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.

So What if Iran Has Nukes?

Recently, a brother in Christ came across my blog and read of my concerns about Iran and it's pursuit of nukes. He posted a comment that essentially said... "So what?" While both of us acknowledge that God is indeed in control of all things, I answered him to underscore the reasons for my concern. This week my daughter leaves for Germany to serve as a missionary for two years. Her mother and I swallow hard, pray for her safety, and encourage her to live her dreams. Today at church the congregation gave our daughter a going away party and a little more financial assistance. Today's events reminded me of my response to the comments by my brother in Christ. Here is his comment:

I am as concerned with WMD as you are . . . I don't loose sleep over them because God reigns . . . but I am concerned.

For the sake of dialogue let me ask two questions: 1) Suppose Iran refuses to stop the enrichment of uranium. What should we do about it? Should we invade Iran? What course of action should the US, and more importantly should CHRISTIANS pray for??

Second, this one is perhaps a little more touchy. Again I ask this for the sake of dialogue and not argument. Why should the US care if Iran has nukes? On what MORAL basis is it justified (morally) for the US to have thousands of nuclear warheads that could destroy the face of the earth but it is "immoral" for Iran to have any?

I don't want the Iranians to have them. But, as a Christian, I am wondering why the (apparent) double standard in this business.

And that brought me to me response and, I guess, part of the reason why I post my thoughts on this little, mostly unread, blog page.

My blog page is a place for me to vent my opinions about the world at large. It's interesting to occasionally post something (like today) because it helps me to clarify for myself my thinking on world events and my place in it as a child of God. I'm glad you do not lose any sleep over WMD's. I don't either. I sleep like a rock! LOL! In Christ I am secure and I fear no man or weapon. God indeed reigns. I will answer both questions.

1. Suppose Iran refuses to stop the enrichment of uranium. What should we do about it? Should we invade Iran? What course of action should the US, and more importantly should CHRISTIANS pray for??

LOL! That was more like four questions. The decision about Iran's uranium enrichment will hinge on one of two things: Whether or not Israel waits for the United States to act (they may act unilaterally) or we act to preserve the flow of oil and maintain our strategic position in the region. Israel will act primarily out of self-preservation if they believe Iran is close to a deliverable nuke. We will act to stabilize world markets, especially our own. I don't believe we will actually invade unless Iran either demonstrates a nuclear test or prepares to launch an imminent strike against Israel. Christians should be praying that God's will be done in all matters of men and that doors are opened for Christians to be able to go to Iran and preach the gospel.

2. Why should the US care if Iran has nukes? On what MORAL basis is it justified (morally) for the US to have thousands of nuclear warheads that could destroy the face of the earth but it is "immoral" for Iran to have any?

I am convinced that Ahmadinejad means what he says. Given the chance, he would use the first nuke Iran can make to either detonate a demonstration test or launch it on Israel. If he launches a nuke, we will have a world war. He fervently believes the 12th imman is coming soon and that he can help world events unfold for Islam. Ahmadinejad has presented himself as the herald or "prophet" of the Hidden Imam - the ultimate, if absent, ruler and authority for so-called Twelver Shiism - and has gone so far as to claim that he had a vision of the Imam, at the UN of all places. I would prefer our country to have no nuclear weapons. But we do. We have not threatened to use them as Iran has. I am convinced that nukes have not been used since WWII because the United States does have a sense of morality. After all, most of God's people live here. That does not make our country a "holy nation" or anything like that. Only God's people, in Christ, are holy. Not because of anything we have done, but Jesus' blood makes us, His body, a royal priesthood and the bride of Christ. God raised our country up and He will take it back down in His good time.

Lastly, I am concerned about world events because my daughter is leaving for Germany this fall to begin a two to three period work in the mission field. She will be teaching English using the Bible and helping a missionary couple that has been in-country for over 30 years. As a dad, I want her to be safe and as a brother in Christ, I want her to have a chance to help save precious souls.

And all of that is why I care if Iran has nukes.