What to do about Iran?
After reading Mark Steyn's marvelous column on the Iran situation . . . wait, not "after," actually "during" . . . I gathered my thoughts as to what I would do if I were President of the United States. My solution is the correct answer. Indeed, the answer is so abundantly obvious that it is only because of the age we live in, and its wholesale rejection of logic, reason, facts and evidence, that Bush does not do this. What is my plan?
Let's start with the latest rally presided over by Iran President Ahmadinejad, as Steyn recounts: "Our enemies cannot do a damned thing," he crowed, as an appreciative audience chanted "Death to America!"
Near as I can find, al-Presidente Ahmadinejad himself has not publicly called for "Death to America" but he has called for the destruction of America's ally, Israel, and warned the U.S. to "undo" its creation of Israel or face serious consequences. In my mind, same difference.
So, were I POTUS, I would send a nice letter to al-Presidente reading as follows:
"Dear President Ahmadinejad:
We in the United States have heard your declared intention to violently destroy our friend and ally, Israel. We have also heard your warnings to the United States to either un-create Israel ourselves, or refrain from stopping your country and its allies from attempting to violently destroy Israel, or we will suffer violent consequences. The United States will not have ultimatums threatening war put to us. The United States considers your ultimatum a declaration of war. When war is declared against the United States, we accept only one result from the hostile nation - unconditional surrender. You have 24 hours to inform us of your unconditional surrender."
If Iran doesn't surrender, then we invade. Not just drop bombs from afar, full-on invasion. No doubt, doing this would annoy France, Germany, most of the UN, and all the other America-haters out there. But I pose this simple rhetorical question in rebuttal: If Iran is so wholly unworried about the UN and European Union's toothless rhetoric, why should the United States be worried about what those same feckless nations say about us?
Not another Iraq occupation, you say? Not if I were POTUS. What I would do in Iraq right now is the same thing I'd do in Iran. Once we had deposed the leaders and hopefully sentenced them to death or long prison terms next to Manuela Noriega, I'd put a choice to the Iranian/Iraqi people. Either democratize and instill a friendly regime, or we'll simply claim your oil, land and other resources as spoils. In other words, if you don't want us to be occupiers, we are giving you that option. If you don't take it, then we have no choice but to protect ourselves. After all, it was your country that started it.
Just to be clear where I stand, I think we will succeed in democratizing Iraq and I think we'd have even more success democratizing Iran if we simply deposed the mad mullahs and al-Presidente Ahmadinejad. I think Iraq would stablize much sooner if we whacked the Iranian mullahs and invaded their country. Why? Well, much of the Iraqi insurgency is coming from, and being funded by, Iran. That would stop nearly overnight if we invaded Iran and froze their assets.
Let's start with the latest rally presided over by Iran President Ahmadinejad, as Steyn recounts: "Our enemies cannot do a damned thing," he crowed, as an appreciative audience chanted "Death to America!"
Near as I can find, al-Presidente Ahmadinejad himself has not publicly called for "Death to America" but he has called for the destruction of America's ally, Israel, and warned the U.S. to "undo" its creation of Israel or face serious consequences. In my mind, same difference.
So, were I POTUS, I would send a nice letter to al-Presidente reading as follows:
"Dear President Ahmadinejad:
We in the United States have heard your declared intention to violently destroy our friend and ally, Israel. We have also heard your warnings to the United States to either un-create Israel ourselves, or refrain from stopping your country and its allies from attempting to violently destroy Israel, or we will suffer violent consequences. The United States will not have ultimatums threatening war put to us. The United States considers your ultimatum a declaration of war. When war is declared against the United States, we accept only one result from the hostile nation - unconditional surrender. You have 24 hours to inform us of your unconditional surrender."
If Iran doesn't surrender, then we invade. Not just drop bombs from afar, full-on invasion. No doubt, doing this would annoy France, Germany, most of the UN, and all the other America-haters out there. But I pose this simple rhetorical question in rebuttal: If Iran is so wholly unworried about the UN and European Union's toothless rhetoric, why should the United States be worried about what those same feckless nations say about us?
Not another Iraq occupation, you say? Not if I were POTUS. What I would do in Iraq right now is the same thing I'd do in Iran. Once we had deposed the leaders and hopefully sentenced them to death or long prison terms next to Manuela Noriega, I'd put a choice to the Iranian/Iraqi people. Either democratize and instill a friendly regime, or we'll simply claim your oil, land and other resources as spoils. In other words, if you don't want us to be occupiers, we are giving you that option. If you don't take it, then we have no choice but to protect ourselves. After all, it was your country that started it.
Just to be clear where I stand, I think we will succeed in democratizing Iraq and I think we'd have even more success democratizing Iran if we simply deposed the mad mullahs and al-Presidente Ahmadinejad. I think Iraq would stablize much sooner if we whacked the Iranian mullahs and invaded their country. Why? Well, much of the Iraqi insurgency is coming from, and being funded by, Iran. That would stop nearly overnight if we invaded Iran and froze their assets.
posted by Ben at 11:42 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home