The Case for Action

Recently, I posted one of the views of an Israeli dove who felt Iran should be pressured by diplomatic means to stop its nuclear activities.

Here is one case for military action against Iran.

It's a very interesting analysis of the situation and so I feel it deserves to be aired in my blog as well.

The commentator wrote this entry in the Jerusalem Post.

Nov 20, 2007 20:47 | Updated Nov 21, 2007 9:44
Fundamentally Freund: Five reasons to bomb Iran now
By MICHAEL FREUND

Have America and Israel suddenly gone soft on Iran's nefarious nuclear-weapons program? Despite sanctions and UN Security Council resolutions, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is gleefully pressing forward with his efforts to build a bomb, which Israeli military intelligence now believes he will succeed in doing by 2009.

Indeed, just last Friday, the would-be Hitler of Persia boasted about how Teheran had "defied" Western opposition, and was now "moving toward the peaks of success step by step."

Yet even as Iran continues to progress down the dangerous road to an atomic arsenal, the tough talk emanating from Washington and Jerusalem in recent months has suddenly and inexplicably melted away.

And this should have us all very, very worried.

It was just last month that US President George W. Bush declared at an October 17 press conference that, "If you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them [Iran] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

Bush's statement was followed four days later by an equally emphatic Vice President Dick Cheney, who told the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, "We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Our country, and the entire international community, cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions."

Now, though, something appears to have changed. Various reports in recent days seem to indicate that US policy may have taken a sharp and terribly treacherous U-turn in the direction of acquiescence.

According to the Britain's Sunday Telegraph, the US Defense Department has begun updating its deterrence policy based on the assumption that Iran will obtain nuclear weapons.

The paper quoted a Pentagon adviser as saying that while "military strikes [against Iran's nuclear facilities] might set the program back a couple of years… current thinking is that it is just not worth the risks."

Similarly, Admiral William Fallon, head of US Central Command, which oversees military operations in the Middle East, told the Financial Times last week (Nov. 12) that a preemptive attack against Iranian nuclear installations is not "in the offing."

And, as Reuters reported, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is said to have instructed cabinet officials to draft proposals for how to deal with "the day after" Iran obtains the bomb.

WHAT IS going on here? Are we really prepared to allow the tyrant of Teheran to threaten our very existence? It is possible, of course, that these reports are merely part of the overall game-plan, and that they are aimed at lulling the Iranians into a false sense of security prior to a surprise attack on their nuclear installations.

Alternatively, it might reflect the shifting political realities in the US, where public opinion, goaded on by the mainstream liberal media, has turned against the war in neighboring Iraq.

But whatever the reality of the situation is, one thing should be clear: Iran can not and must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons.

This is not an issue with shades of grey - it is about as black and white as they come.

And here are five good reasons why:

1. An Iranian nuclear arsenal would transform the strategic dynamic of the entire Middle East, shifting the balance of power squarely in the direction of radical Shi'ite fundamentalism.

An atomic Iran will be able to threaten the region and the world with nuclear blackmail and destruction, and they will use that leverage to further their fanatical and revolutionary aims.

2. A nuclear-armed Iran will pose an existential threat to Israel, and ultimately to the West too. Iranian leaders have repeatedly and explicitly promised to wipe Israel off the map and to strike at the United States.

Teheran has been backing up its words with actions by steadily improving its ballistic missile capability. The Shihab-3 missile, with a range of 1,200 km, can hit all of Israel as well as US military targets in the Middle East. Iran is busy developing the Shihab-4, with a range of 2,000 km, that will put parts of Europe within striking distance. Teheran is also striving to build even longer-range intercontinental missiles that can hit the US as well. All of these weapons have the ability to deliver atomic warheads.

3. If Iran goes nuclear, it will inevitably tilt the neighboring Arab states further in the direction of extremism, as they seek to mollify the nuclear-armed ayatollahs. Whatever limited chances there might be of drawing at least some Arab states into the moderate camp are likely to be stymied rather quickly.

4. Failure to take action against Teheran will trigger a region-wide nuclear arms race, as countries throughout the Middle East will seek to achieve strategic and military parity.

A number of states, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, have already announced plans to build their own nuclear power plants, and others will undoubtedly do so as well out of fear of being left behind. Permitting Iran to go nuclear essentially paves the way to a Middle East that will be brimming with atomic weapons.

