| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Steyn: Let's give Iran some of its own medicine |
| 2006-01-17 |
| So let me see. On the one hand, we have a regime that is pressing full steam ahead with its nuclear programme and whose president has threatened to wipe another sovereign state off the map. And, on the other side of the negotiations, we have Her Britannic Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Jack Straw has been at pains to emphasise that no military action against Iran is being contemplated by him or anybody else, but in a sign that he's losing patience with the mullahs Mr Straw's officials have indicated that they're prepared to consider the possibility of possibly considering the preparation of a possible motion on sanctions for the UN Security Council to consider the possibility of considering. But don't worry, we're not escalating this thing any more than necessary. Initially, the FCO is considering "narrowly targeted sanctions such as a travel ban on Iranian leaders". That'll show 'em: Iranian missiles may be able to leave Iranian airspace, but the deputy trade minister won't. No more trips to Paris for the spring collections or skiing in Gstaad for the A-list ayatollahs. Needless to say, the German deputy foreign minister, Gernot Erler, has already cautioned that this may be going too far, and that sanctions could well hurt us more than it hurts the Iranians. Perhaps this is what passes is for a good cop/bad cop routine, with Herr Erler affably suggesting to the punks that they might want to cooperate or he'll have to send his pal Jack in to tear up their tickets for the Michael Moore premiÚre at the Cannes Film Festival. But, if I were President Ahmadinejad or the wackier ayatollahs, I'd be mulling over the kid glove treatment from Jack Straw and Co and figuring: wow, if this is the respect we get before the nukes are fully operational, imagine how they'll be treating us this time next year. Incidentally, the assumption in the European press that the nuclear payload won't be ready to fly for three or four years is laughably optimistic. So any Western strategy that takes time is in the regime's favour. After all, President Ahmaggedonouttahere's formative experience was his participation in the seizure of the US embassy in Teheran in 1979. I believe it was Andrei Gromyko who remarked that, if the students had pulled the same stunt at the Soviet embassy, Teheran would have been a crater by lunchtime. So what can be done? Right now, Iran can count on at least two Security Council vetoes against any meaningful action by the "international community". As for the unilaterally inclined, the difficulty for the US and Israel is that there's really no Osirak-type resolution of the problem - a quick surgical strike, in and out. By most counts, there are upwards of a couple of hundred potential sites spread across a wide range of diverse terrain, from remote mountain fastnesses to residential suburbs. To neutralise them all would require a sustained bombing campaign lasting several weeks, and with the usual collateral damage at schools, hospitals, etc, plastered all over CNN and the BBC. Meanwhile, Iraq's Shia south would turn into another Sunni Triangle for coalition forces. Every challenge to the West begins as a contest of wills - and for the Iranians recent history, from the Shah and the embassy siege to the Iraqi "insurgency" and Mr Straw's soundbites, tells them the West can't muster the strength of will needed to force them to back down. But, granted the Iranian destabilisation of Iraq and their sponsorship of terror groups in Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority, surely it shouldn't be difficult to give them a taste of their own medicine. Who, after all, likes the Teheran regime? The Russian and Chinese and North Korean governments and the fulsome Mr Straw appear to, but there's less evidence that the Iranian people do. The majority of Iran's population is younger than the revolution: whether or not they're as "pro-American" as is sometimes claimed, they have no memory of the Shah; all they've ever known is their ramshackle Islamic republic where the unemployment rate is currently 25 per cent. If war breaks out, those surplus young men will be in uniform and defending their homeland. Why not tap into their excess energy right now? As the foreign terrorists have demonstrated in Iraq, you don't need a lot of local support to give the impression (at least to Tariq Ali and John Pilger) of a popular insurgency. Would it not be feasible to turn the tables and upgrade Iran's somewhat lethargic dissidents into something a little livelier? A Teheran preoccupied by internal suppression will find it harder to pull off its pretensions to regional superpower status. Who else could we stir up? Well, did you see that story in the Sunday Telegraph? Eight of the regime's border guards have been kidnapped and threatened with decapitation by a fanatical Sunni group in Iranian Baluchistan. I'm of the view that the Shia are a much better long-term bet as reformable Muslims, but given that there are six million Sunni in Iran and that they're a majority in some provinces, would it not be possible to give the regime its own Sunni Triangle? No option is without risks, though some are overstated, including regional anger at