Dateline Iran

With the release of the 9/11 Commission’s report the buzz has been on the Iranian terror connection. There should be no surprise in retrospect as this is where it all began. The question being asked is why didn’t the Americans connect the Iranian dots and go for a strategic attack against Iran instead of Iraq? I would suggest one should add prudence to the list. Take a look at a map of Iran. Tick off the surrounding countries that have a US military presence and/or an alliance with the US in the region: Afghanistan, Kuwait, Qatar, Iraq, Turkey and Israel. The US Navy is currently patrolling the Persian Gulf. If the end game is to end state sponsorship of terrorism one must confront the mullahs, but I would not want to leave a rogue leader like Saddam and his illusions of grandeur or his arsenal at my back door when I moved against the mullahs. When confronting the mullahs it helps to have a substantial US military presence in Iraq to accomplish a multitude of strategic and tactical goals.

There is nothing new in the 9/11 Commission’s report that is news to the White House, though it is news to the American public. If the Bush administration had released what it knew about the Iranian connection to 9/11 to the American public before Baghdad fell, the subsequence hue and outcry among the public would have demanded that US Forces go after the mullahs leaving Saddam at the back door.

The bad news is the Russians appear determined in their efforts to enable Iran to become a nuclear power. The mullah’s maintain that Iran needs to become a nuclear power to meet its energy consumption needs. You need to ask yourself why an oil rich country with modern pumping facilities needs a nuclear source of energy to meet that demand.

I originally missed this article in the Jerusalem Post on the 18th. This is always the danger when one gets carried away playing video games.

"Israel has completed military rehearsals for a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear power facility at Bushehr, Israeli officials told the London-based Sunday Times. Such a strike is likely if Russia supplies Iran with fuel rods for enriching uranium. The rods, currently stored at a Russian port, are expected to be delivered late next year after a dispute over financial terms is resolved.

An Israeli defense source in Tel Aviv, who confirmed that the military rehearsals had taken place, told the paper: "Israel will on no account permit Iranian reactors - especially the one being built in Bushehr with Russian help - to go critical."

The source was also quoted as saying that any strike on the Gulf coast facility at Bushehr would probably be carried out by long-range F-15I jets, overflying Turkey, with simultaneous operations by commandos on the ground. "If the worst comes to the worst and international efforts fail," the source was quoted as saying, "we are very confident we'll be able to demolish the ayatollahs' nuclear aspirations in one go."

The source noted that the strike could be accompanied by an attack on other targets, including a facility at Natanz, where the Iranians have attempted to enrich uranium, and a plant at Arak, which produces heavy water.

In addition, the paper quoted a senior United States official warning of a pre-emptive Israeli strike if Russia continues cooperating with the Iranians. The Israeli source said Washington was unlikely to block Israeli military action."

If diplomacy fails to sway the Russians and it seems likely to, the first strike against the Mullahs will be by Israel. Now as far as I am aware, Israel has no commandos on the ground in any other country in the region. I interpret that to mean that the commandos on the ground are US forces who will act in concert with an Israeli attack.

Though I missed this original report, I am sure than Teheran has not, and the message is loud and clear. What is not clear is twofold. Will this message be enough to deter the mullahs from pursuing its nuclear aspirations, and what is the Russian motivation in egging on the mullahs to pursue this nuclear folly?