Swamppundit

Dear Salam,

Did that last letter surprise you? I surprised myself. Severing all oil pipelines out of Iran and sinking any oil tanker that defies an order not to enter an Iranian port are unquestionably acts of war. These are not acts of total war, of course, and I am not advocating total war with Iran. But, let me acknowledge, my recommendation is not for further diplomatic talks with Iran, my recommendation is not for non-violent economic sanctions against Iran. And, let me further acknowledge, my recommendation is not for some multi-lateral strike against Iran. No, I recommend a unilateral use of U.S. military force.

Would the world condemn such an act? I suspect it would. Will anti-American sentiment increase? No doubt. Will Iran respond, in part, with acts of violence against Americans (and Israelis)? Probably.

Iran is currently actively engaged in two proxy wars. Iran is making war against Israel through its proxy Hezbollah. Iran is making war against the democratically elected government of Iraq, and the United States, through its proxies in the Shiite militias.

Proxy wars were understandable during the Cold War. If the U.S. and the Soviet Union ever fought directly, the unthinkable could happen. The Soviet Union wished to expand communism throughout the world. The United States wished to contain, or roll back, communism. Conflict was inevitable, war was unthinkable. The result: proxy wars.

Iran is waging proxy wars for an excellent reason, it knows it would lose a direct war, and yet, just as Soviet Union leaders were totally committed to expanding communism, Iranian leaders are equally committed to expanding the role of Islam in the world, and the role of Iran in Islam. The current Iranian leaders will never change their goals. Time, world opinion, diplomacy, and sanctions will never succeed in producing a peaceful, non belligerent Iran.

At present, Iran does not have nuclear weapons. At present, war with Iran does not raise the specter of the unthinkable. Therefore, the question is: why should the U.S. (and Israel) tolerate being the target of a proxy war waged by Iran?

There is only one reason to tolerate a proxy war waged by a country without nuclear weapons – you are winning the proxy war so there is no need to escalate. Well, are we winning in Iraq? Did Israel win in Lebanon?

Waging total war on Iran is justified; but is not smart. Using Air and Sea power only, we should slowly, surely, systematically cripple Iran until the Iranian people replace their leaders with people who are content to rule a non-nuclear Iran that is at peace with all of its neighbors – including Israel and a democratic Iraq.

This strategy is not without risk. Iranian leaders will not meekly accept defeat. An Iranian invasion of Iraq is possible. Iranian sponsored terrorist acts in America are possible. Highly expensive oil is probable. This strategy might actually be counter-productive in Iraq. Shiite outrage might actually drive the U.S. out of Iraq. (Leaving Iraq in response to a demand from the Shiite dominated elected government is not the worse possible outcome in Iraq.)

Remember: Iraq is the proxy war; the real war is against the centers of Islamofacism, of which Iran is the largest. It is better to lose in Iraq and have a secular, peaceful, non-nuclear Iran, than to win in Iraq and have nuclear armed mullahs running Iran.

If the lasting lesson of Iraq is that the U.S. should never invade and occupy, let the lasting lesson of Iran be that the U.S. will respond to losing a proxy war by taking the war to the source.

Lasting peace can never be achieved through good intentions alone. Those with bad intentions must be defeated. Iranian intentions are not hidden. Just as WWII began with a proxy war in Spain, the Iranian War has already begun. The need to defeat Iran cannot be avoided, it can only be delayed – and in the delay, become far more costly.

Sorry to be so belligerent,
Clarence