The World's Next Problem

What will be done about Iran?

Editor's Note: Thomas's commentary is in blue and Marcie's is in purple.

Since 1979, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been an enemy of the United States. From the moment they militantly seized our embassy, and took the embassy personnel hostage we knew they would be a recurring problem. After the rise of militant Islam in Tehran the mullahocracy of Iran has engaged in terrorist activities around the globe. Within their own military ranks sits Hezbollah; an organization that the Western nations recognize as a terrorist entity. For years they have served as Iran's proxies around the world, engaging in kidnappings, murders, bombings, and wars. Iran's newest venue is interfering in the Iraqi theater of operations. They have sent munitions, explosives and men into Iraq in an effort to continue the chaos there. Despite the fact that they have significant sectarian differences with al-Qaeda, they have assisted the predominantly Sunni terror group. Their goals in Iraq can only be speculated, but what is plainly obvious is that they are carrying on a war against us there right now. Regardless of what critics have been saying, a confrontation is coming soon between us and them. the only question that remains is "what will we do about them?"

The United States has had a long-standing policy of not negotiating with Iran. that policy has now changed as Ambassador Ryan Crocker and his diplomatic team have been working towards ending Iran's consistent incursions and meddling in Iraq's affairs. Unfortunately for the bureaucrats, Iran sees the negotiations as a sign of weakness; a sign we are more willing to talk than fight, and Iran only respects raw power. They have seen us engage in diplomatic futility in the United Nations (with Saddam Hussein and North Korea), and they saw the failure of direct diplomacy with North Korea. They watched as the Clinton Administration gave Kim Jong-Il what he wanted, and then they watched as the administration turned a blind eye to North Korea -- sure of themselves that Kim Jong-Il would abide by the agreed framework. What are we witnessing today? We're seeing Iran run the exact same playbook. They are showing no signs of keeping out of Iraq's internal problems. In fact a recent interview conducted with Major General James Simmons (deputy commanding general for Multi-National Forces-Iraq) said that as we were executing our surge strategy, Iran had "surged" themselves. They had ramped up their efforts to continue supplying the insurgent groups like the Mahdi militia and al Qaeda.

Similarly, diplomatic efforts to engage them on the question of their nuclear program is meeting with equal disdain. The EU-3 -- France, Germany, and Great Britain -- met with no success in getting Iran to curtail its nuclear program. When we stepped in, Iran walked away laughing, and has continued to laugh at the world ever since. Almost monthly President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues to threaten Israel's existence in a conflagration of "holy fire." Statements like this make the world community question the boasts of Iran that their program is for "peaceful energy purposes" only. Furthermore, to date the IAEA has not been allowed to inspect all of their nuclear facilities. They were allowed entry into one site -- Arak -- which is still under construction. There is a deal in the works to allow access to the Natanz facility, the site for the Iranian centrifuges. They claim they have been forthright with the IAEA, but inspectors have stated that many of their sites are still "off limits" to their inspectors. With their continued refusals to allow inspectors, the world is left with no alternative than to believe they are working on nuclear weapons research and development.

So we see that diplomacy isn't exactly working well with the mullahocracy. So what about the use of force? Before that's even addressed, let's take a look at what Iran has for a military:

Iranian Revolutionary Guard -- estimated at between 100,000 and 150,000
Quds Force (elite IRG units) -- estimated numbers between 2000 and 50,000
Basiji (voluntary paramilitary force) -- 90,000 full-time; 300,000 reservists; potentially 11,000,000
Hezbollah (still included in Iran's military) -- estimated at 11,000
IRGC Navy -- 20,000
IRGC Air Force (separate and distinct from regular Air Force) -- unknown
Iranian Air Force -- unknown

They're not slouches when it comes to their military, and anyone wishing to take them on is definitely going to have their hands full. That's not to say that a successful campaign of force couldn't be waged against them. Iran is, after all, up to it's neck in dissidents that aren't happy with the mullahs or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It would be ideal if the dissidents could rise up and execute a coup but without the training and support, they'll be killed at the hands of the Basiji. (The Basiji is President Ahmadinejad's de facto personal guards because he has such a fondness for them, and they reciprocate the same to him. They have been used to break up student protests in the past, and they're not exactly kind about it.) So while diplomacy isn't working as well as we thought, a military option has many merits to the situation.

A recent article in the Sunday Telegraph (September 2nd) it was revealed that the United States is wargaming a possible confrontation with Iran. In the scenario Iran has tested a nuclear weapon, thrown out IAEA inspectors, is causing sectarian strife in Iraq, and has blockaded the Straits of Hormuz. The Straits are a choke point in the Persian Gulf region. If blockaded, and other nations are not able to export their oil, oil prices would double. The Heritage Foundation participated in this wargaming session, and weighed in on the economic aspects. Yes, oil would rise in price, millions here in the US would lose their jobs, and approximately $161 billion would be gone from our GDP in one quarter. But they balance the dire news with better news. Releasing strategic oil reserves, drilling in alternative locations, ending import tariffs on ethanol fuel, and breaking the blockade itself are among the recommendations the heritage Foundation had, and they say it would "eliminate virtually all of the negative outcomes from the blockade."

Our response would be swift -- a three -day bombing campaign striking over 400 sites. These sites are the ones associated with their nuclear program, and their command and control facilities. We would utilize B2 bombers (out of Okinawa most likely) and cruise missiles to reduce Iran's ability to command their military, and end their ability to make nuclear weapons in the near future. For the reinforced bunkers that we believe house the most sensitive parts of their nuclear program we would use B61-11 bunker-busting tactical nuclear weapons. Natanz (the main centrifuge site), Arak, and their sole refinery would be targeted and taken out. After the air strikes would be carried out, US spec-ops teams would shoot into Iran to help the dissidents seize control of the government; one we hope will be decapitated at the end of the bombing raids. Of course, it's wise to step back and remember that this is simply a scenario, and one we would likely follow should Iran take the steps outlined by Marcie above. Furthermore, as this was revealed in a media source, it sends a message to Iran that our patience with their dawdling is slowly reaching an end.

We know there will be people who raise shouts of protest over such actions. They are the same people who were willing to allow Saddam Hussein continue in power, unfettered, as he cruised towards the lifting of the United Nations sanctions to move forward with his weapons programs again. The difference we face with Iran is that the leadership there is comprised of religious zealots who believe they are preparing for the "final battle" between their faith and the infidel hordes. They are right in that aspect. Should we execute any sort of plan against Iran, it will likely be the last war they ever participate in. And we will have acted in defense of freedom and liberty; in defense of the Western way of life that is directly threatened by a nuclear Iran.

He is a scholar of history, especially American history, and the United States Constitution. She has finished her undergrad studies, graduating with a BA in English and history and will move onto law school this fall where she will specialize in Constitutional Law. Together, Thomas and Marcie form the vanguard of conservative opinion at Hamilton, Madison, and Jay -- a blogging site devoted to advancing the conservative cause by challenging the liberal lies and deceit spread by the media, and espoused by the Left in general. Both are expert debaters, and have beaten many liberals into submission with their collective wit, and unmatched knowledge. The pair is married, and resides in Arizona

Archives of "Throwing Down the Gauntlet"

Send an e mail to Thomas Clark and Marcie Packard

Check out Thomas and Marcie's blog: Hamilton, Madison, and Jay