Read What I See

 

     When it happens, it should come as no surprise. Israel does not let its guard down when it comes to protecting its national security. The Israelis are not going to tolerate a nation that threatens its own existence to become nuclear. It is not surprising that most of our news media is ignoring this subject. The conservative media is too busy confronting the liberal media that is too busy campaigning for Barack Obama.

Follow up:

Ironically, the results of the elections could be tremendously influenced by a war with Iran if it were to take place prior to November 4^th.  Such event would most likely play against Barack Obama in a large way as he appears to be the favorite candidate of Iran.  The feeling from the overwhelming leftist media campaigning for Obama is that perhaps the danger of losing an election will go away if they don’t talk about a conflict with Iran.

     There is another recent event that does not play in favor of Iran. Syria and the U.S. have being engaged in talks and so has Israel through mediation.  If negotiations go well between them no doubt conditions would call for Syria to disengage from Iran and stop supporting Hezbollah which would come as good news for Lebanon.  If Syria and Israel could work out their difference and find peace, Iran would be left standing alone in the region. In reality they should be for they do not consider themselves Arabs but Persians.

     If we look back at the series of events prior to the invasion of Iraq, we can see that timing was a deciding factor in the Iraqi invasion and so it will be in the case of Iran.  We can recall when Saddam called a bluff by not cooperating with the U.N. Inspectors. He admitted during his captivity that indeed he had bluffed the U.N. and the U.S.  The Bush administration also did its own share of bluffing by amassing troops in Kuwait with the threat of an invasion while waiting for approval from the U.N.  Time appeared to be on Saddam’s favor as our troops were positioned and ready for war but unable to attack.  For the Bush administration time was running out, as they waited for the U.N. to pass the resolution that would allow the use of force.  There was no way that our troops could have attacked Iraq during the summer in temperatures of 120 degrees.  The threat of chemical weapons would have force our troops to carryout combat missions wearing chemicals suits in the heat of the Iraqi summer and that would have been impossible.  Those events narrowed it down to two major options:

     1) Go on with the invasion in April without final approval from the U.N. and rid the Iraqi people of Saddam Hussein.  Give the Iraqis the freedom that they enjoy today and eliminate Saddam’s threat to the neighboring countries forever.

     2) Pack our bags and go back home and face criticism for having moved nearly 150,000 of our troops and equipment, spent billions of dollars and accomplish absolutely nothing.  This would have been an embarrassing situation for us and embolden Saddam Hussein even more.

     Let’s not forget that Saddam was a ruthless dictator that had murdered tens of thousands of his own people.  In addition he was a threat to neighboring countries as the invasion of Kuwait had proven.  Even with all of his misdeeds Saddam was very popular in the Arab world.  The Liberals and the liberal media that accuses the U.S. of not being popular in the Middle East should note that usually, is not the good guy who is popular in the Arab world.

     Just as circumstances decided the timing for the Iraqi invasion, so it will be for an attack on the nuclear facilities of Iran.  It has become obvious, that the hardliners in the Iranian regime have no intention of stopping their pursuit on the enrichment of Uranium.  International sanctions are not going to put enough pressure to make them change their policies.  Sanctions hurt their citizens more than it does government policies.  We are not dealing with rational people and to the Iranian theocracy ideology is more important than the well being of their citizens or their nation.  With the Iranian hardliners clearly voicing their desire for the destruction of Israel, it would be foolish and suicidal for Israel to ignore the threat, therefore they will not.  The Iranian hardliners are pursuing a path of self-destruction just as Adolph Hitler and Saddam Hussein did.  They are not paying attention to history; tyrants and aggressors at the end are always deposed.  Iran’s policy of bluffing when they should be negotiating is a playback of its neighbor Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

     Israel is very serious about keeping his foes from becoming nuclear powers.  The Israelis destroyed the Iraqi’s nuclear reactor in 1981 and recently allegedly destroyed a nuclear facility in Syria.  Iran’s nuclear program presents a huge problem for Israel to destroy because it is scattered throughout the country and some is protected inside mountains.  It would be almost impossible to destroy all of the facilities but perhaps enough damage could be done to set it back years.  Foolish as it may appear, Iranian stubbornness and uncompromising stance will bring about the destruction of the nuclear power plant that Russia recently finished building.

     Israel does not trust that it would have the backup needed from the U.S. if Barack Obama were elected president, so they may very well attack before Bush term expires.  If Obama were elected it is likely that they would attack Iran before he took office.  If John McCain is elected they could wait longer depending on other factors. Another factor is Israel Prime Minister Olmert who was the subject to a lot of criticism for his handling of the recent war with Hezbollah and will be out of office early next year.

     Iran is purchasing from Russian a new air defense system that would make an attack more difficult.  So it is likely that Israel would attack before the S-300 anti-aircraft defense system becomes operational.  The Israelis are trying to acquire from the U.S. bombs that could penetrate Iran’s bunkered facilities.  The U.S. has turned down the request but it has developed a massive 30,000 pound bomb capable of doing the needed work in Iran.  Even if initially the U.S. is not involved it could finish the job once Iran draws the U.S. into the conflict as they have threatened.  We can rest assured that there have been preparations made for a possible Iranian attack of our forces in Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

     Iran is playing a dangerous game and they are in a no win situation. They have threatened to attack U.S. interest in the vicinity.  Iran and others, including our leftist media are under the assumption that we cannot handle another conflict.  Although we have ground forces tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan a conflict with Iran would not call for ground forces.  The Air Force and Navy are free to handle an Iran conflict. Iran skies would be clear since they do not have much of an Air Force and our Navy could sink anything they own that floats. There are always risks in war and there is no doubt that they could have some instances of success but for them it is a no win situation.

     Who would be in charge of the U.S. armed forces in the Middle East if war with Iran erupted?  None other than the master mind that brought the Iraq war to a victory after the controversial troops surge.  General David Petraeus is to assume command of American forces in the Middle East in late summer or early fall 2008.  Other foes for Iran in a conflict could be NATO and Asian countries if Iran would manage to shut down the flow of crude through the Strait of Hormuz.  All of their negatives do not take away from the fact that they could do some damage but they are very limited.  They could use terrorism by having Hezbollah to carry attacks but regardless it would be a disaster for Iran.

     Iran has plenty of oil but relies on imports of gasoline, so just as it may try to choke the world of oil it would choke itself of refined petroleum.  From the region the U.S. only receives shipments of crude from Iraq and Kuwait of approximately 7% of our imports.  That small reduction on crude import would be easily satisfied temporarily with our Strategic Petroleum Reserves that Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama have wanted to use for the wrong reasons.  They are under the impression that war is not on the horizon because it is past their noses and they cannot see beyond it.

     If all of this were to happen we could look at perhaps the more radical theocracy in Iran losing power to the moderates or perhaps even causing the collapse of the theocracy and be replaced by a secular government.  The Revolutionary Guard could find itself with a revolt for having inflicted such suffering on their citizens.  Over seventy percent of the Iranian population is under the age of thirty and they are thirsty for the freedom that they are denied under the existing Theocracy.  This war could bring a lot of good to Iran since it is not designed to be a ground war and they could preserve their infrastructure.  The major objective would be to render them incapable of pursuing a nuclear program that could destabilize the Middle East or start a nuclear race.

     No one knows better how horrible war is than those who have fought or lived one.  No one is more wrong than those who feel that it is never necessary.  If we would not have fought in Europe during WWII; from Russia to Great Britain the official language would be German. If we would have not fought in the Pacific our country naive anti-war protesters and activists would be speaking Japanese.  There have only been short lapses in world history in which wars have not being fought.  Fighting or not fighting does not decide the occurrence of war it only decides who is conqueror and who is conquered.

     Who do you want as our leader when this happens?

     Vote wisely in 2008