5. If Iran were to develop "the bomb," what is to stop them from putting it into the hands of one of the myriad anti-Israel and anti-American terrorist groups that they support, such as Hizbullah or Islamic Jihad? Do we really want to take a chance that terrorists might at last be able to get their hands on nuclear weapons? This is not some "neocon nightmare scenario" or "warmonger wishful-thinking."

It is the cold, hard reality staring us all squarely in the face, unless Washington or Jerusalem takes military action, and soon.

CRITICS ARGUE that an attack on Iran would be logistically difficult, politically dangerous, and would result in some very serious consequences.

But as former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton told the New York Times (November 9), "The choice is not between the world as it is today and the use of force. The choice is between the use of force and Iran with nuclear weapons." And when looked at in those terms, it becomes quite obvious that there really is no choice at all: the US and/or Israel must bomb Iran. They must act to remove the nuclear sword from the hand of the Persian executioner.

And they should do so now - before it is too late.

An Insightful Peep

Here's just a fascinating article I came across in blogosphere... and it will make you think out of the box alright! Having said that, it would be best I say nothing else as an objective blogger...

The Iranian Mullahs' Secret
By Dinesh D'Souza
September 26, 2007

I wasn't in the audience at Columbia, so I didn't get to pose a question to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I would have guessed that he is pretty capable of answering questions about the Holocaust ("at least we didn't do it") and Iran's nuclear aspirations ("entirely peaceful").

Even his stated goal of wiping Israel off the map doesn't break the register on my surprise-o-meter. Nor would I be entirely astonished if there are many leaders in Israel who'd like to see today's Iran wiped off the map.

I would have liked to ask Ahmadinejad about the Shia practice of sigheh (in Farsi) or muta (in Arabic). This is the practice, widespread in Iran, of "temporary marriage." Such marriages are forbidden in Sunni Islam but they are permitted in Shia Islam.

The origin of temporary marriage is in the early days of Islam, when warriors would go to faraway battles and not return home for several months or even years. During this period, they were permitted to enter into temporary marriages which could be dissolved after an agreed-upon period by the man simply proclaiming the end of the arrangement.

Since Islam allows polygamy up to four wives, this was not considered a radical departure from the rules of the Koran.

Whatever you think of the original arrangement, it is mightily abused today in Iran. Mullahs who are traveling on pilgrimages routinely take temporary wives, sometimes for a week, sometimes for a day, sometimes for a few hours. In the West we call this prostitution.

In Iran it is hallowed by the name of sigheh and it has the full sanction of the law. One can only imagine the plight of poor women in Iran who are driven by necessity to become de facto prostitutes. I'm sure there are some at the ACLU and on the left who would say the women are noble "sex workers" whose only deprivation is that they are not paid the minimum wage. They are, after all, consenting adults. But anyone who believes in female dignity and family values has to consider sigheh a complete scandal.

I'm curious how a fellow like Ahmadinejad, who likes to portray himself as a defender of human dignity and of the Muslim family, would respond to what his mullah friends are doing on a regular basis. These abuses of power--financial, political, sexual--are more likely to discredit and ultimately bring down the regime of the mullahs than all the "tough questions" about nuclear weapons and the Holocaust.

Is it too late?

This is really HOT news! The United States is attempting to change the course of military history that would likely have been a repetition of the blunders in the Vietnam War. The jury is out whether the outgoing politically lameduck cowboy leader of the Free World, President George Bush will succeed at this precarious time when a new Hitler- wannabbe arrogant Persian leader and his threatening entity in the Middle East through clandestine Vietnam-era military strategies and tactics threaten the foundation of democracy and human civilization in the world.

U.S. Announces Sanctions Against Iran


Oct 25, 9:33 AM (ET)

By MATTHEW LEE



WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration announced sweeping new sanctions against Iran Thursday - the harshest since the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in 1979 - charging anew that Tehran supports terrorism in the Middle East, exports missiles and is engaging in a nuclear build up.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, joined at a State Department news conference by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, said the steps the Bush administration is taking against the Revolutionary Guard Corps and a number of banks are designed, among other things, to punish Tehran for its support of terrorist organizations in Iraq and the Middle East.

Rice said the moves were in response to "a comprehensive policy to confront the threatening behavior of the Iranians" although she also said that Washington remains open to "a diplomatic solution."

But Rice quickly added: "Unfortunately the Iranian government continues to spurn our offer of open negotiations, instead threatening peace and security by pursuing nuclear technologies that can lead to a nuclear weapon, building dangerous ballistic missiles, supporting Shia militants in Iraq and terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, and denying the existence of a fellow member of the United Nations, threatening to wipe Israeli off the map."

