the Chinese and the Russians to ensure their own continuing rule and the reconstruction of Iran’s key infrastructure in exchange for long-term access to oil and gas reserves. And since the vast majority of Iran’s population would still be alive and more dependent than ever on the regime, a deal may also be cut to rebuild the military and use it to ultimately gain control of the Middle East’s vast oil reserves, giving China and Russia a choke hold on much of the world’s energy supply.

And who would be there to stop them? With the United States and Western Europe no longer viable powers, the Chinese and Russians would be in an unchallenged position to attain world economic domination, and at the very least, huge political influence. There would, of course, be some enormous trade-offs for China, but in the totalitarian world we should not forget that politics always trumps economics and that in the long-term China may well be able to have its cake and eat it too.

It’s not hard to see how before long the Chinese and Russians could totally reorder the world, with the once high and mighty United States and western civilization largely relegated to the history books. However, this is only one scenario for the outcome of our allowing Iran nuclear weapons.

Alternatively, it’s quite plausible that the Iranians would choose to try and cover their tracks by leaving the dirty work of nuking the western world to Al Qaeda, whose very purpose is to destroy western civilization. Under this scenario, the Iranians, knowing how weak and naïve Obama is, may miscalculate and believe that by hiding behind Al Qaeda they could somehow escape U.S. retaliation.

It is, of course, entirely possible that Al Qaeda could obtain nukes directly from North Korea, as could the Iranians, or perhaps from Russia or China. If the latter were at all worried about the consequences of a radical Islamic EMP attack on the U.S., why are they presently helping to facilitate Iran’s nuclear weapons development?

The Iranians might also buy one or more nukes from an above-mentioned source and then explode one in the desert so as to brag to the world that they have joined the nuclear club. Since the Iranians know this would doubtless provoke an Israeli preemptive strike, they would then, in their minds, have an excuse to retaliate against not only Israel but also the U.S. This is but one more scenario for how a nuclear doomsday could occur, and very possibly by the end of this year or in 2011.

For those who would still be willing to gamble our nation’s survival on their misplaced belief that murdering, barbaric radical Islamics can be trusted to act rationally, consider the following possibilities if they’re allowed to have nuclear weapons:

1. Iran attempts to blackmail the U.S. by threatening a nuclear doomsday if the U.S. refuses to withdraw all its forces from the Persian Gulf region.

2. Iran invades Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and threatens a nuclear doomsday if the U.S. intervenes.

3. Iran demands Israel unconditionally cede the entire West Bank and part of Jerusalem to the Palestinians and threatens both Israel and the U.S. with a nuclear doomsday if Israel fails to comply.

Given these and other very plausible scenarios that could lead to a nuclear doomsday, do we really want to risk putting ourselves in a position where our very national survival depends on whether or not the maniacal radicals are bluffing – especially when we have irresponsibly and irrationally opted against a viable missile defense? Let’s make no mistake about it, this is the gut question.

If we’re not willing to take on an Iran without nuclear weapons, when by no stretch of the imagination can it begin to threaten our survival, why would anyone believe we’d risk – under almost any circumstances, a major confrontation with a nuclear-armed Iran when the result could be our own demise?

In light of what would clearly appear to be the overwhelming case for destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities ASAP, let’s explore the validity of the opposing arguments:

1. Iran would attack the Gulf States’ oil production facilities and mine the Strait of Hormuz, dramatically driving up oil prices.

Answer: Even if oil prices doubled or tripled in the short-term, the temporary cost to our economy would be miniscule compared to the entire country being shut down indefinitely by an EMP attack. To lessen the impact on oil prices we should make every effort to increase the size of our emergency reserve.

2. Iran would call on Hezbollah and Hamas to launch massive attacks on Israel.

Answer: Anticipating this, we should fund the immediate individual recruitment and training of a large force of mercenaries (100,000 to 250,000) under Israeli command, who could be used to clean house on Hezbollah and Hamas if necessary. This might also discourage an attack by them in the first place, as it would then be suicidal while not serving any useful purpose.

3. An attack on Iran would destroy any hope for an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement.

Answer: Nonsense. If anything, such an attack would burst Iran’s bubble in the Arab world and eliminate its ability to any longer support Hezbollah and its allies. This would make peace much easier rather than harder to achieve.

