Is there a threat of nuclear weapons from Iran?

A "news article" from the New York Times was posted on a friend's Facebook page concerning whether we should believe all our intelligence about Iran.  It suggests, once again, that the war in Iraq was some kind of vindication by GW Bush because of a threat of the life of his father (or something like that).  I have had many arguments about this with liberal friends who look at anything GW Bush did as evil and with ulterior motives.  Let put some facts on the table that most of my liberal friends tend to gloss over.

First, lets take on the whole weapons of mass destruction (WMD) argument.  The concept is that the Bush administration, with VP Dick Cheney in the middle of this, used faulty intelligence information to justify invading Iraq.  That there were no such WMD and, if the liberals had their way, Saddam Hussein was an innocent victim of the Bush Administration.  That all Hussein was trying to do was feed his people and the US was preventing him from doing so.

After Saddam Hussein was captured, he admitted that he did not have any WMDs but had to behave like he did in order to keep his neighbors from invading him.  This "behavior" included moving caravans of trucks in the middle of the night into Jordan and interfering with the inspection teams who were there to make sure that the weapons that he did have were destroyed and that his ability to manufacture more was thwarted (remember, he used chemical weapons against Iran as well as against villages in his own country).  The reality is that if you are known to have WMDs, behave like you still do and threaten your neighbors and the US, then don't blame us for shooting at you.  It's kinda like if a cop busts down your door because he has a warrant, you are known to have weapons inside and are not afraid to use them and when the cop says freeze, but instead you pull something out of your pocket, it doesn't matter what that something is, you will be shot.  And you can't blame the cop for it.  If you act like your a threat, you have been a threat and you actually threaten, you will be shot.

But the Iraq war was about so much more than just WMDs.  It was a response from 9/11 as well.  I know the liberals are quick to point out that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.  And for the most part that is true.  But 9/11 was about more than just Al Queda and Bin Ladden.  It was about terrorism.  It was about rogue states that allowed safe havens for terrorists groups.  It was about no more complacency when it comes to terrorism.

A report from the state department is required every year to be presented to Congress that details the threats against the US from terrorists.  The report for 2004 is very illuminating when it came to Iraq.

First, some basic background.  Saddam Hussein took power in 1979.  He did so through a military coup that resulted in over 600 executions (that number may actually be higher) and the establishment of a secret police that would take dissenters away in the middle of the night, never to be seen again.  President Carter was the first in a line that included every President since, that called the Saddam Hussein regime a terrorist regime.

This was verified after the fall of Baghdad.  The State Department report to Congress on terrorism lists no less than five terrorists organizations who were either protected by or financially supported by or both by Saddam Hussein.  They included:

• The Abul Nidal Organization (ANO).  Abul Nidal was one of the most notorious terrorists in the 60's and 70's, responsible for the hijacking of numerous planes and the execution style murders of a number of people worldwide.  By 2004, Abul Nidal was dead but his organization was operating in Baghdad and was helping Saddam Hussein with kidnappings and assassinations.
• The Palestine Liberation Front, headed by Abu Abbas, was originally based out of Tunisia with operations in Lybia.  Abbas was responsible for the operations that resulted in the  Achille Lauro hijacking, resulting in the execution of Leon Klinghoffer, an American Jew who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.  The PLF was also responsible for the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie Scotland and the bombing of a German disco that was frequented by US servicemen.  After Reagan's attack on Lybia and increasing pressure the international community, Abu Abbas left Lybia for the only place that would give him safe have, Saddam Hussein's Iraq.  After the fall of Baghdad, Abu Abbas was arrested there.
• Much is said about Saddam Hussein's attacks against Kurdish groups within his own country.  What is not widely known is that there were Kurdish groups that were supported by Saddam Hussein.  Two of them (they both have three letter acronyms but I don't remember them specifically) were responsible for attacks against other Kurdish groups, especially those based out of Turkey.
• Anslar al-Islam is the fifth group.  This was another Kurdish "paramilitary" group that was supported by Saddam Hussein.  After a nearly total defeat, the Hussein regime wanted to rebuild this group.  There are some sketchy reports that some members of Saddam's intelligence agency approached Usama Bin Ladin for help in rebuilding Anslar al-Islam.  Bin Laddin's response was to send  Ayman al-Zawahiri to help.  Al-Zawahiri was the head of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad organization, formally headed by Sheik Rahman (AKA The Blind Sheik) who was responsible for the first World Trade Center bombing in 1992.  The Blind Sheik was arrested about a year after that in New York City, with his co-conspirators, with plans to bomb a number of NYC landmarks including the Holland Tunnel, the NY Stock Exchange among others.   Ayman al-Zawahiri took control of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad organization.  He was summoned by Sheik Rahman;s close friend, Usama Bin Ladin, to go to Iraq and to rebuild Anslar al-Islam into a terrorist organization.  There were reports that their base was located in or right next to an Iraqi military base and that they were using an airplane fuselage to train terrorists how to take over the plane.  There are also reports that Bin Ladden became upset with the 9/11 terrorists in the US by the end of August because they hadn't even set a date for the "planes operation."  Coincidentally, Al Jawahiri pledge fayat to Bin Laddin in late August 2001.  This is significant.  Pledging fayat to someone in the middle east means that you are pledging absolute loyalty to that person, even if he asked them to die for him.  Shortly after this in August,  Ayman al-Zawahiri went to Afghanistan to join Bin Laddin as his second in command of Al Qaeda.  So for those who need a link between Bin Laddin and Hussein, there it is.

