A Clearer and More Present Danger

There have been endless debates over the moral justification for the preemptive strike against Iraq. Suffice to say such action, to be even considered justified, must be in proportionate response to the documented authenticity, severity and immediacy of the threat in question. I will pass on that particular debate for now, but as to the justification for or morality of a preemptive strike per se, it would be foolhardy to reject such an option out of hand. Case in point: Iran.Iran, a country whose president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, recently demanded that "Israel must be wiped off the map" and whose totalitarian regime punishes "un-Islamic" behavior among its own people. Iran, a country which has attempted to acquire nuclear-bomb technology.

Iran, a country that flouted a previous agreement to stop enriching uranium. Iran, a country that is an avowed and documented enemy of the United States repeatedly calling for "Death to America." Iran, where the Ayatollah Khomeini was the first to install a modern Islamic theocratic system, I.e., a totalitarian blend of mosque and state.

Iran, the country that seized our embassy in Tehran in 1979 and murdered hostages. Iran, a major sponsor of terrorism; financing, sheltering and training terrorists from groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and al-Qaida. It is submitted that Iran presents a far greater danger to the United State's security than did Iraq, for Iran poses a clear and present danger inasmuch as it may be building nuclear weapons sooner rather than later.

Iran's asserts that its nuclear objectives are solely for achieving nuclear energy for civilian purposes. Those who believe that engage in whimsy. Iran is one of the largest oil producer in OPEC and has large gas reserves; in fact, it has more oil to generate electricity than it could possibly consume.

Clearly, any need for nuclear energy is absurd.More to the point, Britain, Germany, and France are currently engaged in diplomatic efforts with Iran. These efforts, supported by Washington, are seen as a win-win way to resolve the issues associated with Iran's suspected program to develop nuclear weapons. Ironically, such talks were triggered in the first place by Iran's flouting of a previous agreement to stop enriching uranium.

By negotiating with Iran and its mullahs and granting them economic incentives, including the possible purchase of commercial aircraft and entry into the World Trade Organization, some believe Iran will forego its darker ambitions and the West can thereby avoid a military confrontation. Of course, while the incentive can help strengthen Iran's economy, they also turn it into an even greater threat. What Iran really wants is a nuclear weapon.the better to use as a blackmailing wedge at future negotiating tables (as is the case with North Korea) and far worse, the better to use against its enemies such as Israel. If it can accomplish this while having become economically stronger thanks to the Euro economic give away's, all the better.

This entire deal smells of mortgaging the future by purchasing the sinecure of peace today; a "deal" that would allow Iran to gain critically valuable time in which to engage, if not complete, its nuclear-weapons research. This approach could very well result in Iran declaring at some future date (as did North Korea to everyone's recent horror) that it has succeeded in building nuclear weapons.Only the intellectually naive and high flying doves, who dangerously ignore the harsh lessons of history, can truly believe that such fear-based diplomatic appeasement will deflect Iran from its not-so-hidden agenda. As Margaret Thatcher once said, "I seem to smell the stench of appeasement in the air.

" Far more telling is this quote by Jose Maria Aznar, former Spanish President, in June of this year, "Europe likes appeasement very much; this is one of the most important differences between us and the States.".Some may recall that in 1981, Israeli war planes, in a widely criticized but extremely successful preemptive stealth attack ordered by then-Prime Minister Menachem Begin, destroyed an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor. The raid rendered Iraq's nuclear capability null and void. Nevertheless, based on a subsequent and hotly debated perceived threat of weapons of mass destruction, the United States launched a preemptive invasion against that country?even though the threat of biological and nuclear weapons in Iraq was never truly established after the invasion.

Surely a more real threat of weapons of mass destruction of the nuclear variety exists in Iran today and suggests strong consideration of a manifestly more justified strike against that country. The time is now to zero in on Iran within the context of what kind of threat it presents. Iran should be condemned forthwith and its nuclear ambitions effectively muzzled. If not, we can expect a far deadlier avowed enemy to confront.Most assuredly, The United States should actively encourage and actively assist the efforts of the pro-freedom fighters and courageous students in Iran in order to launch a revolution from within that will overturn its terrorist-supporting regime. No one despises Islamic theocracy more than the young people and Iranian students who, for the past several years, have held mass protests in the streets.

Despite strong and brutal opposition, this rebellion is growing and The United States should encourage it in whatever way it can. This is the ideal solution. But the United States also has an obligation to defend its people from Iran's continuing and escalating threats?and to do this by whatever means necessary.

"No man can tame a tiger into a kitten by stroking it. There can be no appeasement with ruthlessness. There can be no reasoning with an incendiary bomb.

" ?Franklin D. Roosevelt.

By: Theodore Sares