31.03.2004, 20:57
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.techcentralstation.com/032904F.html">http://www.techcentralstation.com/032904F.html</a><!-- m -->
Zitat:The Next Threat
By Jack Birnbaum
While the "News Cycle" focuses its attention on a mid-level functionary's startling revelation that, had only everyone listened to him, this whole terror thing could have been averted (that is, had they listened then to what he's saying now, not to what he said before… oh well, never mind), let us avert our eyes from the posturing and finger-pointing for a moment and consider what to do about the next threat: a nuclear-armed Iran.
...
I won't bore you with more details of the straight-faced lies of the mullahcracy and the semi-credulous pronouncements of the international monitoring agencies, and of whether inspectors are being allowed in today, because it will change by tomorrow. If at this point you don't believe that Iran is on its way to a nuclear capability, you can stop reading and go check out today's comics page. For the rest of you, the question now becomes: What strategic problems does this bring, and what to do about it?
...
So, then, what to do?
The Israelis well realize that an Iranian bomb poses an existential threat, and may decide to act just as they did in Iraq in 1981. But because of the greater distance and the multiple sites that would need to be taken out, a pre-emptive attack would be more difficult, less assured of success and result in more civilian casualties than the brilliant strike against the Osirak reactor. And they would have to also weigh the effects of the world condemnation and further isolation that would surely follow. (See the invective following their taking out of a known terrorist leader this week, and multiply a thousand-fold. It's quite a burden they bear, the Israelis.)
We will need to communicate to the Iranian government that a nuclear explosion anywhere on the soil of the United States or its allies that does not clearly originate elsewhere will be considered prima facie to have originated in Iran, and that we will respond accordingly with massive nuclear retaliation. (North Korea could be included as well.) We could make the promise publicly; this would evoke widespread hand-wringing and condemnation, but will have the advantage of making the threat more credible and enshrining it as part of official U.S. policy (thus making it harder for a new administration to retract.) On the other hand, such a public policy would leave itself open to the criticism that an American nuclear strike on Iran could be intentionally triggered by a third party, which could even be true (the Iranians of course will claim the Zionists would do it; but back in the real world, it is conceivable that a group such as al Qaeda could trigger their long-hoped-for confrontation between Islam and the West this way.)
Or the threat could be made privately, avoiding some of the complications but possibly lessening its effectiveness.
...