I bet you thought that the next Presidential Election wasn’t until 2008. That’s true for the country at large, but Nancy Pelosi thinks that she can eek her way into the White House early. It is this campaign that she and other Democrats are leading against the President that is putting the US, Europe, and especially Israel in grave danger. But then again, what else is new?
in foreign affairs see the looming nuclear crisis in Iran as the most pressing national security threat to the US in the coming months and perhaps years. When a suicidal islamofascist regime installs a former US Embassy kidnapper as “president” and calls for the extinction of state of Israel, it is prudent to take them at their word. When that regime actually gains the capability to make due on that threat, it is prudent to take them out. It goes without saying the MAD (mutually assured destruction or even the assurance that Iran itself will alone be made into a smoldering nuclear waste dump) style deterrence is not a viable state of affairs when one is facing people who think that they will only find quality virgins in the afterlife.
The problem is that Iran’s critical nuclear weapons production nodes are numerous and spread throughout its vast interior. It would be nice if the Israelis could just waltz in there ala Osirak 1982 and take care of business, but I don’t think they have the capability. The targets must be simultaneously hit, and hit hard the first time. There will be no second chances. Israel has no stealth aircraft, no widespread SEAD (suppression of enemy air defenses) capability for the scope of the operation, and insufficient refueling assets. The best they could do would be to put together a “one-way” trip, and sacrifice a large percentage of their air force and all of their best pilots.
What the Israelis lack in SEAD packages and refueling could be very easily supplemented by the United States, and it would clearly be in our interest to have a neutered Iran. The problem is that US-Israeli joint operations would inflame otherwise reasonable muslim leaders and populations around the globe. It would jeopardize our success in Iraq, and hamper cooperation with otherwise friendly arab/muslim governments. So basically, it’s going to be up to the US to handle this situation alone. European allies with the sac to get on this train are becoming harder and harder to come by these days.
This is where Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats have been so useful to the national security interests of the United States. President Bush is certainly cognizant of these circumstances, and yet he is constrained by politics to effectively act to address them. He knows that if the Democrats win control of the House and Senate this year, he and VP Cheney WILL be impeached AND convicted. The nice thing about impeachment is that it is not so much a legal proceeding as it is a popularity contest. Whatever “evidence” of high crimes and misdemeanors the Dems decide to throw up against the wall is of little consequence compared to how many votes Nancy and Dirty Harry can muster. And therein lies the conundrum.
President Bush has to decide if he can take the political risk of attacking Iranian nuclear sites AND defend seats in Congress in ’06, or can he wait a year. Tough call. The Iranian nuclear program might be past the “point of no return” by 2007, and hell, the GOP could lose the Congressional majority anyway putting the President and VP out on the street early. Then again, he could start now to build public support for confronting the Iranians and nail ‘em before November hoping that the American people will recognize the gravity of a nuclearized Iran. But ever since the “Bush lied, people died” meme became fashionable, new military actions are likely to be just as saleable as Social Security reform, which is to say-not at all. So if San Fran Nan can get some of her own elected, she sees herself moving up
to the big girl chair in the Oval Office.
“Pelosi-Ahmadinejad ‘06” makes good bumper sticker, don’t you think?