Iran’s ethics consist of anything allowable to further allah’s cause. Essentially, no ethics at all; none for dhimmis, none for the umma. Just none. Inshallah.

IMO anything less than a full effort from our side is unethical. Politically inevitable, but irresponsible and ultimately very costly. We put down rabid dogs, but we are supposed to “manage” Iran with clever “nuanced” diplomacy. Somebody will get bit. Recently it was the little satan. Any other satans around?

Diplomacy will not stop Iran from acquiring the bomb. Iran uses diplomacy far too cynically for anything to be accomplished by the suit and tie crowd. To prevent Iran from going nuclear, we will eventually need to physically wrest the genie from Iran’s fist.

Target 1 should be Ahmadinejad, target 2 the mad mullahs, target 3 the revolutionary guards (use cluster munitions delivered continually by stealth cruise/ballistic carriers until only the rubble still bounces), target 4 any & all nuke facilities. And whatever air-defense assets need to be reduced to ash to enable striking 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Don’t talk about it, don’t telegraph the punch, don’t warn the target, don’t try to get the UN to actually do anything (ha!), just wait until 1 & 2 are definitely in the cross-hairs, take them out and start it off. Yes, the entire world would protest. In public that is. Privately, they would be relieved and secretly impressed some american had sufficiently large brass ones to actually pull the trigger. I would be too. Think how Kim Il-Sung’s pucker factor would escalate viewing that day’s news.

With Ahmadinejad and the mullahs reduced to bad odor, they cannot rally nationalistic support to them. It would create a risky power vacuum. Is something worse than the current Iran possible? Perhaps encourage the Iraqi kurds to annex Iranian kurdistan … and start looking at Syrian Kurdistan. (Take turkish kurdistan by democratic methods – wanne-be-european turkey would have to play ball. Right?) Suggest the Iraqi shia annex the arab portions of Iran.

What is Iran gonna do? Not sell us oil? So it goes to china … relieving pressure elsewhere in the market for that fungible good.

Form hizbollah cells around the world? They already did that. Or tried. Flushing them out would offer some advantages. With the revolutionary guards taken out, much of the support infrastructure went away too. W/o rev guards, who activates the hizbollah sleeper cells? With the Rev Guards a smoking hole, perhaps they just keep napping. Inshallah.

Support Syria and their twist on the usual insanity? They are already doing that. Cut off the Revolutionary Guards cuts off their support for Bashar’s regime. Whither on the vine time.

Toss some more terror master-minds back into the wild? Get ‘em out of Iran and they become more killable. Turn Mossad and Delta loose with blanket authorizations. The huntin’s good and no bag limit.

Sponsor militias and death squads in Iraq? Are they holding back now? Can it get much worse? If they do something more overt, maybe we can finally wipe out the Mahdi Militia.

Let’s get to end-game and finish this thing. And do it before the hidden iman nut-bags get a weapon only they would be loony enough to use.

But living mostly in the real world, it seems far more likely the west will have to take a nuke detonated in times square before it will get decisive enough (or enough quiet from the pacifists) to take off the gloves and git ‘er done. And by that time, Ahmadinejad and the mullahs will be hiding in some bomb-proof place (hip-deep in hookers at the Las Vegas Mirage could work.) and the Rev Guards will be dug-in as well. Gitting it done will be immeasurably harder, more expensive and less decisive. The unintended consequence of conducting oneself as a boy scout in all things.

(Ironic how the bluest city in a blue state generating large amounts of defacto terrorist support (NYT) seems to be the target that gets the jihadis the most worked up.)

Western civilization, like a crack addict, will ignore the oncoming anschluss in favor of political correctness and avoiding ethnic profiling. Will persist in overlooking its own co-dependent relationship with religious extremism and blunder onwards deeply concerned with Mel Gibson and his chemical/social issues. Will throw decent sensible men from office in favor of left wingers (who can buy office with family money) deeply in denial concerning the very realness of the threat. Will continue to mostly ignore terror operations apprehended prior to execution because they lack the shock and sharp anguish of real blood in the streets.

Just hope me and mine are not at ground zero when the runaway train jumps the rails. Counting on ‘big world, small family’ as a strategy sure feels complacent. Beyond voting for candidates who seem to get it (and making the occasional obscure net post), what else can we do? (My enlist-by date has long since passed. Our military is probably better off anyway.)

(Time for me to go to irey.com and make a contribution.)

Does W have a window to be decisive immediately after this fall’s elections?

When I read stuff like the Professors I realize it’s all paralysisng fear brought on by a felling of helplessness or we are running out of options. I say it’s like building a Leggo project or acquiring a new airplane for the Navy. One step at a time, easy does it and never bite off more than you can chew.

If we give into helplessness and humiliation we really do resemble our Islamo-facist enemy. While I personally take the beady-eyed. electrical engineer running Iran seriously, he can be contained without breaking out the heavy stuff. Proportionality and a realistic approach are needed first. One of those is to keep them from ever having nucs and the means to deliver them…

B2

If we start throwing nuclear weapons around like ticker tape in a parade Beijing and Moscow are going to get very nervous. They might even decide to take some action now while they have capability rather than wait and possibly lose it. Worse yet, if we jump straight to nukes when attacking Iran what’s to keep China from using nuclear weapons against Taiwan, or Russia from nuking Turkey because of a dispute over the Bosporus?

In response to a WMD attack or to end a total war? Sure. Everyone knows those are the rules and can adjust their policy accordingly. Low yield nuclear bunker-busters in an otherwise conventional war? Maybe. These don’t aren’t the city destroyers and have very limited effects, basically conventional weapons but more effective. But first strike in the opening moves of a war would make the rest of the world fear us the same way we fear a nuclear Iran, just magnified 19000 times.