As someone who would rather not see us (us meaning the United States) engage in yet another war, I am utterly frustrated at the actions of Iran. Forget which side of the political aisle you are on and forget whether you are anti-war in general, with regards to the current Iraq war, or anything of the sort. What we know is that the current US Administration is not shy at all about going to war; one might even describe them as somewhat trigger-happy. In the face of that, the Iranian regime seems to be doing just about everything they can to provoke them. You could argue that countries have the right to pursue peaceful uses of nuclear power. However, combine that assertion with a country that recently has developed and tested MIRV missile technology, combine that with a country that has recently developed and tested missile technology that has a low radar visibility, and a country that has just tested extremely advanced torpedo technology, one for which there may be no current countermeasures AND you add the historical hostility between our country and Iran that includes an unthinkable violation of international law and diplomacy that was the invasion of our embassy, and you see the reason for the title and thesis of this Op-Ed piece. What are the Iranians doing? What are they thinking? What is wrong with them?
I realize that my very own articles have opined that the US does not have the conventional capability to deal with Iran if they started behaving aggressively, but we could certainly mount a number of different non-conventional type conflicts with Iran that would be horrific, both to Regional and Global stability, and to the poor Iranian people. We could follow-up cruise missile and air attacks of Iranian Air Force and anti-aircraft sites with sustained (I am talking about months of) B-52 carpet bomb attacks on Iranian population centers and military sites. We could add terrible munitions like napalm and fuel-air explosives to the mix. The conflict could descend into complete madness and we could end up using tactical or even strategic nuclear weapons against Iran. Again, what do the Iranians think they are gaining by provoking the Bush administration?
I have as much as said that one possibility is that they may think we are too bogged down in Iraq to do anything about their provocations, but I have shown the folly of that logic in the above paragraph. There is another possibility. After his election, Iranian President Ahmedinejad said, "Thanks to the blood of the martyrs, a new Islamic revolution has arisen and the Islamic revolution of XXXX (the current Islamic year) will, if God wills, cut off the roots of injustice in the world ... The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world." This is even more ominous when combined with one of his campaign statements, "We didn't participate in the revolution for turn-by-turn government ... This revolution tries to reach a world-wide government"
Similar to what I believe are the goals of Osama bin-Laden and Al-Qaeda, the above could indicate that Iran, or at least their new President and the Mullahs he supports, hope to initiate a World War with the West, i.e. US and its allies on one side and the 1.9 Billion believers of Islam on the other. There is little other sense to be made of Ahmedinejad's statements and the actions of Iran under his leadership. Knowing that this might be the case; shouldn't this alter our reactions to Iranian provocations? Of course, I am just guessing with my theory, but regardless, shouldn't the US do everything short of appeasement to defuse the situation, prevent a further destabilization of the Middle East and the pushing of its peoples into the camp of the Radical Islamicists? We can but hope that between Condi and the rest of the people at State, there are enough people who realize the danger and enough people with the practical understanding to prevent a greater conflagration from erupting in the Middle East. So far, during this administration, they haven't shown us much.
I realize that my very own articles have opined that the US does not have the conventional capability to deal with Iran if they started behaving aggressively, but we could certainly mount a number of different non-conventional type conflicts with Iran that would be horrific, both to Regional and Global stability, and to the poor Iranian people. We could follow-up cruise missile and air attacks of Iranian Air Force and anti-aircraft sites with sustained (I am talking about months of) B-52 carpet bomb attacks on Iranian population centers and military sites. We could add terrible munitions like napalm and fuel-air explosives to the mix. The conflict could descend into complete madness and we could end up using tactical or even strategic nuclear weapons against Iran. Again, what do the Iranians think they are gaining by provoking the Bush administration?
I have as much as said that one possibility is that they may think we are too bogged down in Iraq to do anything about their provocations, but I have shown the folly of that logic in the above paragraph. There is another possibility. After his election, Iranian President Ahmedinejad said, "Thanks to the blood of the martyrs, a new Islamic revolution has arisen and the Islamic revolution of XXXX (the current Islamic year) will, if God wills, cut off the roots of injustice in the world ... The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world." This is even more ominous when combined with one of his campaign statements, "We didn't participate in the revolution for turn-by-turn government ... This revolution tries to reach a world-wide government"
Similar to what I believe are the goals of Osama bin-Laden and Al-Qaeda, the above could indicate that Iran, or at least their new President and the Mullahs he supports, hope to initiate a World War with the West, i.e. US and its allies on one side and the 1.9 Billion believers of Islam on the other. There is little other sense to be made of Ahmedinejad's statements and the actions of Iran under his leadership. Knowing that this might be the case; shouldn't this alter our reactions to Iranian provocations? Of course, I am just guessing with my theory, but regardless, shouldn't the US do everything short of appeasement to defuse the situation, prevent a further destabilization of the Middle East and the pushing of its peoples into the camp of the Radical Islamicists? We can but hope that between Condi and the rest of the people at State, there are enough people who realize the danger and enough people with the practical understanding to prevent a greater conflagration from erupting in the Middle East. So far, during this administration, they haven't shown us much.
