Wednesday, October 13, 2004

What about Iran?

Undoubtedly Iran has to be the next domino to fall in the war on terror. The big misconception that liberals love to throw out there is "why didn't we invade Iran instead of Iraq, they're more of a global threat." Maybe a diplomatic solution doesn't fit their perception of a war-mongering Republican. Regardless worldwide intelligence said Saddam had WMDs (which we now know to be false), but reports have shown his intentions of fooling UN inspectors to get sanctions lifted so he could restart programs to develop them quickly since he didn't have them on hand. That makes him the more immediate target; topple the dictator and start the democratic revolution.

But Iran does still have to be dealt with and Micahel Ledeen insists we do it quickly. Iranians are protesting their theocratic government which is insisting that it will continue its nuclear program, and the EU diplomacy is failing.

The main problem remains the failure of vision, never more evident than in the first presidential debate. The president dismissed the question about Iran by talking only about the nuclear "issue," while Senator Kerry, incredibly, restated his belief that the same policy that failed to deter North Korea would somehow work with the Iranians. The president knows who the Iranians are, while the senator is an active appeaser. But neither was inclined to deal with the central issue, which is that the Iranians, the Syrians, and the Saudis are killing our men and women in Iraq, and we are playing defense, which is a sucker's game.

In the past week, the Iranian people have again taken to the streets in every major city in the country. The chatterers pay no heed, because there is only one zero-sum game that interests them, which is the election, and the election is about Iraq, or so they say.

Except that it isn't, really. It's about the war. The real war, the regional war, the war they are waging against us even if we refuse to acknowledge it.

Faster, damnit.

Amen, faster. I know the Marshall plan after WWII took 5 years, but Americans don't have that kind of patience anymore (and liberals seem to have the parience of a two year old). My only disagreement is that I don't think we're on the defensive in Iraq. I think the after war plan could be called the "flypaper plan." Let the terrorists filter into Iraq (as opposed to America or any other country around the world) where our soldiers will mop the floor with them. Fortunately now the US trained Iraqi forces have taken up a good chunk of the resposibility for defending their own country, and we're they're to back them up and clean up any hot spots.

Final note: If you haven't read Ledeen's War Against the Terror Masters, you should; it's a must.