| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| The Ayatollahs' Escalation |
| 2007-03-27 |
| by Jed Babbin Wars have started over less. The March 23 seizure of 15 British sailors and marines by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Navy can be called many things, but spontaneous isn’t one of them. It was another in a long series of tests of Western resolve that Iran has posed and we have failed. Iran is -- cleverly and gradually -- escalating its war for control of the Middle East. In 1979 Iranian revolutionaries -- probably including a young Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- seized the American embassy in Tehran and held its staff hostage for 444 days. Diplomacy failed so in April 1980, so Jimmy Carter launched and personally micromanaged into failure a military rescue mission in which eight Americans died in an aircraft collision at Desert One. That failure and the ones to come taught Iran that it could provoke -- even commit acts of war -- without suffering any penalty. In the years since, it has -- either directly or through its terrorist proxies such as Hizballah -- committed a long series of terrorist acts resulting in many American deaths. For over 20 years, Iran has lied to the UN Security Council about its nuclear programs. Instead of opening them to UN inspectors, Iran has dispersed its nuclear facilities and buried them in hardened sites to prevent destruction by air strikes. In December 2005, I was among a small group of military analysts that met with the top American commanders in Baghdad. In one briefing, we learned about the Iranian-manufactured “explosively-formed penetrator” -- “EFP” in the inevitable acronym -- which was then and is now the weapon that causes more American deaths in Iraq than any other. It is made in Iran, smuggled in by Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps soldiers, and given to militias and insurgents to kill Americans. Iran’s government has paid no price for, again, shedding American blood. While killing Americans in Iraq, Iran’s government is escalating gradually, maintaining control of the pace and direction of its war to become the hegemon of the Middle East. Its government is a complex one. Its public face, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, probably has power to do little more than make inciteful speeches. The real power rests in “Supreme Leader” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the “Assembly of Experts” (86 Shiite clerics that control accession to the “Supreme Leader” post) and the 40-man “Expediency Council” in which policy is debated under their version of Islamic law. In our political lingo, they are an Islamofascist regime. America has pursued a policy aimed to isolate Iran. President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice apparently believe that UN sanctions and furrowed brows can affect the course of Iran’s conquest of the Middle East. So far, Iran is so isolated that: 1) Russia is openly building and supplying its nuclear program, and has supplied Iran with sophisticated anti-aircraft missile systems that essentially preclude air strikes against the nuclear sites by all except stealth aircraft or missiles; 2) China is trading arms and technology to Iran for oil; and 3) Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez has allied his nation with Iran (and China) in hopes of gaining weapons and technology and constricting American access to oil. At this rate, isolation could soon earn Ahmadinejad a seat on the New York Stock Exchange. In earlier times, Americans had a greater ability to deal with reality. Before Jimmy Carter caused the failure at “Desert One,” there was another plan to rescue the American hostages in Tehran. The late great Ben Rich, the genius engineer who headed Lockheed’s super-secret “Skunk Works” and inventor of stealth aircraft, once described it to me over several glasses of an adult beverage for which we shared a liking. Ben’s plan, cobbled together in a matter of days after the Iranians seized our embassy, was elegant for its simplicity and enormous risk. There are rocket packs that can be mounted on the C-130 Hercules to assist takeoffs from short airfields. Why not, Ben explained, mount some takeoff packs on the back, and mount another set on the nose pointing forward? Ben wanted to fill the sky over Tehran with fighters, land a C-130 on the street in front of the embassy and bring it to a really, really short stop by firing the forward-mounted rockets. Out pour a couple of platoons of Marines or rangers, they shoot their way into the embassy, grab our folks, load everybody back into the C-130, and fire the backward-pointing rockets to blast out of there under heavy air cover. Think of the lesson Iran’s ayatollahs would have learned had America shot its way into and out of their capital city. Instead, they came to believe we are a paper tiger. We should not be speaking openly of military action to rescue the British soldiers and marines now reportedly held in Tehran. That’s the Brits’ call, and if they want our help we should give it unhesitatingly. Meanwhile, we