The announcement culminated a monthslong series of harsh statements from both sides amid public recriminations both within the administration and the Congress over Tehran's strategic intentions.

The United States has long labeled Iran as a state supporter of terrorism and has been working for years to gain support for tougher sanctions from the international community aimed at keeping the country from developing nuclear weapons.

The sanctions will cut off more than 20 Iranian entities, including individuals and companies owned or controlled by the Revolutionary Guards, from the American financial system and will likely have ripple effects throughout the international banking community.

The Quds Force, a part of the Guard Corps that Washington accuses of provided weapons, including powerful bombmaking materiel blamed for the deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, and other banks will be identified as "specially designated global terrorist" groups for their activities in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Middle East, the officials said.

Rice said the new sanctions will "provide a powerful deterrent" for companies in the United States and abroad to sever business relationships with Iran.

Paulson said that Iran channels millions of dollars a year to help bankroll terrorist acts.

"It is increasingly likely that if you are doing business with Iran you are doing business with the IRGC," Paulson said, referring to Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The sanctions also cover three Iran state-owned banks, including Bank Melli.

The actions mean that any assets found in the United States belonging to the designated groups must be frozen. Americans are also forbidden from doing business with them.

Importantly, the designations also put companies outside the United States on notice that doing business with the designated groups could be problematic.

Paulson said it is nearly impossible for overseas businesses or banks to "know one's customer" in Iran and avoid unwittingly funding terrorism or other illicit activities.

Because of the IRGC's broad reach into business and other spheres, "it is increasingly likely that if you are doing business with Iran you are doing business with the IRGC," Paulson said.

"It's simply not worth the risk."

Rice had told a House committee Wednesday that the administration shares Congress' goal of making sanctions tougher on Iran. She also declared that activities in Iraq by the Quds Force "are inconsistent with the Iranian government's obligations and stated commitment to support the Iraqi government."

Iran's defense ministry and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps were designated proliferators of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile technology, while several banks will be hit with sanctions for their role in supporting terrorist financing.

The United States hopes the measures would ratchet up pressure on Iran to negotiate.

The sanctions would be unilateral, however, and are believed to be the first of their type taken by the United States specifically against the armed forces of another government.

The sanctions reportedly will empower the United States to financially isolate a large part of Iran's military and anyone inside or outside Iran who does business with it.

Such steps could impact any number of foreign companies by pressuring them to stop doing business with the Revolutionary Guards or risk U.S. sanctions.

The Revolutionary Guards, formed to safeguard Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution, has pushed well beyond its military roots, and now owns car factories and construction firms and operates newspaper groups and oil fields.

Current and former members now hold a growing role across the country's government and economy, sometimes openly and other times in shadow.

The guards have gained a particularly big role in the country's oil and gas industry in recent years, as the national oil company has signed several contracts with a guards-operated construction company. Some have been announced publicly, including a $2 billion deal in 2006 to develop part of the important Pars gas field.

Now numbering about 125,000 members, they report directly to the supreme leader and officially handle internal security. The small Quds Force wing is thought to operate overseas, having helped to create the militant Hezbollah group in 1982 in Lebanon and to arm Bosnian Muslims during the Balkan wars.

The administration accuses the Quds Force of sending fighters and deadly roadside bombs, mortars and rockets to kill American troops in Iraq in recent years - allegations that Iran denies.

The United States pressures U.S. and European banks to do no business with Iranian banks, such as Bank Sedarat that the Bush administration believes help finance guards' business operations. But the United States has been known for some time to also be considering naming the entire group as a foreign terrorist organization, allowing wider financial crackdowns.

---

AP Diplomatic Correspondent Anne Gearan and Associated Press Writer Jeannine Aversa contributed to this story.

Sharia Law Offenders Face Justice

VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED!
The video you're about to watch contains highly disturbing scenes of the ultimate horror of two men being punished by stoning to death for committing adultery. Before the actual stoning, another man is seen being flogged many times for his alcohol consumption.

This video was secretly filmed and smuggled out to the West by Iranian Muslims who were sick of the inhuman punishment meted out on fellow Iranians.

It would serve as a reminder to all citizens who live in democratic countries which practise Common Law justice to appreciate how humane, just and civilized their Law is.


This video is from http://www.antijihad.com