President Obama and a Nuclear Iran

Assume for a moment: It's January, 2009, and Barack Obama has just been inaugurated as President of the United States. Ahmadi-Nejad explodes his first Bomb; he now has that itchy finger on the button as long as the mullahs stay in power. The Middle East goes wild --- with abject fear among the Saudis, and loud celebrations among terror supporters. The day of revenge against the Jews and the Crusaders has finally arrived.

What would President Obama do? He has only two basic options.

Option One

Stick with his electoral promises, fly to Tehran, and "talk to the mullahs." What will the mullahs wish to talk about, after talking up the glory of martyrdom warfare for thirty years? For three decades the daily chant was "Death to America! Death to Israel!"  The Left is sure the Khomeini cultists can't possibly mean that. But now they are faced with a 15-minute warning time if the mullahs do mean what they've been telling us since 1979.

Maybe the mullahs will ask President Obama how high the US will jump? How quickly will the Saudi royals get out of Arabia and give it to the Khomeini cult, which is convinced that it has the historic right to the two holy cities of Mohammed? How long until the price of oil doubles? And, Mr. President, you get those US Navy ships out of the Gulf of Imam Khomeini, right now. Or else we will swarm your Navy ships with fleets of gunboats and see who blinks first. Martyrdom is glorious.

Call Option One the Jimmy Carter option. With Carter's advisor Zbig Brzezinski back in favor, President Obama will be hearing a lot about that one.

If you think the price of oil is high today, wait 'til the Middle East catches fire. The Caliphate of Iran wants every other nation to "bow down to the greatness of Iran," as Ahmadi-Nejad likes to put it. With a Bomb, they can sway the OPEC monopoly. Would the Saudis resist Iranian pressure, 50 miles from their shore? Europe will try to feed the hungry crocodile lots of goodies, hoping it will eat them last. But Israel may not be inclined to become croc food, and they have an estimated 200 nukes. Thirty years ago Prime Minister Golda Meir was prepared to use them as a last resort. With their backs against the wall, they may have no choice. So Option One means trouble.

The Saudis don't have nuclear weapons (yet), but they can buy them from Pakistan. If they are afraid of Iran's itchy finger, they will, and who can blame them? Arab and Sunni pride will demand a Bomb for Egypt and Syria. If everybody else can have one, why not Libya again?  If the US is not willing to protect Arab nations against Iranian aggression, they will find a more bloody-minded protector like Russia. Vladimir Putin will be happy to oblige, for a price.

So let's hope your advisors have read up on the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1964, Mr. President, because soon we're going to see it again.

Option Two

Flip the bird  to your lifelong friends on the Left and reverse all their foreign policy ideas. Send several battle groups within striking distance of Tehran. Beef up our forces next door, in Iraq, the Gulf and Afghanistan. Get serious with the Russians to pull their engineers out of Iranian nuclear plants. Block North Korean help for A'jad's Bomb. Stop German companies like Siemens from selling advanced electronic gear to the mullahs. Turn Syria around, to isolate Iran's proxy armies in Lebanon and Gaza. Mount more state-of-the-art missile defenses on Aegis war ships --- we have 82 of them, a formidable world-wide missile defense if we ever decide to use them. Finally, build up US troop numbers.

And then let the New York Times go into hysterics.

Call Option Two the "George W. Bush strategy." Or if you don't like that, it also happens to be the Wilson-FDR-JFK-LBJ-Truman strategy. It used to be standard Democrat foreign policy, before the Dems turned hard left after 1968.

So which one -- the Carter Option or the W Option -- do you think President Obama will choose? With Iran pointing a loaded gun at the world, and thousands of Basiji marching in the streets, all praying to become martyrs, there is not much ground for coming together and finding hope.

Presidents have to make real decisions with real consequences. So far, Obama hasn't shown any willingness to make hard choices, even in his political campaigns. He wants to be the messiah, but without renouncing bad characters like Rezko or Wright or Ayers.  Like Bill Clinton, he's great at having his cake and eating it, too.

Since the Left has been completely wrong about foreign policy since Jimmy Carter, they are very poorly equipped even to think about an Iranian Bomb.  That's why they keep denying that there's any real problem with nuke proliferation. And yet it's rushing straight at us, like that roaring locomotive in the tunnel.

I'm just curious. Charles Krauthammer just pointed out that the Left has made it impossible to act preemptively against rogues with nukes. When Iran explodes its Bomb, will the Left apologize for being wrong about national security for decades? Will the CIA apologize for its wretched failures, one after the other, to warn about life-threatening dangers?

I don't go around the world asking for apologies, but the Left does. Thank you, Democrats. Thank you, Europeans. And let's not forget the corrupt and incompetent UN and our friends in the Leftist media. We are now standing at the precipice, and we have you to thank for it.

So if A'jad gets his Bomb next year or thereafter, will you apologize for crucifying George W. Bush, who was foolish enough to think that Saddam Hussein might be developing nukes, too? Will the Left admit its suicidal foolhardiness in sabotaging anti-missile defenses for the last thirty years? For blocking anti-proliferation efforts in the "international community"? And for trashing anyone who saw reality and told the truth?

You know the answer. The Left is never wrong.

We won't ask you to apologize for being wrong, Mr. or Mrs. President. Just recognize reality, please, and be ready to live with all the bad choices that are left.

Or you can try sending Madeleine Albright to waltz with Ahmadi-Nejad. Look how well that worked with Kim Jong-Il.

