The WunderKraut Doctrine:

Location: Iran

Problem:

A conventional weapon attack on suspected nuclear sites in Iran would not do much to disrupt their research. They have the sites too spread out and deeply hidden. If the U.S. and Israel joined forces, we could put a hurt on the Iranians, but the ultimate result will be that their nuclear development would only be delayed a year or two AT THE MOST.

The U.S. has pledged not to initiate a nuclear first strike on a country. This is probably a good thing, but an attack on Iran short of dropping nukes will not accomplish the goal that the world seeks: Iran NOT having nuclear weapons.

Possible Solutions:

Sanctions will not do anything to the Iranians. If they are pushed, there are fears that they will turn off the oil taps and because of rising worldwide demand, the price of oil will go through the roof. Potentially hurting the U.S. and world economies. But it may be a necessary step to see if the Iranians are bluffing or not.

Pre-emptive attack with conventional weapons, as stated above, may only delay their research and development. It may be a needed starting place to show the Iranians that we are serious. Maybe “moderates” in the country would then oust their whack-job President. Although an attack may also enrage the other Muslim countries, hurting our mission in Iraq and causing the U.S. more problems down the road. Also, Iran could use the attack, especially if Israel helped, to buttress their claims that they need nukes for protection.

Pre-emptive attack with nuclear weapons, as stated above, has been disavowed by the U.S. as a first strike consideration.

Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Like the U.S. and the Soviets during the Cold War, fear of a massive retaliatory strike helped to keep the peace. Maybe the same approach could be used with Iran.

Recommended Solution:

Conventional weapons attack on as many sites as possible followed by official U.S. policy of Mutually Assured Destruction towards Iran.

The conventional weapons attack should begin as soon as possible in order to delay their research and development as much as possible. Also, a first strike would give “moderates” a chance to take back control of their country.

The world, including terrorists, will see that the U.S. means business and that we will not tolerate threats to our security.

After the attacks, President Bush should craft a policy position and present it to the U.S. Congress for approval. The policy would be very simple: If ANY country launches a nuclear attack against ANY OTHER country, the U.S. will launch a retaliatory nuclear strike against the cities of the attacking country.

If Iran tosses their three nukes at Israel, which would wipe them out, then the U.S. would nuke EVERY major city in Iran, turning the country into a sea of glass.

We would need to make sure that we had the balls to carry out such an attack. Making it the official policy of the U.S. would put it on the same footing we used during the Cold War. During the Cold War if the President needed to launch a retaliatory strike, he would order it, no Congressional approval was needed as it was understood that time was of the essence. The same thing applies here. Maybe if Iran knew that we were serious and if they realized that even with a Lame Duck President, we would respond, maybe, just maybe they would think twice about launching nukes.

The problem with MAD is that if Israel IS attacked, that will be the end of them. It is the risk we have to take, unless we want to launch pre-emptive nuclear attacks against Iran. If the intel is such that we know they are about to launch, then I would agree with this approach, but I doubt we will ever have that kind of actionable intelligence.

This approach would also serve us well if/when Pervez Musharraf is overthrown by an Iranian style Islamic Revolution.

BUT.

If these guys are dead set on ushering in Armageddon, then we may not have much choice other than to turn their countries into glass at the first sign of attack.

BUT.

Will we have the balls to do the right thing? I know millions of innocent people will die as a result of our attacks, but if we do not respond with enough force, our enemy will see us as weak and will plot to attack the U.S. proper. Yes, it is better to kill millions of “other” people than to see millions of Americans killed. If you cannot see the distinction, then yes, I AM questioning your patriotism. That is how countries work don’t ya know? If we care more about people other than our own, we cease to be a nation. We must never lose site of that. It is a tough thing, but if not then your friends and family will be the ones to die.