During the Republican Presidential debate in Ames, Iowa last week Ron Paul said if Iran wants a nuclear weapon they should be allowed to have one. He said it is only natural that Iran wants a nuke since it is surrounded by other nations that already do.
Paul's comments elicited considerable applause from the crowd, and three days later he finished an impressive close second place at the Iowa Straw Poll capturing 28% of the votes. Apparently, a lot of Iowans share the Texas Congressman's view.
While Paul was busy in Iowa over the weekend, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was explaining in an interview with Russian television that nuclear weapons are a thing of the past. "Nuclear weapons are the means of the previous century. This is the century of knowledge and thinking. It is the century of human beings. It is the century of culture and knowledge," he said.
Ahmadinejad went on to explain that he is a man of peace and that nuclear weapons don't have much to do with real power in today's world. "It is about the power of people, not nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, I should say that, our goal in the country and the goal of our people, our slogan is 'Peace for all!' Nuclear energy for all, nuclear weapons for none! This is our goal."
Is this the same man who has vowed to destroy America and "wipe Israel off the map?" The same man who delivered a tauntingly aggressive speech beneath a sign proclaiming "Death to America" on the eve of a trip to New York? The same man who incited a crowd in Tehran with, "Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism? But you should know that this slogan and the goal are achievable, and certainly can be achieved."
The seven other candidates participating in the Iowa debate appeared to take exception with Ron Paul's position. Rick Santorum couldn't hold back and said, "Anyone who suggests Iran is not a threat to this country is not seeing the world very clearly."
Which position is correct? The consequences for being wrong are grave in both cases. Michelle Bachmann pledged that as President she would do everything in her power to keep Iran from going nuclear. Presumably that would include the possibility of a military intervention. Such action would rely on intelligence information that may not prove to be completely accurate, as was the case in Iraq. Almost certainly lives would be lost and enormous cost incurred, which is a big problem with Paul and his followers as well as many other Americans faced with unsustainable deficit spending. The outcome, aftermath, and duration of a war in a third Islamic country would be far from clear. And, importantly, Iran borders the Straits of Hormuz, "the world's most important oil choke-point" according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency, through which about 40% of all the world's seaborne oil flows. Any disruption of that narrow sea channel would create immediate chaos for an already sickly global economy.
If Ron Paul's hands-off, libertarian position were adopted and proven wrong, it would be to late to stop the terrible consequences in loss of life, freedom, and order on the planet all of which could be unfathomable.
Some take comfort in thinking that Iran is "way over there," nearly half way around the world from the U.S. Iran might be a big problem for Israel, goes some of the logic, but probably not so much for America. That mistake was made in the 1940s. Today's world has gotten even smaller – "flat," as Thomas Friedman says. No nation seems immune from events in another, especially from the standpoint of the United States, and certainly not if it involves the security of our ally, Israel.
A nuclear weapon is a great equalizer and Tehran knows it. The Mullahs would covet the power status that comes with being in the tiny group of nations that are known or suspected to have nuclear weapon capabilities. And, if you want to believe that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a man of peace…..well, next time you see him ask him why Iran is "directly supporting extremist Shia groups (in Iraq), which are killing our troops." That's according to Adm. Mike Mullen the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who says IRAMs (improvised rocket-assisted munitions), and specially shaped explosives called EFPs (enhanced explosive penetrators) have taken a deadly toll on U.S. forces and forensic investigations have tied the weapons directly to Iran.
In addition to having serious doubts about the credibility of Ahmadinejad's man-of-peace makeover, there are other reasons to be gravely concerned about Iran's actions – particularly if – when – they develop a nuclear weapon.
Consider the following facts:
1. At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in April, 2010 the Director of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency testified that with Iran's known uranium enrichment capabilities, it could develop a nuclear weapon within a year and deploy it within three years.
