Latest Entry: American Pravda and New York's Sixth Crime Family     Latest Comments: Talk Back Here

« 'Answer' And The Walkout - About That Trojan Horse (Updated) | Main | Sami al-Arian Gets Jail Before Getting "Go" Pass Out Of Country »

May 1, 2006

'Iran Capable of Terrorist Attacks in U.S. Anytime' - And Other Musings On Iran

Topics: Iran

Iran truly is the United Nations Security Council's worst nightmare: a rogue regime and the leading state supporter of terrorism, barreling headlong in its pursuit of nuclear weapons -- and daring the world body to do something about it. - Daily Oklahoman

Iran-Flag-Nuke_.gifSteven Emerson discusssed the new Ayman al-Zawahri video tape and the Iranian danger on Sunday at MSNBC. The interview is available on the Investigative Project of Terrorism website.

As for the capability of Iran to strike with terrorist attacks in the U.S., Emerson says we should take them at their word - it's certainly possible:

WITT: You know, Iranian president, Mahmud Ahmadinejad, he has threatened terror attacks if the U.N. imposes sanctions. How worried are you that he would carry that out?

EMERSON: I think we have to take him at his word. Iran has carried out terrorist attacks outside its borders for more than 20 years. In 1994, Hezbollah, its surrogate, bombed the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires. Iranian dissidents have been killed in Europe. And in 2004, the Iranian diplomatic guards, taking videos of landmarks and bridges in New York, were expelled. They have the capability of carrying out attacks.

WITT: So does that mean that Iran has people in this country that would be capable of carrying out attacks?

EMERSON: I believe they do. They certainly have the capability, and they have demonstrated that, of carrying out reconnaissance, videos, photographing, as well as all reports they communicated back to Tehran for the contingency of carrying out attacks. And they have other terrorist groups that I believe would be willing to assist them as surrogates.

However, the threat of Iranian sponsored terrorism within the U.S. should have no affect on our decision to sanction Iran if possible, or act militarily if necessary, in order to bring a halt to their nuclear ambitions and delusions of establishing a global Islamic caliphate. And, as the world's options to deal with Iran narrow, it's begining to look like the world has three options as it faces the "terrifying prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran": It can watch the mullahs build nukes and hold the world to ransom. It can denounce American aggression - while secretly counting on the world's only superpower to ride to everyone's rescue. Or it can encourage the Iranian people themselves to topple the fanatics who threaten global Armageddon. Although the Iranian Resistance Movement would like to believe that the latter is the solution, from the looks of almost anyones trendline so far, unfortunately we appear to be moving to a "let's secretly count on the U.S. to bail us out" mentality. (David Foster at Cincinnati.com disagrees - he says there are only two choices)

Although we don't want to hear it and the Left is going to scream it's anti-war rhetoric like there's no tomorow (although there does appear to be a sober minded contingent of the Left), Americans need to prepare for war with Iran now, and understand that preparation includes preparing for Iran doing in the U.S. what is has always done elsewhere - being a sponsor of terrorism that has to be prevented from getting nuclear weapons.

But you say that there HAS to be an alternative, to a military option, there simply must be another option than the 3 already mentioned here. To this regard, Dennis Ross claims there may be one other option, something that hasn't been tried yet - something like a new strategy on Iran.

Why not have the president go to his British, French and German counterparts and say: We will join you at the table with the Iranians, but first let us agree on an extensive set of meaningful -- not marginal -- economic and political sanctions that we will impose if the negotiations fail. Any such agreement would also need to entail an understanding of what would constitute failure in the talks and the trigger for the sanctions.
Does it stand a chance? No, the Iranians have never lived up to an agreement, they have never proven that they can be trusted so far, and they can't be trusted now. The only thing that can result from the Ross plan, and I have great respect for Dennis Ross, is that Iran will have bought more time to complete the development of it's nuclear program while the ordinary Iranian citizens, the non-Islamists, suffer along with the Islamofascist mullahs and their followers.

Related: Iran Gets a Warning from Iraq

Posted by Richard at May 1, 2006 12:59 PM



Articles Related to Iran: