Maggie's Farm

About all the Moslem states have to offer, and hold over the heads of the rest of the world, is their oil. Discoveries and conservation elsewhere has reduced their oil’s potency, and the Middle East oil producers must sell their oil anyway or collapse entirely. Disruptions in oil supply are worrisome to others’ economies, although less so than previously, and previously were weathered.

More important than oil disruptions per se is the wealth that comes from oil being dominated by a power hostile to the West, used to badger the West’s policies and to increase the concentration and advancements of armed might for uses dangerous to the West. Elsewhere, countries and movements hostile to the West would be encouraged and supplied by such a Middle East country. It is clear that country is Iran.

Although there are hopes the Iran rulers may eventually fall from their own internal stresses, that is a thin hope unlikely in the near term. Instead, as proven even by hesitant international bodies, Iran is within a year of being able within weeks of producing nuclear warheads that fit on its missiles that can now reach as far as Europe, not to mention Israel. Even President Obama has said that containment cannot be our policy. Unlike the Cold War, mutual assured destruction is madness when Iran’s rulers are so fiercely fanatic, tiny Israel may really be destroyed, and Europe would be directly threatened with devastation or kowtowing.

Israel, acting alone, can retard for several years the development of Iran’s nuclear abilities. Supplying some needed US arms will make that more sure and effective. Iran cannot close the Strait of Hormuz, except briefly. Its present missiles can harm Israel but not seriously. As well, Israel can withstand Hezbollah’s missiles, and levy a cost on Hezbollah it well may be unwilling to bear, as it admitted after Israel’s invasion in 2006. On the other hand, if Israel chose to strike the export outlets, even the oil fields, in Iran, the additional crippling of its economy and consequent domestic reactions against Iran’s rulers could topple them. If US forces were to be attacked by Iran, the kickback against Iran would be serious enough to prevent that. One can be sure that the usual outcries would come from the usual places, but they would be largely irrelevant to the fait accompli.

Toppling Assad in Syria actually may raise more doubts about outcomes. It would be a mighty blow to Iran’s power and the credence of its ambitions to lose its major cats paw, as well as weaken Hezbollah in Lebanon. On the other hand, the following regime may be more actively dangerous to Israel. But, more importantly, right now, taking out Assad may be a distraction from the top priority of Iran. Reduction of Iran’s influence, however, would follow from taking out its nuclear capacities, and its oil revenues used to support Syria and Hezbollah with arms.

It is a humanitarian disaster being wrought upon the Syrian rebels, but pales compared to the disaster for the West that would follow from Iran achieving usable nuclear weapons. Further, it is Turkey, closest and able, that should bear the weight for now if there is to be armed intervention. Meanwhile, and otherwise, the US and other Western countries, if they really care about the deaths from Assad’s forces, can supply some arms to the rebels, to be more effective, to defend against Assad’s onslaughts, and to keep Assad preoccupied while Iran is dealt with.

We can be fairly certain that the Obama administration is indecisive, at best, and largely inactive and inept. Unless Israel now takes the lead, and the risks, we can be fairly certain that the risks and costs to the West will be worse.