Shaking The Iranian Decision Tree

As the new Obama administration and Iran feel each other out, it can be difficult to understand and determine if there really is a new dynamic our relationship with Iran. Realities on the ground often force us to reassessour position and direction. Today, theUN oday acknowledged that Iran now has enough uranium for a bomb. Previously, it was believed that Iran was 3-5 years away from that capacity.

See Dr Sanity today for a look at more of what the Obama administration is facing.

Conjecture 1: Terrorism has Lowered the Nuclear Threshold -----> is there anyone who doubts that the nuclear threshold has been lowered? Remember the exploits of A.Q. Khan , just recently released?

Conjecture 2: Attaining WMD's Would Destroy Islam------> Let's get real. Islam already has nuclear weapons (Pakistan, remember? ) and we are simply waiting for the most fanatical elements of a religion that no longer has any control over its extreme message, to develop the capability of delivering them. Does anyone doubt that? Remember that Iranian clerics have already issued a fatwa approving the use of nuclear weapons against the enemies of Islam. They have all their ducks in a row. Or, if you downplay nuclear WMD, consider this news from yesterday.

Conjecture 3: The "War on Terror" is the Golden Hour -- the final chance------> What? You haven't heard? The "war on terror" is no more--it's so....yesterday, dude. We have entered an age of golden rhetoric. We are going to engage our enemies with words and compassionately listen to them. I predict that soon, the Democrats will tire of "the good war", i.e., Afghanistan; which they "supported" in contrast to Iraq, where they said we could never win. In fact, Harry Reid famously announced the war in Iraq was "lost". Now that the antiwar left can't whine about Iraq, we will see them turn their bottomless desire to appease and surrender to the Afghanistan front.

In short, if our "golden hour" is not completely over with the changing of the guard in Washington, then there are only a few seconds at most left on the clock.

One of the tools used by policy and political analysts to help navigate and chart the course of clarity is a device known as 'Decision Tree.'

There are certain rules for using a Decision Tree, but rather than go into them, we will illustrate how the DT works, using the events of the day as an example.

Do we wish to see an Iran armed with nuclear weapons? Yes or No?

If the answer is yes, we do nothing, and move on.

If the answer is no, we do not wish to see Iran with nuclear weapons, we have to ask ourselves another question.

Do we act after Iran has acquired those weapons, or do act prior to Iran acquiring those weapons?

If we decide to wait until Iran has nuclear weapons, we are under no pressure to act.

If we decide that it is better to to act before Iran has nuclear weapons, our time to act is limited. If we decide that it is indeed better to act before Iran acquires nuclear weapons, there are more questions.

How should we deal with Iran- diplomatically or militarily?

European and US diplomatic efforts have a well documented record of failure going back to 1979. For over two decades, diplomats have failed to reach a rapprochement with the Iranian mullahs. There is no reason to believe that will dramatically change in the immediate or even foreseeable future. In fact, diplomacy is becoming less of an option for the Europeans as well.

Given that diplomatic efforts are unlikely to produce results, we have to look at military options- and that means more questions.

Do we need to invade Iran, or will missiles intended to destroy the Iranian weapons program and facilities be enough?

We have no need to invade Iran. Indeed, there is no need to for any American soldier to set foot in that country. Between bunker buster bombs and submarine fired missiles, we can more than make our point. Action against Iran will not resemble the Iran-Iraq war. That of course, brings up another question.

What if the Iranians retaliate?

Of course, that is a real option. In the event the Iranians retaliate, that leadership must understand that we will return with more bunker buster bombs and more missiles- this time, not necessarily targeting nuclear sites. Intelligence can identify and locate where the Iranian leadership might be at any give time. That invites another question.

What if the Iranians retaliate by attacking Israel or American interests?

Chances are, Israel will be attacked by Iran, sooner or later. Under the circumstances, sooner might be better. The Hamas election win has opened up a new door of terror. Hamas and Hizbollah have close ties to Tehran and Damascus. The possibility of Hamas acquiring a WMD is very real. Given the announced threats of Iran, Hizbollah and Hamas- each seeking the destruction of Israel- we have no reason to disbelieve their intentions.

We noted

There is no single example of a leader, anywhere, that threatened Jews or Israel, that did not go out and attempt to implement that evil when given the chance.

Further, responsible nations and leaders cannot fall back and claim 'that is just bluster' every time they are called on uttering racist, bigoted and hateful remarks. When leaders and nations espouse views that are clearly dysfunctional and out of the normal parameters of civilized behavior, when they use their own government controlled media to propagate hate and other outrages, they must be marginalized. There are consequences for inappropriate behavior, not the least of which is the forfeiture of a seat at the table of civilized nations. Just as Iran and other nations in the region would be outraged at media, school curriculum's and 'official' religious doctrine that repudiated and excoriated their own religious and ethnic identities, so too must they understand they get no free pass if they choose to exercise their hatred and bigotry.

That of course, invites more questions- lots more questions, all which bring us back to the same point:

When do we act and how do we act?

Of course, you see where this is going. Vanderluen, of The American Digest is clear and sanguine- his words are a metaphor and lesson for the bigger realities, as he speaks of Hamas and Israel:

This will only be settled, and can only be settled, by war. There's just too much blood on the ground. The Arab/Israeli conflict isn't a political or geographical or economic or religious "dispute." This is a blood feud, pure and simple and brutal. It will end in simple brutality. The side that can be the most brutal the quickest will win.

If the Israelis win, the Palestinians and every Arab state that comes to their aid will have to be reduced to an utter and crushing defeat. If the Palestinians win, the Israelis will simply be slaughtered wherever they can be found. One side is crushed or the other side is annihilated. It is a simple choice, but it is clear we are dealing -- as today's election results underscore -- with a simple people.

What will happen here will not look like peace. It will look like, for one side or the other, victory.

We either deal with this or we don't. We will vanquish or we will be vanquished. If you aren't sure about that truth, use a Decision Tree of your own.

Many might question the nature of the threat posed by Iran and believe our own intelligence capabilities are compromised. While there may have been no large caches of WMD's found in Iraq (which only goes to prove they may have been moved to Syria and/or the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon) does not mean those WMD's did not exist. In fact, the WMD's estimate was provided by the previous administration and by intelligence communities from around the world.

Should we should ignore global warming issues because your weatherperson isn't always spot on with next week's predictions?