The Nuclear Option With Iran

My good friend the gun toting liberal takes some jabs at President Bush today, over the misleading headlines that we are planning to nuke Iran.

Look, y’all… I’m sure there’s nothing to get excited about; I’m sure President Bush has prayed extensively on this topic and God is telling him to nuke Iran, much like God probably told the President to kick up our nuclear production again, too. It’s all cool… we’ve gotta get them before they get us after all, right?

Not to pick on just the Gun Toting Liberal, but there seems to be a consensus on the left that Bush is out of control! Rightwing Nuthouse has a great round up, as well as his own opinion.

If you plan on perusing lefty websites today, I highly recommend you put on a hazmat suit and take along a Geiger counter. Also, please make sure you’re wearing a good pair of cowboy boots because not only is it getting thicker and deeper than usual in moonbat land, but many of the denizens of the fever swamps have detonated their own weapon of mass stupidity regarding the possible use of nuclear weapons by the United States to destroy the underground infrastructure of Iran’s nuclear program.

I personally think military action to take out Iranian nukes is self-defeating. But don’t tell the Iranians that. In fact, the more uncertain President Ahmadinejad is about our intentions, the better.

This little stratagem about keeping the Iranians guessing about our intentions seems to be lost on our rabid dog left wing who have swallowed what is almost certainly a deliberately planned leak on our military options against the mullahs and regurgitated the most hysterical nonsense this side of the Scooter Libby story:

Dan Rhiel also tries to get things back into perspective:

To not plan for a possible military option as regards Iran’s nuclear program would be foolish….Said planning is as much a part of the diplomatic dialog as anything else…We don’t need mushroom clouded brains thinking about and discussing options for Iran just now. We need reasoned debate on a topic which poses a serious risk to world peace. An oil-rich country with no current need for nuclear energy appears determined to develop a nuclear capability, after having declared their desire to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth.

No reasonable nation has gone on record as suggesting stopping them is a bad thing, most find it necessary. Planning for that is the prudent step. Characterizing it as demon, warmongering Bush taking up nuclear arms to confront Iran is not only silly, it’s harmful and misleading for the necessary discussion at hand.

I might as well throw my own hat into the ring in an attempt to clear up misunderstandings on what I believe is a very important issue. I don’t have much hope that it will heal any blind bandwagoning on the left, but I might as well try.

There are several points that I think are important to note. I’ll just go down the list.

1. First of all, diplomacy IS still on the table. We are trying our best to work through the international community and U.N. despite how ineffective they have proved to be in the past. We are trying to rationally talk Iran into giving up their nuclear ambitions. Whether you think like I do, that these efforts will be fruitless, or whether like many lefties, you think it is simply a charade, the truth is that Iran has an option to discuss the issues civilly with the internationally community. So far, they have refused anything resembling a compromise. In my opinion they are digging their own grave, and only asking for some other option to be done besides diplomacy.

2. The type of nukes we are talking about are bunker busters. Even jf Iran leaves us with no other option, the type of bombs we are talking about are not “doomsday bombs.” While they are still powerful, and should be carefully considered before all our use, we are not talking about another Hiroshima here. We are not talking about “doomsday bombs” that kill thousands of innocent people. We are talking about a surgical attack bomb that penetrates into the earth and burries itself 20 to 30 feet before exploding. The B61-11 was designed to destroy underground military facilities such as command bunkers, ballistic missile silos and facilities for producing and storing weapons.

3. We are not dealing with sanity. Mr. Ahmadinejad believes he is ushering in the Muslim apocolypse, and their long awaited Imam that will put the entire world under Islam. There isn’t much hope for diplomacy to work when one party is unwilling to negotiate. The only other option besides military option would be a nuclear Iran and a new cold war. It seems this is what many on the left want, but keep in mind we are dealing with an insane leader that has publicly stated Israel should be wiped off the map.

4. The whole thing has been massively misleading. The headlines have read that we plan to use nukes on Iran preemptively despite rhetoric of diplomacy. The truth is that diplomacy is still on the table, and we have a plan B. We would be quite stupid if we didn’t.

5. Threatening the use of nuclear weapons on Iran could pressure them back to the diplomacy table.

Too many people are jumping to conclusions about this. In their quickness to bash Bush, they are only hurting our efforts to resolve this dangerous situation. To the left, the real enemy is not radical extremists getting their hands on nuclear weapons! To them, the enemy is President Bush. We are pursuing diplomaticly, but it doesn’t hurt to have a plan B. Once again, the left have no viable plans to diffuse this dangerous situation, only opposition to any plan of action that Bush tries. The situation is delicate here, and it shouldn’t be turned into a bash Bush episode, it should be opened up to reasonable debate.

Military action will be the last option we seek. Don’t tell Iran, but our threat at this point is most likely a tactic to get them back on the road of a diplomatic solution. The Washington Post clears up some misperceptions:

No attack appears likely in the short term, and many specialists inside and outside the U.S. government harbor serious doubts about whether an armed response would be effective. But administration officials are preparing for it as a possible option and using the threat “to convince them this is more and more serious,” as a senior official put it.

And if it finally comes down that Iran leaves us with no other option but military action, it is a good thing that we have a plan B. If the leftards don’t like that plan, then they should zip it up on the Bush bashing, and offer some viable alternatives. And allowing Iran to have nukes in not an option open for debate.

Officer’s Club sums it up nicely:

The Hersh article is breathless, un-sourced, and over-hyped. Yeah, there are probably war plans being drawn up. People are probably talking about it in the government –it would be irresponsible if they weren’t. My advice is to consider history when dealing with Iran. Will negotiation work now, when it has failed when tried with nearly every hostile regime America has faced down? Will diplomacy somehow convince Iran to stop supporting terrorists? What will the consequences be when Iran gets a nuclear weapon? Will containment work- and do the folks arguing for containment know they are committing our resources to Iraq for a much longer period of time? The discussion on this needs to be elevated above “neocons are rushing us to war again!”

The Moderate Voice, while taking the other side of the debate, has a great roundup.
Michelle Malkin has a video of Hersh blowing our cover.

Comments are closed.