Wednesday, April 05, 2006
The options are limited in dealing with a belligerent regime racing towards nuclear development, though military strikes appear more and more likely as time is squandered in inactive international debate over what not to do to the regime. Iran continues to posture that military strikes are not in US interests. While there would certainly be consequences, the world’s premiere state sponsor of terrorism rising to a nuclear power serves US interests even less. Indeed, Iran has suggested that terrorist strikes worldwide would result from any attack, coordinated primarily by its foreign policy arm, Hezbollah.It's pretty clear to me that mad mullahs with nukes are much more of a threat than mad mullahs without them. Iran's sponsorship of terrorism is difficult enough to countenance, but if the West cannot find the gumption to confront Iran on the issue when they don't have nukes, what will happen when they do? Does anyone who cares (i.e., excluding the Michael Moores, Cindy Sheehans, Jimmy Carters and Ramsey Clarks of the world) really think that Iran, once it acquires nukes, will abandon its sponsorship of terrorists?
Schippert closes with this thought: "There are no palatable choices in dealing with Iran and the terrorism they cultivate. Doing nothing is the worst among them."
The clock is ticking....