Whether we like it or not, the wild card in all this is Israel, for our fate is inextricably tied to theirs given the very real possibility if not the likelihood of Iran preemptively nuking both of us. If Obama and Netanyahu will recognize this, the way should suddenly become wide open to a grand bargain, for they need each other like never before. Both have powerful chips to play.

Obama desperately needs Netanyahu’s cooperation to have any chance of achieving an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement. Yet Obama must understand that Israel can’t take the kind of risks they’re being asked to take vis-à-vis a Palestinian state unless Iran is put out of business. Otherwise, with Iran’s continued ability to prop up Hezbollah and Hamas, the latter will see a Palestinian state as making it that much easier for them to ultimately mount a massive assault on Israel.

Therefore Obama should be prepared to give Israel, at the very least, all the help it needs in neutering Iran. Additionally, the U.S. should guarantee to defend Israel against any outside attack. And, of course, any deal must require the disarming of Hezbollah, Hamas and all other Arab militants in the area.

Conversely, Netanyahu should be prepared to support the kind of deal that gives the Palestinians a fair opportunity to develop a viable, demilitarized, democratic state, but whose continuing independence would be conditional on its responsible behavior. This is the only way to achieve a genuine long-term peace between the parties.

We should add that because of the strong likelihood Iran will soon engineer a massive assault by Hezbollah and Hamas designed to cripple Israel’s ability to preemptively attack Iran’s nukes, the U.S. should immediately issue the following warning:

Any major attack on Israel by Hezbollah and/or Hamas or the use of any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons against Israel shall be deemed an act of war by Iran and Syria and will trigger massive reprisals by the U.S., possibly nuclear. And further, an intense effort would be initiated to displace the Iranian regime.

Such a warning would greatly help to ensure that Israel retained the all-important capability to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, especially so in light of our own unwillingness.

4. The radicals would unleash a wave of terrorist violence against the U.S. and other westerners.

Answer: While this could very well happen in the short-term, it would nevertheless be a small price to pay as compared to Iran bringing about “a world without America.”

Terrorist attacks on any significant scale would serve only to again awaken a sleeping giant to the terrible menace the radicals pose and strengthen our will to finally crush them once and for all.

5. An attack on Iran would poison our relations with Muslims, both friendly and unfriendly, and the U.S. would lose any chance of somehow reconciling with the Muslim world.

Answer: Wrong again. By clenching our fist and stopping our senseless appeasement of the radicals – along with cutting the jugular of Iran, their main benefactor, we would embolden the moderates to push harder for reform and thus actually improve our relations in the Muslim world.

6. By acting unilaterally we could anger our so-called “allies” and make securing their closer cooperation in the War on Terror even more difficult.

Answer: So what! They’re only allies when it suits their convenience and they may finally be prompted to realize that continued appeasement doesn’t buy anything but more trouble when dealing with the radicals.

7. Dissident forces within Iran will be able to engineer the downfall of the present regime and remove the need for an outside attack on its nuclear facilities.

Answer: Given the already demonstrated relative strength and ruthlessness of the regime and the unlikelihood of any real assistance from the outside, it’s wishful thinking to bet our own survival on the success of the dissidents.

8. Because some of the Iranian nuclear facilities are deep underground and their location unknown, we won’t be able to be at all sure about the effectiveness of our attacks, which in any case are only likely to set back Iran’s nuclear program for a few years or less.

Answer: If necessary, the U.S. should use nukes to better ensure mission success. And even if we were to only set back the Iranian program by a few years, that’s certainly vastly better than letting them have nuclear weapons. Depending on how much damage we did initially, we could expand our attacks country wide until Iran finally caved in or resume them periodically if and when Iran tried to rebuild its nuclear program. At the same time we should assist the dissidents as much as possible in their efforts to displace the regime.

