Time To Fight Or Retreat
Iran is directing and feeding the destruction of the struggling Iraqi democracy. That leaves the US two choices - attack Iran or retreat. History suggests the former will be most conducive to a peaceful world, and president should act soon.
A report says the Mullahs are supporting both Sunni and Shiite terrorists in Iraq.
Iran is supporting both Sunni and Shiite terrorists in the Iraqi civil war, according to secret Iranian documents captured by Americans in Iraq.
An American intelligence official said the new material, which has been authenticated within the intelligence community, confirms "that Iran is working closely with both the Shiite militias and Sunni Jihadist groups."
...Another American official who has seen the summaries of the reporting affiliated with the arrests said it comprised a "smoking gun." "We found plans for attacks, phone numbers affiliated with Sunni bad guys, a lot of things that filled in the blanks on what these guys are up to," the official said.
Iran can do this because the US has left it untouched.
Granting aggressor nations safe haven status has been the pattern since WW2:
- In Korea, we faced the Chinese Red Army which operated from safe bases in China.
- In Vietnam, the Communist North waged unrestricted war on the South without paying any penalty until the very end, when the US trashed them in 12 days with Linebacker II.
- We stopped the Guld War after we'd chased Saddam out of Kuwait.
None of these wars produced a satisfactory result - North Korea is set start the next nuclear war, Vietnam is still a basket case after its talented people fled (or died in the attempt), Saddam killed a million people and almost perfected nuclear weapons after the Gulf War.
In all probability, when the US leaves Iraq, there will be a bloody war in which the Turks suppress the Kurds, the Shiites slaughter the Sunnis, and Iran takes the remains of Iraq. Thus enriched, it will be better able to nuke the Israelis.
Conversely, wars we have faught to the finish have stayed won - Germany and Japan now don't fight. This is probably because we defeated both nations in detail.
The peoples of China, North Vietnam, and Gulf War Iraq paid no price for the aggression of their leaders. Indeed, the current problems in Iraq stem from the successful efforts of the US military to defeat Saddam with minimal enemy causalities and theatrical "Shock and Awe".It follows that successful wars can't be fought with half measures - you either destroy the enemy in detail, or - EU style - you don't fight.
It's easily within the power of the US to take down Iran - an extended Linebacker II-style assault would destroy over 90% of the following Iranian assets in a few weeks of air, missile and special forces attacks:
- air defense system: radars, planes, missiles
- air offense assets: ballistic missiles, bombers, helos
- nuclear infrastructure
- power plants
- ground forces: C&C and bases
- oil extraction, distribution and storage
- transportation hubs: airports, ports.
Most of these facilities are reasonably remote, highly visible, and can be destroyed - using modern weapons - with less civilian casualties than Linebacker II inflicted (about 1,600).
Taking out Iran as an oil supplier would cause a big spike in oil prices, but that would only speed up our move away form dependence on Mideast and Russian oil.
Of course such an attack would be political suicide for the president, but he's gone in 2 years anyway and surely doesn't want his legacy to be the enslavement of the Iraqi people liberated at such cost in US blood and treasure.
So this is a no-brainer. Provided, that is, the Dems can't or won't shut the operation down. If they're smart, they won't - even blue staters don't like losing wars.