2. In June, 2011 the British Foreign Minister, William Hague, told the House of Commons that Iran "has been carrying out covert ballistic missile tests and rocket launches, including testing missiles capable of delivering a nuclear payload." Iran has announced plans to triple its capacity to produce 20 percent enriched uranium, "levels far greater than is needed for peaceful nuclear energy," Hague said. British officials said that the nuclear tests took place separately from the current publicly declared tests. Britain believes that since October, 2010, Iran has carried out at least three secret tests of missiles that could be used to carry nuclear material. The British reported those tests to the UN as a violation of Security Council Resolution 1929 that prohibits Iran from undertaking ballistic missile activity capable of delivering a nuclear weapon, but had not previously made them public.
3. When Iran tested an extended-range Shahab-3 in 2009, U.S. and other defense analysts indicated that the missile's range was up to 2000km (approximately 1243 miles). But, things have changed. In an August 15, 2011 posting The International Institute for Security Studies (IISS) writes, "In tandem with progress in its nuclear programme, Iran is making robust strides in developing ballistic missiles, with the apparent aim of being able to deliver nuclear warheads well beyond its borders. Iran's modifications of the North Korean No-dong missile, resulting in the longer range Ghadr-1, and its recent success in testing locally produced space-launch vehicles and two-stage solid-propellant missiles have heighted concerns." The IISS notes that earlier "worst-case scenarios that Iran would develop an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of striking the United States" have not materialized. But, what the IISS and others are missing is that Iran has anti-America friends very close to our borders. Read on.
4. The German newspaper, Die Welt, reported on Nov. 25, 2010 of a deal Iran struck to establish a military missile base on the northwestern shores of Venezuela. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is vying with Ahmadinejad for the title of most anti-American thug on the planet. According to Die Welt, Venezuela agreed to allow Iran establish a military base manned by Iranian missile officers, Iranian Revolutionary Guard soldiers and Venezuelan missile officers. Iran also granted Chavez permission to use the missiles in case of an "emergency" and for "national needs" – radically increasing the threat to pro-American neighbors like Colombia. The report says Iran planned to place a variety of medium-range ground-to-ground missiles on the base.
5. In a related article published Dec. 8, 2010 by the Hudson Institute in New York, Anna Mahjar-Barducci cites published Russian reports of additional weapon sales to Venezuela, conveniently skirting around a UN sanction against Iran. The sale includes "five battalions of S-300PMU-1 air defence systems and a number of other weapons" originally contracted to Iran for $800 million. "If Iran, therefore, cannot get the S-300 directly from Russia, it can still have them through its proxy, Venezuela, and deploy them against its staunchest enemy, the U.S." writes Mahjar-Barducci. The Iran-Venezuela-Russia alliance establishes a missile base with nuclear weapons potential right "in the United States soft underbelly (and) many US cities will be able to be reached from there even with short-medium range missiles," she warns.
6. Die Welt reported on May 13, 2011 that an Iranian engineering team had visited Venezuela in February, and confirmed the missile complex site is to be on the Paraguana peninsula – the northernmost tip of Venezuela. The article indicates that Iran and Venezuela will construct a complex of 20 meter deep underground silos for the Shahab-3 medium-range missiles. The article explains that the agreement between Venezuela and Iran would mean Chavez would fire missiles at "Iran's enemies" should Iran face military strikes.
If this sounds a lot like 1962 and the Cuban Missile Crisis all over again, it is with good reason. But, as Mahjar-Barducci says, there is at least one significant difference. "Back in 1962, thanks to the stern stance adopted by the then Kennedy administration, the crisis was defused. Nowadays, however, we don't not see the same firmness from the present administration. On the contrary, we see a lax attitude, both in language and in deeds, that results in extending hands when our adversaries have no intention of shaking hands with us."
There are other differences. The network and strategy that binds the Venezuela alliance and Iran's influence throughout Central and South America includes an intricate support system for terrorist organizations, covert immigration tactics, and illegal drugs. In coming weeks, we will expose more of the story.