If naysayers and doves are so worried about the problems a much-overrated Iran can cause if attacked, then that’s all the more reason to do what we should do anyway in preparing for such an attack per the following:

A. Urgently undertake a massive build-up of U.S. air and naval power, including the huge stockpiling of conventional and nuclear munitions. Unlike the Army and Marines, U.S. air and naval forces are not being unduly stressed by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

B. Given the already strained deployment of U.S. land forces, urgently begin the individual recruitment and training of a very large supplemental force – at least 1,000,000 or more, of ex-military from around the world to operate under U.S. command. They would not only be available to help deal with any problems caused by Iran or its proxies, but more important, they would serve as a warning to Iran that, if provoked, we are prepared to displace their regime. The force could also be utilized wherever needed in the War on Terror. The cost of this force would be but a small fraction of the consequences of doing without it. The contemplated attack on Iran’s facilities would not be delayed until the supplemental force was ready.

While we realize our proposed force is going to take a lot of selling, the American public’s discomfort with U.S. casualties in the War on Terror may well preclude us from ever decisively defeating the radical Islamics and winning the war without such a force. Why should so much of the struggle for worldwide freedom and security fall on the backs of our own young people?

We would add that the U.S. must do whatever top military authorities believe is necessary in order to ensure mission success in destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities. If bombs alone could prove insufficient to get the job done, then we must begin now to prepare ourselves for such an eventuality. But with the survival of the world’s most powerful nation soon to be at serious risk, it is ludicrous to argue that the U.S. could not become fully capable of destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities. America should have no higher priority.

And no matter what else, we must by our actions and our words make it crystal clear that any retaliation by Iran or its proxies in response to a U.S. and/or Israeli attack on their nuclear facilities will result in massive destruction to Iran well beyond those facilities.

But in any event Iran should know that if it’s necessary for us to destroy their nuclear facilities, we will also destroy their retaliatory capabilities irrespective of the collateral damage it may cause.

Contrary to our years of bluster, empty threats and ineffective sanctions, this time we must follow through with any and all demands and threats against Iran and its proxies – with or without the U.N.’s blessing. We should also make clear that the only way Iran can escape disaster is for them to take the following steps:

1. Allow U.S. supervised international inspection teams to have unrestricted and unannounced access to all parts of Iran indefinitely.

2. Allow U.S. teams to destroy all facilities capable of producing or assembling the necessary components of nuclear weapons.

3. Cease the manufacture and import and export of all military weapons and hardware.

4. Cease all assistance and sales of any kind to Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban and any other terrorist group or country as demanded by the U.S.

Any future violation of the above would result in the regime’s removal from power.

However, we must not stop with Iran because North Korea also represents a major threat to our national security, whether it is by direct attack or by their transferring nuclear weapons to Iran, Al Qaeda or other terrorist entity. Once we deal with Iran, let North Korea know they’re next on the list.

The point is that under no circumstances can the U.S. ever afford to risk allowing Iran or North Korea to continue developing nuclear weapons or to transfer such weapons to Al Qaeda or other terrorist ally.

Taking everything into consideration relevant to the percentage prospects of a cataclysmic nuclear attack on the U.S. in the very near future, we think it’s fair to say that, at the bare minimum, the risk is 10% and much more likely between 25 to 50% or higher. Contrast the possible consequences of this unacceptably high risk to those resulting from even the worst case scenario of a preemptive attack on Iran, which, once again, would in no way begin to threaten our national survival. For indeed, there can be absolutely no justification for our failing to eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat.

To needlessly put our nation’s destiny in the hands of history’s most dangerous fanatics in the blind and baseless hope that they will suddenly change their behavior, is not only unthinkable, it is incredibly naïve and totally irrational, irresponsible and reckless. President Obama and people of this mindset are the same people who would have ignored all Hitler’s warnings in the 1930’s and written him off as a harmless rabble-rouser – though a tyrant later responsible for the deaths of 60 million people. And this was before the age of nuclear and biological weapons. They are like the people who ignore all the statistics and insist on letting murderers and child molesters out of jail even though two of every three will commit more dastardly crimes once released. The fact is they just don’t get it and never will. Very likely their DNA is programmed to make them incapable of responding emotionally in a way that reinforces logic. In their heart of hearts they cannot accept the dark side of human nature for what it is. So for all practical purposes their decision-making process on matters involving unsavory human behavior is too often disconnected from reality. They simply don’t want to believe or accept what their eyes and ears are telling them. This doesn’t mean they’re not good people, but given the world we live in it should mean that they’re not fit to serve in Congress let alone the White House.

