[lit-ideas] Re: Worst Case Scenarios
- From: Eric Yost <eyost1132@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 02:12:10 -0400
As experts had predicted, however, the biggest challenge for the west was Iran's ability to wage asymmetric warfare through Hizbullah, Hamas and its own suicide-bombing brigades. The Islamic Republic had for years been openly recruiting suicide bombers through an organisation described as the Committee to Commemorate Martyrs of the Global Islamic Movement. As early as April 2006, it had held a recruitment fair in the grounds of the former US embassy in Tehran, claiming it already had more than 50,000 volunteers for operations against "the al-Quds occupiers" (that is, Israel), "the occupiers of Islamic lands", especially the US and Britain, and the British writer Salman Rushdie.
Rushdie too?
My immediate reaction to T.G. Ash's scenario is
that the West would not let asymmetric warfare
remain a challenge for too long. Terrorist acts
would emphasize the shift from the "asymmetric"
aspect of the acts to their "warfare" aspect. The
perp is a government this time.
After the first couple terrorist attacks, people
would connect the dots to Iran. Soon, the
terrorist attacks would be revealed for what they
really are--Iranian acts of war, acts later
punishable by war crimes tribunals. Public opinion
would opt for "smite." Strong polls would prevail
for all clobberhappy politicians. It would become
regular war with Iran. Caffeinated. No milk or
sugar. Humanitarian crises on the side, please.
If the US were at regular war with Iran for a
week, how much of Iran would be left? Surely by
the time the seventh or eighth terrorist act
rattled somebody's windows, the Mullah-thugs would
know their bunker days were ending.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts: