Editorial
Iran threatens Israel
The sages of Israel say, “When someone comes to kill you, kill him first.”
Against Iran: a pre-emptive first strike
Flag of the Islamic Republic of Iran (1980)
The only rational and manly response to Iran’s long-standing existential threat to Israel is for Israel to strike first and eliminate her sworn enemy. The longer Israel puts this action off the more difficult will be its accomplishment.
Of course, no rational and decent political leader in Israel savors this awesome responsibility, but it cannot be avoided without risking Israel’s own the existence, and THAT is the Paramount concern of her Prime Minister.
That Iran may have a second strike retaliatory capability does not negate an Israeli first strike. It only amplifies its necessity and disarming effectiveness, on the one hand, and indifference to public opinion, on the other.
Iran asked for it
This scenario is not the conclusion of hasty considerations. It was logically entailed several years ago when former Iranian despot Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed to “wipe Israel off the map.”
Those years should have been employed by Israeli Prime Ministers in making Israel immune to retaliation so far as that is possible, because Pollyana notion of pacifying Iran utterly misjudges the implacable nature of the enemy. Islam is not a compromising credo.
Since Iran’s Mullocracy has also intoned the malediction “Death to America,” the next President of the United States should regard the elimination of Iran as his first priority.
As in the case of Israel, he should not be deterred by the question of the certainty of an impending Iranian attack–not in this age of nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles.
Editor’s note: the current leaders of Iran threaten openly to wipe the United States off the map even as the leaders of the United States laughingly try to “negotiate” with them. In addition, Russia has clearly allied with Iran. Do the words of the prophet Ezekiel (specifically, chapters 38 and 39) spring to anyone’s mind?
-
Civilization4 days agoTime changes – Trump’s next target
-
Guest Columns5 days agoPermitting Reform: A Strategic Imperative for U.S. National Security and Global Competitiveness
-
Civilization2 days agoIt was a false-flag pseudo-operation!
-
Executive2 days agoWaste of the Day: $267 Million Spent on Fighting “Misinformation”
-
Executive5 days agoThe Life-Affirming Vitality of Raw Milk
-
Civilization3 days agoYep…. Still the Smartest Guy in the Room
-
Executive4 days agoThe Paris Accords As “Climate Insurance”—Unaffordable and Unnecessary
-
Civilization2 days agoAmerica Is Ready for a New Chapter and Restoration of the American Dream
Opponents of a peace deal with Iran should be prepared to say what alternative they would prefer. This article clearly articulates the writer’s position: he advises a pre-emptive strike, which would be an act of war. Previous such strikes, against Iraq and against Libya, have destabilised the Middle East and have fanned the flames of tribal conflict; they have led to the formation of ISIS and have helped it to recruit young people from all over the world to a fight in a jihad against what they see as an existential threat to Sunni Islam.
Right now does not seem to be a good time to attack Iran, while it is helping to fight ISIS. A strike would constitute an attack on Shia Islam. Peace in this case is a difficult path to pursue, and inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities are clearly very important, but if either America or Israel chooses to make a pre-emptive strike against Iran it would be very easy for Hezbollah to recruit more support in attacking Israel – which is a closer target than America. And it doesn’t make sense for America and Israel to be attacking both Sunnis and Shias at the same time. A peace process, even one as precarious as the Iran deal, is a safer choice.
[…] of a peace deal with Iran should be prepared to say what alternative they would prefer. One article, on the Conservative News and Views website, advises a pre-emptive strike – which would be an act […]
Iran is now fighting ISIS in Iraq and Syria, and their real target is not Israel, but Saudi Arabia: link to wnd.com
I agree that Iran is fighting a proxy war with Saudi Arabia, and it is doing so in the Yemen as well as in Syria; this can be seen as a continuation of a power struggle between Sunnis and Shias which has been rumbling on for hundreds of years. Iran is also in opposition to Israel, through its sponsorship of Hamas; that power struggle dates back to the founding of the modern state of Israel. Both these power struggles are located in the Middle East and are partly of a tribal nature. If America were to attack Iran, however, Muslims could be recruited from all over the world to join a jihad against the West; that is what ISIS wants, just as it was what Al Qaeda was trying to achieve, and it would spread armed conflict far beyond the Middle East.