any Western action: I doubt whether many Arab Sunni regimes really wish to live under the nuclear umbrella of a Persian Shia superpower. And, indeed, one further reason (as if you need one) to put the skids under Boy Assad in Damascus is to underline that there's a price to be paid for getting too cosy with Teheran. But every risk has to be weighed against the certainty that Iran would use its nuclear capacity in the same way it uses its other assets - by supporting terror groups that operate against its enemies. And Jack Straw's mullah-coddling is particularly unworthy in that, insofar as Iran has a strategy, the president's chief adviser, Hassan Abbassi, has based it on the premise that "Britain is the mother of all evils" - the evils being America, Australia, Israel, the Gulf states and even Canada and New Zealand, all of which are the malign progeny of the British Empire. "We have established a department that will take care of England," said Mr Abbassi last May. "England's demise is on our agenda." Apropos the ayatollahs, England could at least return the compliment. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #14 Would it not be feasible to turn the tables and upgrade Iran's somewhat lethargic dissidents into something a little livelier? A Teheran preoccupied by internal suppression will find it harder to pull off its pretensions to regional superpower status. Notice SE Iran is where he is talking - and there and the coastal Arabs, as well as the Kurds in the North and Pashtun in the easter border (Afghnistan) area. I believe I posted about this a couple of days ago. Its a shame I didnt express myself as well as Steyn. But he must be reading Rantburg to crib my ideas (or else have the same mindset and be talking to the same people I do). Hah Hah! |
| Posted by: Oldspook 2006-01-17 19:57 |
| #13 If they really want to be a world player, well then lets give them the attention they are screaming for. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-01-17 16:26 |
| #12 But, if I were President Ahmadinejad or the wackier ayatollahs, I'd be mulling over the kid glove treatment from Jack Straw and Co and figuring: wow, if this is the respect we get before the nukes are fully operational, imagine how they'll be treating us this time next year. And that, pretty much, sums it up. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-01-17 16:11 |
| #11 I like it, Anonymoose. Where is rjschwarz (no T), this is right up his alley. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-01-17 15:43 |
| #10 Wouldn't it be far more entertaining to try and unnerve the Iranian public as much as possible? For example, over satellite, start airing "The Day After" and "Threads" every night. Newly-made gruesome documentaries about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with lots of emphasis on the medical effects of radiation. Get some of Hollywood's talented f/x guys and put together a no-name actor low budget movie about Iran after a nuclear war. Make it as grotesque as humanly possible. Blame the Mullahs and their President by name for secretly building a nuke and throwing it at Israel, because they are also secretly Satan worshippers. Crudely appeal to ignorance and superstition. And not only does Israel shoot it down, but EVERYBODY, Israel, the US, France, Russia and even China begins lobbing nuclear weapons at Iran. Show the scortched remains of Mecca and Media. Tehran and Qom as cities of the dead. Show the survivors burning Mullahs at the stake, and putting the heads of their leaders on poles. Really take it to ridiculous lengths, choking and puking in the aisles gross. Then burn a million DVDs. You can't tell me that making a bad movie isn't preferable to most other alternatives. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-01-17 15:36 |
| #9 I like Shep UK's solution. Very thorough indeed. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-01-17 15:27 |
| #8 You're right, they shoulda had the mole be a bab inside TCU named Valerie. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-01-17 10:26 |
#7 Why not tap into their excess energy right now? As the foreign terrorists have demonstrated in Iraq, you don't need a lot of local support to give the impression (at least to Tariq Ali and John Pilger) of a popular insurgency. Would it not be feasible to turn the tables and upgrade Iran's somewhat lethargic dissidents into something a little livelier? A Teheran preoccupied by internal suppression will find it harder to pull off its pretensions to regional superpower status.If our CIA had more Jack Bauers and fewer Valerie Plames, this would be right up their alley. |
| Posted by: eLarson 2006-01-17 09:15 |
| #6 I propose that Iran should try luke warm pablum with non fat milk, it sure works for me. |
| Posted by: Jack Straw 2006-01-17 08:50 |
| #5 Kick them out of the World Cup [soccer] and Ahmadjinedad will be one hell of an unpopular beardie. If that don't work then let's make the rubble bounce a few times and be quick about it. |
| Posted by: Howard UK 2006-01-17 06:54 |
| #4 "Damn the guy can write. He lances the buffoons, balloons, and boils with surgical skill. He lampoons and dismisses the PC morons who'd get us all killed if things were left to their cheesedick agendas. He carries out the smarmy feckless Tranzi garbage without ceremony. He can tell shit from Shinola at a thousand paces. And, well, he just makes the whole thing fun to boot." And that's the difference between Steyn and Hanson. Both are great, but Steyn covers similar ground, with similar perspective, whilst getting a chuckle. |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2006-01-17 06:49 |
| #3 a brilliant peice but i still think a month or two of hardcore desert storm style bombing campaign on thier nuke facilities will put em back a decade or so - buying us some time at least. Other then that though he is dead right and Jack Straw man has acted like a frightened dickhead. Atomic warfare is getting closer and closer to us all and i fear its not going to be us firing the opening shots :( As to what the delivery method for these Iranian nukes will be its anyones guess, ok an airburst nuke is the ultimate but im sure transport ships, civilian aircraft, trucks and maybe even large vans could all be used to strike our civilian areas,passed into the hands of numerous terrorist groups so as to try and create as much of a nightmare as they can for us. Unfortuantly i believe they are half way through these 'plans' already and we are really pushing it if we are to catch up as it were and gain some sort of initiative over the Mad Mullahs and co.I'm not convinced about an uprising at all, my view is the students and others who would like to revolt would be too brutally and viciously put down by the overwhelming conventional power of elements of the Iranian military.I should think these guys could make Tianaman Square look like a playground fight. Sacnctions will be taken as a decleration of war by the Mad Mullahs but i guess we cant blame em for that lol so there out of the question (yay). What i think this boils down to is the only way to deal with them - through force,whos gonna be 'the force'? Germany would provide basing rights i guess and a few covert target watchers but fck all else i'm guessing,france, well im not even gonna try and guess that but probaly just provide a whole host of problems for us, other Euros such as poland may help in limited ways and, UK would be best off bolstering up in Southern Iraq setting up some solid defensive arragements including plenty of air support such as harriers and jaguars and hell we got apaches so lets ship 30 or so of them out there to give us some real tank banging power and deter the Iranian armour divisions in the first place.USA would do well to bring in a load of A-10 hogs to the Iraqi theatre again as a tank banging defensive option,J-stars and sht like that are already deployed as are a fair few patriot batteries (i think) get a few wings of F-15s for defensive work. Get as many covert bases in the planning ready to go at a moments notice too cos the Iranians will get people into Iraq to get targets for thier collection of various surface to surface missiles.US Navy should get a fair few carriers but the more you stack in the gulf waters the higher the danger,perhaps stay outa the gulf altogether and fly futher but keep the carriers safer and leave other air assets to patrol the gulf. Let them know their are a few Ohio class subs lurking somewhere within striking range too and more LA class subs then they can count ready to rain potentially thousands of cruise missiles down on em.I guess some other gulf countrys would help to in a limited and covert manner which is good and overflight rights and basing options shouldnt be as hard as what some claim they will be to get. I 'm sure we can defeat the Iranian regime in conventional warfare and remove thier nuke program But only if we use the maximum force we have straight away - NO gradual ramping up of air campaign over several months but an all out thrashing opening with everything we have and not stopping till every army, airforce and navy base and units have been destroyed. I'm thinking Desert Storm amounts of destroyed armour and bases etc but none of the stopping after a month or so to let most of the elite units go back to safty,no geopgraphic boundries either hit them at every end of thier country,take out every bridge and power station, evry port and airport, every train station and any desanilation plants they have, hit them so hard and in so many differant ways the country simply collapses - that is the only answer. They could not possibly 'grow back' stronger and anyone who thinks they could is as dellusional as the Mad Mullahs themselves. Sometimes we have to stand up and crush the oppisition or we'll be crushed ourselves. |
| Posted by: Shep UK 2006-01-17 06:45 |
| #2 And we're damned lucky to have him ... I just wish there were more like him on our side and bringing clarity to people who don't follow what's going on carefully, the ones who get their worldview from ABC and CNN and maybe the NYT. |
| Posted by: too true 2006-01-17 05:47 |
| #1 Damn the guy can write. He lances the buffoons, balloons, and boils with surgical skill. He lampoons and dismisses the PC morons who'd get us all killed if things were left to their cheesedick agendas. He carries out the smarmy feckless Tranzi garbage without ceremony. He can tell shit from Shinola at a thousand paces. And, well, he just makes the whole thing fun to boot. Wowsers. Steyn is unique. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-01-17 05:04 |