James Lewis blogs at http://www.dangeroustimes.wordpress.com
Assume for a moment: It's January, 2009, and Barack Obama has just been inaugurated as President of the United States. Ahmadi-Nejad explodes his first Bomb; he now has that itchy finger on the button as long as the mullahs stay in power. The Middle East goes wild --- with abject fear among the Saudis, and loud celebrations among terror supporters. The day of revenge against the Jews and the Crusaders has finally arrived.

What would President Obama do? He has only two basic options.

Option One

Stick with his electoral promises, fly to Tehran, and "talk to the mullahs." What will the mullahs wish to talk about, after talking up the glory of martyrdom warfare for thirty years? For three decades the daily chant was "Death to America! Death to Israel!"  The Left is sure the Khomeini cultists can't possibly mean that. But now they are faced with a 15-minute warning time if the mullahs do mean what they've been telling us since 1979.

Maybe the mullahs will ask President Obama how high the US will jump? How quickly will the Saudi royals get out of Arabia and give it to the Khomeini cult, which is convinced that it has the historic right to the two holy cities of Mohammed? How long until the price of oil doubles? And, Mr. President, you get those US Navy ships out of the Gulf of Imam Khomeini, right now. Or else we will swarm your Navy ships with fleets of gunboats and see who blinks first. Martyrdom is glorious.

Call Option One the Jimmy Carter option. With Carter's advisor Zbig Brzezinski back in favor, President Obama will be hearing a lot about that one.

If you think the price of oil is high today, wait 'til the Middle East catches fire. The Caliphate of Iran wants every other nation to "bow down to the greatness of Iran," as Ahmadi-Nejad likes to put it. With a Bomb, they can sway the OPEC monopoly. Would the Saudis resist Iranian pressure, 50 miles from their shore? Europe will try to feed the hungry crocodile lots of goodies, hoping it will eat them last. But Israel may not be inclined to become croc food, and they have an estimated 200 nukes. Thirty years ago Prime Minister Golda Meir was prepared to use them as a last resort. With their backs against the wall, they may have no choice. So Option One means trouble.

The Saudis don't have nuclear weapons (yet), but they can buy them from Pakistan. If they are afraid of Iran's itchy finger, they will, and who can blame them? Arab and Sunni pride will demand a Bomb for Egypt and Syria. If everybody else can have one, why not Libya again?  If the US is not willing to protect Arab nations against Iranian aggression, they will find a more bloody-minded protector like Russia. Vladimir Putin will be happy to oblige, for a price.

So let's hope your advisors have read up on the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1964, Mr. President, because soon we're going to see it again.

Option Two

Flip the bird  to your lifelong friends on the Left and reverse all their foreign policy ideas. Send several battle groups within striking distance of Tehran. Beef up our forces next door, in Iraq, the Gulf and Afghanistan. Get serious with the Russians to pull their engineers out of Iranian nuclear plants. Block North Korean help for A'jad's Bomb. Stop German companies like Siemens from selling advanced electronic gear to the mullahs. Turn Syria around, to isolate Iran's proxy armies in Lebanon and Gaza. Mount more state-of-the-art missile defenses on Aegis war ships --- we have 82 of them, a formidable world-wide missile defense if we ever decide to use them. Finally, build up US troop numbers.

And then let the New York Times go into hysterics.

Call Option Two the "George W. Bush strategy." Or if you don't like that, it also happens to be the Wilson-FDR-JFK-LBJ-Truman strategy. It used to be standard Democrat foreign policy, before the Dems turned hard left after 1968.

So which one -- the Carter Option or the W Option -- do you think President Obama will choose? With Iran pointing a loaded gun at the world, and thousands of Basiji marching in the streets, all praying to become martyrs, there is not much ground for coming together and finding hope.

Presidents have to make real decisions with real consequences. So far, Obama hasn't shown any willingness to make hard choices, even in his political campaigns. He wants to be the messiah, but without renouncing bad characters like Rezko or Wright or Ayers.  Like Bill Clinton, he's great at having his cake and eating it, too.

Since the Left has been completely wrong about foreign policy since Jimmy Carter, they are very poorly equipped even to think about an Iranian Bomb.  That's why they keep denying that there's any real problem with nuke proliferation. And yet it's rushing straight at us, like that roaring locomotive in the tunnel.

I'm just curious. Charles Krauthammer just pointed out that the Left has made it impossible to act preemptively against rogues with nukes. When Iran explodes its Bomb, will the Left apologize for being wrong about national security for decades? Will the CIA apologize for its wretched failures, one after the other, to warn about life-threatening dangers?

I don't go around the world asking for apologies, but the Left does. Thank you, Democrats. Thank you, Europeans. And let's not forget the corrupt and incompetent UN and our friends in the Leftist media. We are now standing at the precipice, and we have you to thank for it.

So if A'jad gets his Bomb next year or thereafter, will you apologize for crucifying George W. Bush, who was foolish enough to think that Saddam Hussein might be developing nukes, too? Will the Left admit its suicidal foolhardiness in sabotaging anti-missile defenses for the last thirty years? For blocking anti-proliferation efforts in the "international community"? And for trashing anyone who saw reality and told the truth?

You know the answer. The Left is never wrong.

We won't ask you to apologize for being wrong, Mr. or Mrs. President. Just recognize reality, please, and be ready to live with all the bad choices that are left.

Or you can try sending Madeleine Albright to waltz with Ahmadi-Nejad. Look how well that worked with Kim Jong-Il.

James Lewis blogs at http://www.dangeroustimes.wordpress.com