The Discerning Texan

Glenn Reynolds has highlighted a PJM post from Omar Fadhil (from the ground breaking Iraq the Model blog) which speculates about how Iran might escalate an Israeli attack into a broader conflict involving the US and other Arab states in the region. Fadhil raises some interesting points, but it is difficult to see any scenario where the mullahs would come out ahead were they to carry through with their threats to escalate. Of course, given that many of them don't care about dying a martyr's death, it makes the threat a very real one.

Revisiting a comment I left on the PJM site, this is why I believe a military confrontation with Iran will (and must) happen sooner rather than later:

While it is true that an overwhelming percentage of the Iranian people--for the most part--can be construed as being sympathetic to the US, especially when it comes to removing the Mullah's in favor of a more West-friendly alternative. But a successful insurgency that would solve our (and Israel's) problem for us–is highly unlikely to occur before Iran has the nuclear weapons it desires. At that point Tel Aviv is at risk, as are hundreds of thousands of US troops in bases in Iraq and other “friendly” countries.

What ought to be crystal clear to even the dullest knives in the drawer: the Iranians are not going to back down via diplomacy. The only way we are going stop Iran's proliferation and peddling of WMD's to Islamist terror groups is to do it militarily.

One alternative which has been suggested here--and which would not result in loss of life unless Iran escalates--would be to destroy their only two oil refineries and then to blockade any incoming shipping to Iran. They would run out of gas very very quickly The nation would come to a virtual standstill..

In order to keep Russia and China at bay, it has been suggested that the US declare that it considers the Non-Proliferation treaty null and void because of Iran's intransigence--and then "threaten" to provide Nukes to Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Eastern Europe, etc., unless China and Russia play along. I think there is merit to this idea: the Russians went postal when Bush even brought up the subject of ABM’s for Eastern Europe… If Russia continues to supply rogue states like Iran with the technology to make nukes, why should we not provide the same technology to Georgia or Hungary?

But here are the reasons why I think Bush would be likely to not wait for the next President to decide the issue. After all, there are many benefits to solving this problem:

1. BEFORE any potential Democrat-Marxist consolidation of power after January, 2009, which might appease the Iranians--or worse.
2. BEFORE significant numbers of US troops are removed from the vicinity (i.e. in Iraq, with the success of the surge the domestic pressure to bring troops home is likely to increase. It would be much less costly to not have to pull all the troops out after our success in Iraq, only to place them back later).
3. WHILE gas prices are still high: think about it--if the prices were to go up another 100-200% in the short term because of an Iranian escalation or a battle over the Straits of Hormuz, our Congress would almost be FORCED to openly implement an agressive exploration/drilling campaign to dampen the zeal of oil speculators. I don't think the Leftists could afford to merely sit back and regurgitate the same tired “new technology” arguments, etc., if oil were to go that much higher.
   

Again, the EU/UN negotiating regime is not going to deter Iran in the least--all it does is to buy them valuable time; our time is running out. Yes I could see Iran “promising” to stop like the N. Koreans did (in exchange for OUR money of course); but (also like NK) Iran will not abandon its nuclear weapons voluntarily. In this sense, even the harshest "Sanctions" are useless; they are merely an excuse for the EU-topians to avoid a confrontation that arguably has to take place unless the World is going to roll over. Ask Saddam how those "sanctions" went for them (does "Oil for Food" ring a bell?)...

Unless there is an internal coup d’etat in Iran VERY SOON to remove the mullahs (unlikely, despite the public mood there), military action is realistically the ONLY way that Iran can be prevented (and likely USING) Nuclear weapons.

It will be up to Bush to have the cojones and historical perspective to do the right thing and support an Israeli attack (if that is how it goes down). Obama certainly would not have this level of courage and McCain is as big a question mark as Bush.

I think there will be an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, and that it will happen THIS YEAR. People in the West would be wise to ensure they have plenty of: food, water, weaponry, CASH ON HAND and other essentials--stored away for a rainy day. Because one thing that I can envision is Iran attempting to utilize its well-trained Hezbollah proxies to launch disrupting attacks in the US and elsewhere, especially against infrastructure, financial institutions, and/or power supply.

Ready or not, it is coming. I truly believe this.

Get ready for a bumpy, but necessary ride.