Al Qaida, Hezbollah, and Iran

Everyone knows that Al Qaida's mission is the forceful spread of Islam, and I think that this reason underscores the threat which Americans have successfully assaulted with much sacrifice both in Afghanistan and in Iraq. I think that their words are not hollow, but their brains are, so it has been easy to thwart their mission. Such religious devotion blinds them from common sense and forces them to attack in strategically foolish ways, especially when we manipulate them with our words. Right now, Al Qaida doesn't have much power at all, thanks to the damage that we have inflicted on them for four years now, despite world protests against it. Of all of the excuses used to justify our invasion of Iraq for political purposes, I believe that the fight against Al Qaida is the primary reason and perhaps the only reason which we really care about.

This same war against terrorism has justified America's support of the recent Israeli offensive against Hezbollah in Lebanon. They are not lunatics, they are murderers, thieves, and disillusioned, power-hungry zealots. But their power is quickly diminishing and their words are becoming quite hollow. But notice Iran in the coming years and her support of Hezbollah and other terrorist groups. Her words are not hollow, and we may likely suffer much in the near future if the world does not unite in the American war on Terror, namely France, Russia, and China.

Some people say (source protected): "Iran is fomenting trouble and the sooner it is brought under control the better....but we need to be careful and use non-violent methods first. Only if they fails do we need to use force. We can't be like them and use indiscriminate force..and bring tragic loss of human life."

In response to the concerns for the destruction of war, I recognize the tremendous sacrifice and harm inherent in armed conflict, but the refusal to meet one's enemies with force when self-preservation is of the essence risks much worse. Only two questions needs to be asked of Iran: 1) Does she desire peace with America and her allies (including Israel)? and 2) If she does not desire peace, then what threats to our security does she pose now and may she develop in the future? For your, the 1st question would naturally be modified to: 1) Does she desire peace with India and her allies? A third question is probably required for the sake of consistency: 3) Do all of one's allies desire peace and security for one's homeland? Those who do not must be re-classified as enemies.

Now, while it is much easier and wiser to make friends out of former enemies, this must never come at the expense of the peace and security of one's country, and the risk of betrayal must be always accurately considered. Furthermore, the condition of conversion to the religion of Islam, or any other religion for that matter, is an unacceptable violation of human freedom and a re-affirmation of nonpeaceful (forceful) intentions. Any country which desires to control another country as a condition for peace is not an ally at all (America included); I know that we have done our "fair share" of controlling other countries without the justifications of either peace or security.

FYI: It seems clear to me that the American people are preparing to wage war on Iran as we waged war with Iraq.

Personally, if I were President of America, I would immediately classify Iran as an enemy. As an enemy, I would extend the olive branch of peace and also, after a short period of consideration of our peace offering, exercise wisely chosen military opportunities to safeguard our peace and security. Until she accepted our offer of peace completely, I would simply cut off all trade and aid to Iran and all her allies (including those who trade with her), and exercise a balanced strategic and economic military campaign to minimize the threat.