have to rethink our policy toward Iran. Iran’s gradual conquest of the Middle East proceeds uninhibited. Its supporters, China and Russia principally, have no intention to limit Iran’s ambitions. Khamenei and his face man, Ahmadinejad, are claiming dominance over the shallow waters of the Persian Gulf. Their capture of the British troops coincided with a large naval wargame that emphasizes the point. Every neighboring nation -- including our allies such as Kuwait and Israel -- is threatened. We need to challenge Iran to greater effect than it challenges us. To do so we need not -- openly -- go to war with Iran. But we should begin by imposing real penalties on Iran for each act of aggression. Every time an American is hurt or killed by an EFP in Iraq, Iran should pay the butcher’s bill. Every act of war, every act to subvert friendly governments in the Middle East, every attack on one of our allies by an Iranian force or proxy should be answered quickly with acts that cost Iran dearly, and assists Iranians to rebel against the ayatollahs. Each of our allies should be assured -- publicly -- that we will defend them against Iranian aggression. People speak of “the military option” against Iran as if it consists only of a massive ground invasion, huge air attacks and an occupation like Iraq. Nonsense. We have so many options -- some of them secret -- that we should begin employing now. For example, there are ways to fry electronic systems with an electromagnetic pulse that isn’t created by detonating a nuclear device. (HUMAN EVENTS is not the New York Times. We do not leak secrets. This weapon was spoken of openly in 2003). The next time the Iranian navy sits in port one dark night, such an “EMP” weapon could render its ships inert. I’m guessing, but I think Ben Rich would have smiled at that thought. Mr. Babbin served as a deputy undersecretary of defense in President George H.W. Bush's administration. He is the author (with Edward Timperlake) of "Showdown: Why China Wants War with the United States" and "Inside the Asylum: Why the UN and Old Europe are Worse than You Think". |
| Posted by:ryuge |
| #15 Krueger vs. Jason, next Geraldo! |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-03-27 23:42 |
| #14 Excalibur, please, for what I hope is the last time, permit me to remind you that we can achieve all the necessary objectives in Iran through use of conventional weapons. Teaching knifework to a chainsaw adherent... |
| Posted by: Pappy 2007-03-27 22:07 |
| #13 IMHO the muzzies would use a nuke against any western target if they had it with no regard to first use. I believe you may be misinterpreting me. Where do I disagree with this? I think you are absolutely correct. All of the above only increases the need for preemption in Iran. I'm not saying that Iran would refrain from first use if we continued to do so as well. What I say is that our own first use of atomic bombs would strip away too much moral authority and leave us justifiably vulnerable to terrorist nuclear retaliation. Instead, we have a plethora of options with which we can neutralize Iran's threat. Let's use those alternatives, retain our moral authority and keep our nuclear hole card available as the ultimate threat. Worst of all is how MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) has no meaning to Islamic fundamentalists. To quote Ayatollah Khomeini: We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.The psychological instability of the fanatics is such that we need to retain nuclear obliteration as a final measure to use against them. No need to invite some sort of tit-for-tat nuclear exchange. It only does us more harm than good. Better to decapitate Iran without delay. If nuclear weapons were the only possible way of addressing Iran's current hostility, I'd already be advocating their use. I want this issue put on ice at the soonest possible moment. Iran means to do America great harm and we are fools not to take them seriously. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-03-27 21:06 |
| #12 Zenster, For the first time in a year of reading this site I disagree with you. IMHO the muzzies would use a nuke against any western target if they had it with no regard to first use. These guys are living a Fantasy Ideology. First Use requires logic and an understanding of the concept of cause and effect. They're fresh outta that. |
| Posted by: jds 2007-03-27 20:49 |
