~
I heard an interesting interview on tv recently, where-in the guest, an author and "expert" on international affairs - this was a very knowledgeable and bright man - was asked what do we do about Iran?
His answer was troubling to the interviewer and to me. Essentially, he said there are no good options. His point was that no matter what we do, we more or less play into the hands of the Iranian leaders. If we put severe sanctions on Iran, the people will suffer, the leaders won't, and it will instill even stronger hatred for the US. If we (or Israel) bomb their nuclear facilities, we will at best slow them down for a few years, make their population hate us more, and the problem will come back worse. If we bomb other targets in Iran, such as the petroleum industry, we will cause another terrible oil shortage and cause pain not only in the US but around the world. If we try to support the anti-Iranian forces within the country, it will probably take too long, get many of them killed, and not work in the end. He said there are some very smart people in our government who are working on this problem and to date have found no "good" options.
Here's one I'd recommend if I were advising the NSC. Update the stupid rule barring us from carrying out covert political assassinations. Or just circumvent it. Take out the three or four top leaders in Iran, just as Lee Harvey Oswald (or whoever it was) took out JFK. There is always plausible deniability when these things are done with enough Machiavellian deception. This is the only option that puts the ball in their court and doesn't make cannon-fooder of our troops. (It seems this is one of the few things I and Pat Robertson agree on, although he was suggesting this approach to neutralize Hugo Chavez).
What are the Iranians going to do about it? Their country will descend into political chaos where the rebels might have a chance to oust the religious fanatics. What can the remains of the current Iranian leadership do? Appoint themselves as the new fanatical leaders? Take them out too. Keep doing it until "they get it" and the Iranians get some sane leadership. Compared to the other options, assassin's bullets or poison is cheaper both in dollars as well as in lives.
If they point their finger at us, we might claim that just as the Holocaust "never happened," we do not believe these assasinations ever happened - they were just unfortunate accidents.
Is there any morality in doing this? Of course there is. The Iranian leadership has made it plain. They intend to eradicate Israel. They intend to destroy the West. They support terrorists worldwide and join an international conspiracy to overthrow America. Is not the taking of these treacherous few lives not a just cost for saving the thousands or millions they threaten? Is there any morality to spending billions more of very-needed dollars sending hundreds of thousands of our troops somewhere to face death in order to do a job a few well-trained "hit-men" can do for a fraction of the cost in treasure and lives? How can there be any question?
If you ask me, I say today's Western leaders - including and perhaps especially our own - are among history's worst cowards. Why in hell else would they believe "their" lives are more valuable than their military or anyone else's? Of course they are not!
We had Ahmedinijad right here in New York City last week. It wouldn't have been the best place to take him out. Better to do it in his own country and with the greatest amount of plausible deniability. But, to illustrate, one well-trained "lunatic" in the crowd or across the street in an office building could have done it. Or an unfortunate manhole explosion under his car as it passed by would have done the job. These things happen.
Taking out a few of these leaders will send a powerfully loud and clear message to the rest of the world's tinhorn tyrants (of which there are far too many anyway). The Message: Keep screwing with us and you're next.
Recently, Christopher Hitchens, a fellow I respect, waxed about the concept of pre-emptive strikes. They are good, he opined, because while they can be very destructive they can save many, many more innocent lives than the miscreant lives they take. It's an old and good argument. But if pre-emptive strikes are good, pre-emptive assassinations are even better. For example, had the Europeans had the foresight to take out Hitler and a dozen of his top people before they went on their rampage, we might have saved the lives of fifty million people who were slaughtered in the lead-up and course of WWII.
There is no way a sane person can argue that saving fifty million innocent lives is not worth the killing of a few madmen. Who needs these people? The world would be so much better off without them.
Of course the question of where do we stop comes up. I'll leave that debate for another day. For now, we have a short list that few would disagree with.
There are all kinds of reasons our government doesn't consider this elegant solution. None of their reasons are smart. They say, for example, if we do it so will they. Well, you know fellas, that's the price of leadership. You want all the glory and gain attendant to your Washington DC jobs? In these dangerous times you also have to assume some risk. It's immoral to expect our young men in the military to assume it all for you. Somebody has to show some old fashioned American courage in DC. Is there no testosterone in Washington? Isn't this "the home of the brave?" Or is bravery another politically incorrect notion?
GW or Dick Cheney or somebody... save the lives of countless innocent men, women and children. Eradicate the crazy new Hitlers. Take 'em out NOW, before it's too late. History will vindicate this action.
