HOW TO DEAL WITH IRAN
Iranian leaders have made it clear that once they acquire nuclear weapons, they will use them to destroy Israel and the United States.
How is the United States to deal with this threat?
Mark Williams (wrow radio, 590 AM) shared clips from the recent Obama-Clinton debate, that provided insights as to what each would do regarding Iran.
Obama says he would do whatever it takes, focusing on more talk. Obama has no plan. Hillary indicated she would nuke Iran, if need be.
President Bush must act to resolve the Iranian nuclear threat BEFORE he leaves office. He can not leave our nation vulnerable during 2009 while the federal government goes through the process of administration change. He can not run the risk that either Obama or Hillary become President.
More talk, or a nuclear attack on Iran, are not the answers. The fallout from such an attack would travel in the Westerly wind system, contaminating , first, Pakistan. India, China, and Japan. North America and Europe would be next.
The answer is to be found in (1) use of conventional air and missles attack, to destroy any Iranian nuclear facilities; (2) followed by occupation by ground troops who would complete the job, defeat and disarm any opposition, and restore civil order.
Whose ground troops? Pakistan, India and China have large standing armies. Japan has naval forces. Iran could be divided into four regions occupied by troops and naval units from each of the aforementioned.
The U.S would maintain naval and military presence in Iraq and elsehere in the Middle East, supported by units from Britain, France and other NATO Members, as well as Australia and New Zealand.
Oil and oil revenues, from the region, would be tapped to sustain the above air, naval and military initiatives and occupations, as well as to ensure an orderly flow of oil to each participating nation and maintain the peace.
President Bush must launch an immediate diplomatic effort to convince Pakistan, India, China and Japan that participation, with the United States in the Asian eqivalent of NATO is in the best interests of each. A concurrent effort must be made to convince NATO members of the same.
The future survival, and continued economic prosperity, of all concerned, are at stake.
Once nukes begin to be used, it will be too late for all.
Joe Sullivan
