The Alternative is War?

Governor Mike Huckabee has been roundly condemned for his harsh description of Barack Obama’s Iran agreement.  Having called the president naïve for ushering Israeli’s to the door of the gas chamber, his critics proclaimed the holocaust metaphor inappropriate.

It is not.  Huckabee did not say that there has been a holocaust; only that one is impending.   He is absolutely correct.  Nonetheless, he is in good company.  Much worse was said about Winston Churchill when he warned of potential Nazi aggression.  He too was branded a warmonger.

What then will happen should Iran drop an atomic bomb on Israel?  Will the governor’s detractors say they are sorry?  Will they admit they were wrong?  More likely they will keep silent and pretend they agreed with him all along.

Many commentators have noted the parallel between Obama’s capitulation to the mullahs and Neville Chamberlain’s surrender at Munich.  This is an apt comparison.  At least as telling, however, was the response to Hitler’s reoccupation of the Rhineland.

After the Great War, in order to forestall rearmament, Germany was forbidden to militarize its industrial heartland.  Nevertheless, Hitler decided to do exactly this.  Although his general’s warned against the maneuver, he proceeded anyway.

This was 1936.  At the time, France was far better armed than Germany.  Its troops could easily have brushed the Wehrmacht aside.  Yet nothing was done because under the inept leadership of premier Albert Sarraut, the French wanted nothing done.  Too much blood had recently been shed to sanction another conflict.

The rest, as they say, is history.  What then about Iran?  Are we willing to use military means to stymy its nuclear aspirations?  Of course, Obama and his minions have repeatedly said nothing is off the table.  Their actions, however, have demonstrated otherwise; ergo the Iranians can be surer of this than Hitler was of French intensions.

Still, let us pause to ask about the consequences of an American military intervention.  First, we must understand Iranian capacities.  The mullahs have a large army, but a tiny navy.  Could they use these to retaliate?  Could they launch an armada against the U.S.?   Or might they attack our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan?

In fact, adopting these options is out of the question.  Iran cannot get to us.  We are too far away and our troops in the area are capable of easy withdrawal.  On the other hand, in a few years Iran could have the bomb, as well as the intercontinental missiles to deliver it.  Thus, if we wait, we could be in real danger.

Second, we do not have to engage in a ground invasion in order to take out Iran’s nuclear program.  We have the means to cripple it from a distance.  But, it will be argued, bunker busters are not up to the task.  Iran’s Installations are too hardened to penetrate.

Perhaps.  So we bomb them again…and again…and again.  That is, until they get the idea that we mean business. 

The evidence?  Once it was argued that New York City could never eradicate the graffiti from its subway cars.  The taggers would merely return after their handiwork was removed.

Then Rudi Giuliani disproved this thesis.  He did this by cleaning the subway cars and keeping them clean.  Eventually it became clear to the vandals that they could not succeed and they desisted.

The same applies to Iran.  Once it becomes apparent they have violated their treaty obligations, we retain the option of deterring their aggressive policies.  We do not have to wait for them to become so well armed they cannot be stopped.

Naturally Barack Obama will do nothing of the sort.  His intransigence and lack of common sense no know bounds.  We must therefore hope that it is not too late to do something once a new president takes office.  Huckabee got it right.  Let us pray that whoever our next leader, he/she will have the courage, and good sense, to take effective action.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of sociology

Kennesaw State University