#11 Thank you for the correction, Ship. Due to its explosive yield, I was under the impression that it was a thermobaric device. My point remains that fuel-air bombs still are capable of delivering massive strikes:The effects produced by FAEs (a long high duration pressure and heat impulse) are often likened to the effects produced by low-yield nuclear weapons, but without the problems of radiation—although this is inexact; for all current and foreseen subkiloton-yield nuclear weapon designs, prompt radiation effects predominate, producing some secondary heating—very little of the nominal yield is actually delivered as blast. The significant injury dealt by either weapon on a targeted population is nonetheless great.I think that if they had the capability to deliver a nuke to us, they would use it. What we do is immaterial to that desire. Jackal, you are absolutely right in presuming that Iran's clergy has an unwavering dedication to destroying the West. That is precisely why I believe a preemptive strike against them is so imperative. Nothing else will avert a far more serious outcome. Either we cripple Iran's nuclear aspirations now or confront a future need to vaporize their whole damn country in retaliation for the inevitable atomic atrocity that they will instigate. Iran's intention to do America great harm is not merely florid rhetoric for public consumption. It is their central desire and they see America as the single most greatest threat to their backward Neanderthal culture. We are utter fools not to take them seriously. If the use of nuclear weapons was our only option, you would see me advocating it right now. I believe otherwise and sincerely hope such a catastrophe can be avoided. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-03-27 20:44 |
| #10 Fuel-air bombs, like the MOAB, produce explosions with the force of an atomic bomb and none of its fallout The MOAB is neither a fuel-air bomb nor can it produce explosions with the force of an atomic bomb. There are It's an 8 inch rifle barrel filled with conventional explosives dropped from the back of a C-130. Mainly used to fill bandwidth. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-03-27 19:15 |
| #9 Zenster: I think that if they had the capability to deliver a nuke to us, they would use it. What we do is immaterial to that desire. |
| Posted by: Jackal 2007-03-27 18:38 |
| #8 Ayatollah power symbolism rests in Qom, the major Shiite seminary center. Take out Qom, and Teheran will fall. People talk of the Basij Gestapo and the Revolutionary Guard, but Iran does have military professionals. Many of the latter would happily turn on the parasitic leadership. However, extensive use of Black Ops would be essential. For one, the scale of resentment against the Ayatollahs would escalate if Iranians knew the extent of confiscated wealth that is held by those parasites. Rafsanjani is a billionaire, and not from business acumen; he claimed government contracts without competitive bidding. His kind are as bad as the Sauds. |
| Posted by: Sneaze 2007-03-27 15:49 |
| #7 Excalibur, please, for what I hope is the last time, permit me to remind you that we can achieve all the necessary objectives in Iran through use of conventional weapons. Fuel-air bombs, like the MOAB, produce explosions with the force of an atomic bomb and none of its fallout. Were the United States to employ first-use of nuclear weapons in Iran or elsewhere, it would be nothing less than an open invitation for terrorists to retaliate with atomic bombs on American soil. Once we had foolishly opened Pandora's nuclear box few, if any, Islamic regimes would feel many compunctions about facilitating such an atrocity against us. Even though Iran's nuclear facilities are hardened, the massive electrical generation sites and other utilities that are required to support such efforts are not. A series of fuel-air bombs detonated near major ventilaion ports will result in a vacuum pump-down of those buried facilities that would suck the lungs out of their scientists' bodies. Blast doors or no, triggering massive avalanches to cover points of egress will leave any survivors to suffocate or starve. America's superior military technology provides us with innumerable options in combating Iran's nuclear aspirations. Atomic bombs need not play any role whatsoever in crushing this tyrannical theocratic regime. The only real thing lacking is the political will to do it. All else required for this is strictly off-the-shelf. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-03-27 15:07 |
| #6 Jimmy Carter launched and personally micromanaged into failure a military rescue mission in which eight Americans died in an aircraft collision at Desert One. I distinctly remember a pre PC, pre internet snark refering to this mission as "The Carter Desert Classic"... of course I also remember the outrage when gas hit a buck a gallon...a BUCK a gallon... Ya'all must be crazy! |
| Posted by: Capsu 78 2007-03-27 10:53 |
| #5 If by "old fashioned" you mean stupid. (or glib?) |
| Posted by: Captain Lewis 2007-03-27 09:56 |
| #4 Or we could just use nuclear weapons. Call me old fashioned if you must. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2007-03-27 09:35 |
| #3 I recall reading about the electromagnetic weapon back then, and have since been frustrated that it's never been used. Understand, it would require some significant coordination: "OK. this will be so koowel. At 11:54:30 April 1st, we'll all turn off our equipment. Tehran will be soooo fried! So don't forget or your stuff will be fried too. Poland, I'm looking at you." |
| Posted by: Captain Lewis 2007-03-27 08:57 |
| #2 Dead on target. I hope someone in the WH is listening. |
| Posted by: Mac 2007-03-27 08:28 |
| #1 I would like that... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-03-27 07:47 |