In a nuclear age there is no longer any margin of error for dangerously flawed human judgment. Our leaders’ serious miscalculation of our enemies’ intentions and likely behavior can very quickly lead to the end of western civilization. There will be no second chances as there were after Pearl Harbor.

With this in mind, compare how we handled two grave threats to our national security. In the days preceding Pearl Harbor we never seriously considered that the lowly Japanese – in spite of their mindless butchery in China, would ever dare attack us because they’d be committing national suicide. So we left Hawaii totally unprepared and undefended. We all know how horribly wrong we were.

Conversely, when confronted with the Cuban missile crisis, our national leaders had the good judgment and intestinal fortitude to force Russia to withdraw its missiles – a show of strength which could very well have precluded nuclear blackmail and/or a nuclear war.

Today, with our worst national security risk actually the President himself and the risk of a nuclear doomsday far greater than it was in Kennedy’s time, hardly a single national leader – and many know better, has the courage to stand up and sound the alarm about Iran. How pathetic it is that we have learned nothing from the terrible lessons of history.

It is because our leaders have their heads so far in the sand and are so preoccupied debating issues that, while obviously important, won’t matter a wit if we get nuked with an EMP attack, our citizenry must themselves step up to the plate and make their voices count.

For starters we must initiate a national dialogue on this the most fateful issue of our time. We spent an entire year engrossing ourselves on healthcare but without much talk about Iran. It is unbelievable that a similar debate would not take place on national security before it’s too late. Let us therefore resolve to begin now to educate the American people about the perils we face and the urgent need to demand that the White House and the Congress act appropriately.

Apart from all the obvious, one communications tool that could be particularly effective would be a televised mock trial possibly entitled “Dereliction of Duty… The President’s Unpardonable Failure to Protect America Against a Nuclear Doomsday.” It could ignite a prairie fire of outrage across our country that could possibly prompt President Obama and his allies in Congress to reconsider his un-American and frightfully misguided conduct of our national security.

More to the point, it is so beyond the pale of common sense and so utterly insane to intentionally leave our nation virtually defenseless against a missile attack while at the same time allow Iran to build nuclear missiles, that it can only be labeled as sheer madness. But it gets worse. The intellectual geniuses who concocted these absurd policies have just become the champions of “Can You Top This?” with their totally ludicrous new Nuclear Posture Review. As Greta Van Susteren likes to say, “You won’t believe this!” If millions of Americans die from a biological and/or chemical weapons attack, and the attacking nation is in compliance with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, President Obama has now pledged that we will not retaliate with nuclear weapons. So Obama has just put our best deterrent against such an attack in the closet. How stupid can this be?

President Obama and his fellow far-out liberals are deaf, dumb and blind to our most critical national security requirements. They are what might best be described as “Triple A’s” – apologists, accommodators and appeasers of the evil enemies sworn to destroy us. They believe that a one-way demonstration of brotherly love and meekness on our part will somehow miraculously transform these enemies from wolves into lambs. And they naively believe that even a strong U.S. missile defense would send an unfriendly message to those who are racing to develop a long range nuclear missile capability – thus supposedly damaging our efforts to persuade them to abandon their evil pursuits. Because of these and many other similar, incredibly flawed and dangerous beliefs – which defy all historical precedent, President Obama and his advisors are surrendering our own national security in a desperate attempt to try and buy what at best can only be a phony and short-lived peace with Iran.

Every citizen and every business must be educated to understand that they have a huge personal stake in this issue. Simply put, once we know the pros and cons, each of us must decide whether we want to gamble our own life and the lives of our loved ones on trusting the radical Islamics with nuclear weapons. Because the vast majority of informed Americans would weigh in with a resounding no, this issue, like none other, has the potential to blow away a liberal and gutless Congress in November and hopefully bring some sanity to Washington. If we fail to recognize and act on this then we will be as responsible for the disaster awaiting America as President Obama.

For indeed, the nuclear doomsday clock is ticking and there is precious little time for Americans to come to their senses and do what we must to ensure our own survival.

For more stories; http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-10317-San-Diego-County-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m6d11-Palestinians-to-be-on-the-receiving-end-of-400-million-in-aid#