THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume VII, Issue # 229, October 18, 2005
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
HORRIBLE IRANIAN OPTIONS
By Alan Caruba
THE ROLE OF IRAN IN THE WORLDWIDE ISLAMIC JIHAD AGAINST AMERICA & WESTERN CIVILIZATION: TRANSPARENCY
OF THE BAD INTENTIONS OF THE AYATOLLAHS CURRENTLY RULING IRAN -- THE IRANIAN POLITICAL REGIME'S ENDEAVOR TO
ACQUIRE A NUCLEAR ARSENAL, WHICH, WITHOUT HESITATION, IT WOULD USE, ALONG WITH TERRORISTS & DIRTY RADIATION
BOMBS -- THE REGIME'S UNDISGUISED DETERMINATION TO DESTROY THE U.S.A. -- THE COMING SHOWDOWN BETWEEN THE
U.S.A. & IRAN & THE LIKELY CONSEQUENCES OF THE CONFLICT
FULL STORY:
October 22, 1962, is one of those dates that have slipped into history, overshadowed now by September 11, 2001.
Those of us who lived through October 22, 1962, and the tense week that followed, the question was whether the world was about
to have its first -- and probably its last -- nuclear war. It was the day President John F. Kennedy addressed the nation to announce
the U.S. naval blockade of Cuba, due to the fact that the Soviet Union was putting nuclear missiles there. Those missiles were
capable of reaching Washington, D.C., and several major U.S. southeastern and western cities.
I can recall that neither I nor anyone else I knew believed that Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet Premier, would launch a nuclear war.
By Friday, October 26, 1962, the White House received a letter from Khrushchev stating that the missiles would be removed, if the
President would publicly announce that the U.S.A. would not invade the island nation. On the following Sunday, Khrushchev
publicly announced the missiles would be removed.
Armageddon was postponed in October, 1962.
Pretend you are the President of the United States. It is October, 2005, and the latest briefing you’ve received about Iran and the
options available to you would keep most men up at night.
The ayatollahs currently running Iran have been hell bent on destroying the United States of America (and the State of Israel)
since the day they seized power in Iran in 1979. Cunning and ruthless, the odds are the ayatollahs will not act as rationally as
did Krushchev. It is doubtful that, once the ayatollahs acquire the ability to put a nuclear weapon on top of a missile, they will
be reluctant to use it.
They have been working for more than twenty years to achieve this capability and, depending on which analysis you select, they
are either very close to being a nuclear power or about ten years from it. Others suggest they would not use nuclear weapons
unless attacked.
While they don’t have an intercontinental missile capable of hitting the United States, they do have missiles able to reach all of
Europe, including the United Kingdom. Given Europe’s track record of appeasement and surrender, there is little doubt what path
the ayatollahs will take.
The Russians, for example, aren’t any more suicidal now than they were in 1962. And they are well within missile range of Iran.
That leaves the United States in a familiar position. Alone. The only real ally we have in the area is Israel, which is also marked for
destruction.
And, Mr. President, there’s an added twist to the problem of Iran. The destruction of American cities does not require long-range
missiles. A few stolen Russian suitcases rigged to be “dirty bombs,” would spread radiation sufficient to render every building,
bridge, and subway uninhabitable. The ayatollahs, along with the boys from al-Qa'ida, have wannabe martyrs lined up around the
block to do the job.
That’s the conclusion of a stack of books I have read of late. They have titles like Countdown to Terror, The Al-Qa'ida
Connection, Countdown to Crisis, Tehran Rising, and The Far Enemy. It’s not like this scenario is a Big
Secret. The Pentagon knows it. The Central Intelligence Agency knows it. I know it, and, Mr. President, you know it.
A great deal of time and talk about sanctions, negotiations, United Nations resolutions, and the like will occur in the months and
years ahead. Mr. President, you don’t want the ayatollahs to have nuclear weapons. That leaves some very dicey options.
There is the option of using “Bunker Buster” bombs against Iran’s many nuclear weapons sites. You’d have to do it without
advance notice. It will trigger an Iranian response that would include closing down the Strait of Hormuz and threatening oil
facilities in Arab nations seen to be U.S. collaborators. The Saudis don’t like the Iranians, so they will line up with us. So will
Kuwait and other emirates. Other than their providing us with oil, however, these Arab states can't help much. Militarily, we’re
still on our own.
The problem is compounded by the fact that Iran shares a long border with Iraq, the newest constitutional democracy in the
Middle Eastern region. There’s no love loss between Iran and Iraq, but we probably don’t have enough military manpower for a
conventional war with Iran. After all, those “insurgents” are not Iraqis; they’re Iranians, Syrians, and other malcontents recruited
by Iran and al-Qa'ida.
Of course, there’s the possibility it would be easier to get compliance after you’ve blown up such places. Or, bombing their
nuclear facilities would likely speed up the Iranian timetable to send their martyrs here by boat, by plane, by hang-glider, by
tunnel, by car, by truck, or just a nice walk across the border of Canada or Mexico. The odds are, they’re already here.
There is only a slim possibility Iranians would pour into the streets and overthrow the ayatollahs. They’ve tried that in the past
and it just filled up Iranian prisons and graveyards.
The preemptive attack option, no doubt, accounts for the Pentagon proposal that the United States stipulate to a nuclear first-strike
policy. This is roughly comparable to Monday, October 15, 1962, when a U-2 reconnaissance aircraft returned to base with photos
of several SS-4 nuclear missile sites in Cuba. A week later the possibility of Armageddon went from being biblical to being the real
thing.
Khrushchev is dead. Kennedy is dead. But Fidel Castro is alive, and so is Mahmood Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, who was
one of the youthful leaders of the Islamic Revolution that drove the Shah out and, in 1979, took US diplomats hostage for 444 days.
Behind him is the real power, the Supreme Council, led by Ali Khameni.
In August, 2004, Khameni was answering questions from Islamic guidance officials when he was asked, “Is our Islamic Republic at
war against the United States?” He replied, “It is the United States that is at war against our Islamic Revolution.” Same thing.
Around the same time, an Arab newspaper published in London and Beirut reported that the head of Iran’s “Brigades of the Shahids
of the Global Islamic Awakening,” Hassan Abbasi, had bragged of “a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon
civilization.” He went on to boast:
“There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and the West. We have already spied
on these sites and we know how we are going to attack them.”
So, Iran’s bad intentions are not a big secret. Back in the 1930s, neither were Hitler’s nor those of the Emperor of Japan, but it still
took Pearl Harbor to get us into the war against both. If 9-11 is any indicator, we won’t have any notice of the next attack. It will just
be too damned late. Pretend you’re the President of the United States. What would you do?
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
The Middle East & the Problem of Iran
Islamism & Jihadism -- The Threat of Radical Islam
Page Three
Page Two
Page One
War & Peace in the Real World
Page Two
Page One
Islamist Terrorist Attacks on the U.S.A.
Osama bin Laden & the Islamist Declaration of War
Against the U.S.A. & Western Civilization
Islamist International Terrorism &
U.S. Intelligence Agencies
U.S. National Security Strategy
Alan Caruba is a veteran business and science writer, a Public Relations Counselor, and Founder of the National Anxiety Center, a
clearinghouse for information about media-driven scare campaigns. Caruba writes a weekly commentary, "Warning Signs," posted
on the Internet website of the National Anxiety Center, which is located at
www.anxietycenter.com.
© Alan Caruba 2005
Published with Permission of Alan Caruba
ACaruba@AOL.Com
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume VII, 2005
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues