[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: