The Case for Bombing Iran

Norman Podhoretz has a great article in commentarymagazine.com spelling out his reasoning for the urgent need to confront Iran militarily. His comparisons of Hitler and the world community's attempts to appease the ideologically driven Nazi leader to the present day kowtowing to Islamofascism and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran is chillingly blunt. It is definitely a "must read".

Here also is a brief interview with Norman highlighting his concerns.



The left will, of course, decry and bloviate about the warmongering attitudes of concerned Americans as being based in fear, racial bigotry, lack of understanding, blah, blah, blah, ad nauseum.

Norman goes into great detail about the similarities and differences in WWII, the Cold War (he calls it WWIII), and the current War on Terror (he calls it WWIV). Here is a chilling section of the article in which Norman also quotes Bernard Lewis.

But listen to what Bernard Lewis, the greatest authority of our time on the Islamic world, has to say in this context on the subject of deterrence:

MAD, mutual assured destruction, [was effective] right through the cold war. Both sides had nuclear weapons. Neither side used them, because both sides knew the other would retaliate in kind. This will not work with a religious fanatic [like Ahmadinejad]. For him, mutual assured destruction is not a deterrent, it is an inducement. We know already that [Iran’s leaders] do not give a damn about killing their own people in great numbers. We have seen it again and again. In the final scenario, and this applies all the more strongly if they kill large numbers of their own people, they are doing them a favor. They are giving them a quick free pass to heaven and all its delights.

Nor are they inhibited by a love of country:

We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.

These were the words of the Ayatollah Khomeini, who ruled Iran from 1979 to 1989, and there is no reason to suppose that his disciple Ahmadinejad feels any differently.

Still less would deterrence work where Israel was concerned. For as the Ayatollah Rafsanjani (who is supposedly a “pragmatic conservative”) has declared:

If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession. . . application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel, but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world.

In other words, Israel would be destroyed in a nuclear exchange, but Iran would survive.

In spite of all this, we keep hearing that all would be well if only we agreed—in the currently fashionable lingo—to “engage” with Iran, and that even if the worst came to the worst we could—to revert to the same lingo—“live” with a nuclear Iran. It is when such things are being said that, alongside the resemblance between now and World War III, a parallel also becomes evident between now and the eve of World War II.

Folks, Islamofascism and the drive for a world Islamic caliphate is real. Iran will have its nukes someday, sooner or later. When it does, Ahmadinejad and Iran will use it to achieve their goals.