Crazy Magic

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

As
a boy during the 60's, I remember a local commercial on television
featuring the owner of a used car dealership named Crazy Eddie.
Crazy Eddie would jump on top of cars that were driven up in front
of the camera and shout and scream that he was slashing the prices
and practically "givin' 'em away because I'm craaaaazy."
Of course Crazy Eddie wasn't giving anything away, these cars were
a small representation of his available fleet of automobiles, the
rest of which were priced normally. Crazy Eddie wasn't crazy, he
was a shrewd and successful salesman.

I
also remember as a boy watching the Roadrunner and Wile E Coyote
in their comical battle of wits. The coyote was constantly using
the latest Acme invention or some elaborate scheme to get the Roadrunner,
who would adroitly out maneuver the coyote's machinations with a
simple bit of his own cunning. Recently I watched what passes for
cartoon entertainment today, and the hero used magic spells to win
battles and solve problems; very uninspiring, no thought or imagination;
yawn.

I
share these two illustrations to explain what I see as a bit of
crazy magic going on within our country by neo-conservatives (who
are not new and certainly not conservative
). Neocons usually
explain away the rather complex problems in the Middle East as some
form of craziness for which they have their own brand of "magic"
to cure.

My
best friend taught me a great problem solving tool called simply
"Then What" which challenges you to assume the worst scenario
on top of the worst scenario in sequence and to ask yourself then
what happens next. Let's play "Then What" in regard to
the Iranian
nuclear
issue.

To
play, we must first assume that Iran will potentially obtain a nuclear
warhead and concurrently, we will go with the most aggressive assumption
proposed by Israel, that they will have this weapon within a year.
I believe it is possible for Iran to obtain a nuclear warhead, although
I believe it will be three years at its former rate of progress,
or possibly never if Iran continues to allow close scrutiny by the
IAEA and remains a signatory to the NPT. It is also very interested
in such weaponry for a number of reasons and Iran currently has
the cash to pursue nuclear development. Still, to play What Then
we must assume the worst.

Next
we must ask what is the worst thing Iran could possibly do with
this weapon. Although it is most probable that Iran will use the
nuclear potential to put itself on a par with Israel and other regional
nuclear powers, let's look at the worst-case scenario. Let us assume,
for arguments sake, that Iran is developing the nuclear weapon specifically
to strike the United States, an insane proposition given our massive
nuclear arsenal.

To
strike America with a nuclear weapon, Iran would have to smuggle
the weapon into the United States via a shipping container as they
have no weapons capable of intercontinental ranges. Let us assume
however that they not only shipped the nuke into the United States,
they shipped it to where they wanted it successfully and detonated
it at precisely the moment they wished. Perhaps they would have
a proxy terrorist group do the actual dirty work.

The
result would be a nuclear detonation in our most populous city or
possibly even the nations capital with casualties possibly in the
hundreds of thousands or even millions.

What
then?

Nuclear
weapons
leave a signature based upon the types and the values
of the fissionable material used. These values differ enough from
nation to nation and program to program, making it entirely possible
to trace the precise country of origin of a nuclear device.

We
would very quickly determine exactly who was responsible for the
nuclear explosion and retaliate in kind. We would, at the least,
incinerate the entire capitol of the offending nation in a 40 Megaton
regime change from one of the thousands of nuclear warheads at our
disposal. The fact that the United States is the world’s premiere
nuclear superpower is no secret to anyone, nor is our proclivity.
The fallout from this exchange would not only kill and injure millions
more, rendering Iran inert and devastated, it might very well start
World War Three.

What
then would be the motive for Iran to attack us with a weapon that,
although causing us some great harm, would not utterly destroy us
and only serve to awaken our anger and a massive retaliatory strike?
I have yet to find a single plausible explanation, indeed all I
hear from the neo-con corner is that it is because the Iranians
are crazy with anger and as such, apt to do anything. Possibly that
they want to attack us to start a globalist Jihad although they
would of course be incinerated first.

I
remember neo-cons giving Saddam Hussein these same attributes. Neocons
claimed that Saddam was so crazy, he would blindly attack the United
States without regard to the fact that he would be retaliated against
with such blinding and decisive force that he and his entire Baath
party would be vaporized. Don't get me wrong, I think Saddam was
a brutal thug for whom shooting is too good, but he was anything
but a fool. Crazy like a fox maybe, but not crazy on the level of
a lunatic that throws himself into the fire.

Equally
puzzling is the neo-con solution to Iran obtaining nuclear weapons,
which reminds me of modern day cartoon characters who solve everything
with magic. Instead of magic, however, the solution to all problems
according to neo-cons is to use massive and overwhelming firepower,
to wage war with little regard for the consequences or cost. For
neocons, war is something they have little or no personal experience
with. Given their glaring absence from any battlefield including
the one currently in Iraq, it is no wonder they are all too eager
to use war as a first option?

There
is another scenario though, one that is a bit more believable but
in order to believe this you have to acknowledge the possibility
that there may be neo-cons whose traitorous tendencies have them
putting Israel's interests ahead of those of the United States.

In
this scenario Iran builds a nuclear warhead and mounts it on one
of it's Shahab-3
rockets currently under development and possibly ready for use in
the near future thanks to Iran being flush with oil profits, an
unforeseen byproduct of the interruption in Iraqi crude brought
on by our recent invasion. These missiles are believed to have Chinese-supplied
or Chinese-influenced telemetry (guidance equipment) thanks to the
Clinton/Loral
treason-in-exchange-for-campaign-contributions
deal.

The
Shahab-3 rocket is capable of striking Israel, which means that
Iran would soon be on par with Israel and able to challenge Israel
locally and apply political pressure. While I certainly wish Israel
no harm and hope that it can maintain good diplomatic relations
with Iran, it would certainly put Israel in a bit of a predicament.
For instance, Iran would be able to exert pressure on Israel to
do such heinous things as give the Palestinians fair and equitable
treatment.

Of
course Iran would have to deal with the fact that not only does
Israel contain a rather impressive nuclear arsenal; Israel also
has a number of top-notch methods for delivery such as the Jericho
II missile and Popeye Turbo missiles, as well as a superb military,
and a government with a proven track record of mobilizing quickly
and decisively in the face of threats. While Iran would have the
ability to strike Israel, it would also realize that such a maneuver
would bring about a quick, decisive and overwhelming response from
Israel that would no doubt destroy Iran utterly.

While
I certainly don't welcome the idea of a nuclear-equipped Iran, I
hardly think that an invasion or attack should be our first option,
despite obvious approval and manipulation on the matter by Israel.
The word diplomacy comes to mind, especially as one who has seen
the face of war, a face that is as ugly as it is costly in both
blood and treasure. Given that Iran is three times as populous as
Iraq and that things are not going exactly swimmingly in Iraq, perhaps
diplomacy would be in the best interest of the United States.

But
then that's because I have such an obvious bias, a bias that says
we Americans ought to act in our own best interest, not contrary
to it, and that at all times we must ensure that our foreign policy
is restrained by the dictates and direction found in the United
States Constitution.

I
believe our leadership should exploit the avenue of diplomacy, that
is should support and even reinforce the efforts of the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). To date the IAEA has been very successful
not only in locating and identifying all facets of Iran’s nuclear
program, it has also extracted an agreement to continue it's voluntary
suspension of its enrichment and processing activities. Given the
current success of the IAEA which is relatively costless in terms
of blood and treasure, does it not make good sense to use diplomacy
instead of warfare?

November
29, 2004

Al Lorentz [send him mail]
is former state chairman of the Constitution Party of Texas and
is a reservist who recently served with the US Army in Iraq.

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare