By Steve Levy
Let’s talk about the Iran situation as fellow Americans — not as Democrats or Republicans or as Trump haters or Trump lovers.
Let’s talk about Iran as it will affect our present and future generations.
So much of the discussion comes from the perspective of people who are rooting for their political side of the aisle. This is too important an issue to look at in political terms. Regardless of our political affiliations, we all love our children and want what is best for them.
THE OPTIONS
A case could be made for many routes that we should take. Some of the options include:
- Continuing the fight until we get regime change.
- Declaring victory now and move out, while continuing to monitor the nuclear program with possible future strikes.
- Evacuating from the region, and just hoping that negotiations will solve the problem.
- Some even suggest that Iran, like any other country, has a right to pursue nuclear energy, and even nuclear weapons.
MY TAKE
Iran is different than just about any other enemy America has ever faced, with perhaps the exception of the Nazis. The case could be made that the Iranian leadership is indeed just Nazis with turbans.
But even the Nazis were afraid of dying. Just as are the communists in Russia, China, and North Korea. They may be vicious and expansionist, but to these atheist Marxists, this life is the only one they’ll ever have and they don’t want to lose it.
The Islamic extremist mullahs, on the other hand, were born and raised in a theocracy that preached that spreading the word of Islam throughout the world is their primary goal in life, and nothing is more celebrated than killing infidels and dying for the cause.
In their apocalyptic version of the world, the goal is to bring us toward a massive conflict, whereafter their way of life will reign supreme.
MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION NO LONGER APPLIES
So there’s no question that this is a different kind of enemy. We’ve always been able to keep the nuclear-armed communists at bay because we agreed to live by a policy of mutually assured destruction. You won’t fire on us, and vice versa, because the response would wipe the other out.
But the Islamic fanatics don’t really care about that.
How can you deter someone who believes the greatest accomplishment in life would be dying for their religion?
That is why every president over the last 40 years has announced loud and clear that America and the western world cannot allow these religious fanatics to get atomic weapons. And that is simply because they will use them.
KICKED THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD
For 40 years, we talked the talk, but we never really walked the walk. It was always pushed off to the next administration. It became evident from intelligence sources, both from the U.S. and Israel, that the ability of the Iranians to produce these weapons was indeed imminent.
WHAT’S IMMINENT?
So the next big question is, how do we define imminent?
Is it a few weeks, a few months or perhaps a year?
We can never know precisely. That’s why, in my mind, it would be so foolish to wait too long to the point that they actually get nuclear capabilities. If we are a day early in knocking out the nuclear capacity, there’s really no downside. But if we are a day too late, it could mean the death of millions of people around the world, including millions of Americans.
Can you imagine the guilt that will have to be borne by those who indeed advocated waiting and then had to witness the incineration of an American city? (And don’t think it will require advanced ballistic missiles. It would likely be delivered via a barge.)
NEGOTIATIONS HAVE PROVEN FUTILE
I simply cannot come to the conclusion that we would be able to negotiate with the Iranians, whereby they would end their nuclear ambitions, while this Islamic fanatical leadership is still in place.
The negotiated deal struck in 2015 was not an end to the Iranian pursuit of nukes. It was just a delay for 10 years and, thereafter, a legitimization of their nuclear program.
So if you believe that military force is probably the only way to end their nuclear ambitions, the question is whether we make the effort now, while the Iranians are at their weakest, or do we wait for them to reconstitute their conventional arms and nuclear program? (Once they go nuclear, our conventional advantage would be obsolete.) We’ve had control of the skies because the U.S./Israeli alliance wiped out the Iranian defense apparatus. So now is the best, and possibly, only realistic time to act.
VICTORY WILL NOT BE EASY
But make no mistake, this will not be an easy venture for us. It will take time, and it will be painful and require sacrifice. Nevertheless, we have to realize this is a war for the ages to protect our children and grandchildren.
The worst thing that we can do is keep punting the issue into the future, saying it’s not our problem. Let the next administration deal with it. Could you imagine if we did that during World War II or when the Russians and Chinese were trying to spread communism around the world? We fought back because we knew it was essential for the survival of the free world.
NEW ASYMMETRICAL DRONE WARFARE
The Iranians, while overmatched in firepower, have a few advantages. One is the new type of asymmetrical warfare that gives smaller, less powerful nations a leg up through the use of drones. It costs just a few thousand dollars to create a drone that can destroy a warship, while it costs millions to produce a single missile to shoot a drone out of the sky.
And when it comes to defining success, the Iranians believe, as do some who follow economic markets, that one single successful drone attack can be a victory. Our advanced technology can shoot down 99 of 100 drones sent to swarm oil tankers venturing through the Strait of Hormuz. But all it takes is one successful hit, and the world markets can tumble into turmoil.
Meanwhile, the mullahs are willing to accept enormous damage to their homeland. Millions could perish without them flinching. Their brothers, sisters, and co-leaders can die, but, to them, it’s a noble death worth celebrating. Do we have the stomachs to tolerate even the smallest number of casualties anymore?
INFRASTRUCTURE MUST BE TARGETED
So if we’re intent on maintaining control of the strait, the venture against Iran will have to be continuous and far more impactful than it is today. Our generals can boast of the 10,000 hits that thus far have rained upon Iranian defensive facilities, but the average Iranian is not really being affected. And, thus, the regime is not feeling the heat.
It appears it may indeed be necessary to start taking out bridges, roads, infrastructure, and power supplies to create constant chaos in the streets (which hopefully would make regime change more of a possibility). We’re not talking about indiscriminate carpet bombing targeting civilians, but the infrastructure must be wiped out. It will cause economic pain on the Iranian people, but this is a war.
We cannot fight a war where the other side is able to deliberately launch rockets indiscriminately into civilian populations and we are not able to take out the opposition’s infrastructure for being scared of labeled war criminals by a politically correct media or the UN.
Can you imagine the opposition party or the press in the 1940s saying that we cannot pursue the Normandy invasion because the pre-invasion bombing would wind up killing 50,000 French civilians? Or that we could not continue the march onto Berlin because 600,000 German civilians were killed as collateral damage?
BETTER TO LOSE THE MIDTERMS THAN LOSE THIS WAR
Nor can we back off simply because markets may fall and gas prices may rise. I’d much rather lose a midterm election than lose this war. There is just too much at stake.
Can you imagine our leaders in World War II balking at engaging the enemy because it might cause sacrifice at home with higher prices and fewer goods available for our materialistic yearnings?
War is ugly and horrible. The Iranians consider themselves in a full-on, all-out war with us. It’s hard to defeat them if we treat this as a two-week excursion.
SACRIFICE WILL BE REQUIRED
We need to be straight up with the American people that this will not be easy.
It will not be short-term, and it will not be without sacrifice.
We will not be able to retreat, even if we have to incur casualties on our side.
You cannot win a war going into it with that mentality.
The bottom line is we have to acknowledge that we are in a war and fight it as such. This is not a video game that we watch each night on the 6:30 news.
There are isolationists on the right, as well as political opportunists on the left, both wanting us to disengage from the problems that are mounting 10,000 miles away. But we would do so at our peril, and, more importantly, the peril of our children. We have an obligation to protect them, even if we must sacrifice and go into war mode.
THIS IS A WAR OF NECESSITY, NOT CHOICE
This is not a war of choice, as many claim it to be. It is a war of necessity that has been pushed off for far too long.
The only question is whether we will start taking it seriously and finish it, or if we will delay and foolishly hope that our enemy will back off on their own.
They won’t.
They are intent on getting this bomb. And they will get it, unless we stop them.
And make no mistake, once they get it, they will use it.
And we will be the prime target.