The point is that Saddam Hussein was the head of a terrorist regime, supported both financially and operationally, several very notorious terrorist organization within his own borders and he had a history of WMD production and use.  Were we supposed to wait for another 9/11 with chemical weapons before we acted?  Many liberal like to say that Bush called Iraq in 2002 "an imminent threat".  That is not what he said.  He said is was a growing threat.  By the time a country becomes an imminent threat, it is already too late.  If we look at North Korea, we see how this happens.  Now, if we attack North Korea, our forces and the neighboring countries are under a threat of nuclear destruction.  If we waited until Hussein was an immanent threat, then our soldiers, and the countries around Iraq, including Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel, would be targets.

But what else was going on just prior to the Iraqi invasion.  The UN authorized a limited release of oil from Iraq so the funds could be used to provide humanitarian aid.  Unfortunately, those funds were used for more than just food and clothing.  Saddam accumulated huge caches of weapons.  Some of these were found stockpiled near civilian targets such as schools and hospitals.  A clear violation of the Geneva Accords.  He also used the funds to build reinforced bunkers and huge palaces for his family and upper members of his government.  Finally, he used hundreds of millions of those dollars to pay off government officials throughout the world, including the son of the Secretary General of the UN and governmental officials from countries such as France, Germany and Russia.  Interesting that these were the countries that opposed joining the coalition against Saddam Hussein.  After his capture, Hussein stated that he was using those funds to help lift all sanctions against Iraq so he could resume production of WMDs.  Interesting, isn't it.

Now, no rogue nation in Iraq.  The terrorists organizations within Iraq, and there are some still there, do not get support and protection from the Iraqi government.  Instead, they are hunted down by the Iraqi government, as they should be.  That was the problem with Afghanistan.  We only wanted Bin Laddin and his co-conspirators responsible for 9/11.  The Taliban refused and the Bush Doctrine was born..  Our fight was with the terrorists and any government that harbors or supports them.  This was the famous "Your Either With Us or Against Us" speech.  

Now we have another situation.  Iran has begun production of refined uranium and plutonium, supposedly to be used only for the production of electricity.  Remember, this is a country sitting on one of the largest oil fields in the world.  They should have no problem producing electricity for centuries, yet they feel the need to produce atomic energy, using uranium not found in their country.  Do they really want their electricity to be reliant on foreign sources?  A stretch of the imagination for nearly anyone.  

Let's take a quick look at Iran and see if we can determine any other motives.  Iran became a radical Islamic state after their revolution ousted the Shah in 1979 and the taking of the US embassy and holding embassy personnel hostage for over a year.  If we had any other President, this would have been seen as an act of war worthy of military action.  Carter's only attempt was a failed, relatively small, attempt to rescue the hostages.  The ordeal ended with the election of Ronald Reagan.  Iranians interviewed since stated that with the election of Reagan, the Iranian government felt that one of the first acts Reagan would do was attack, with full force, Iran.  That is why when Reagan was taken the oath of office, the hostages were being freed.  Since the hostage taking, Iran was labelled a terrorist state.

This was further accentuated by the hostage taking of US and European citizens throughout the middle east.  This became a very big problem in the mid-1980's.  Was Iran responsible?  Absolutely.  Everyone knew this.  My liberal friends will remember the Arms for Hostages scandal.  This was were the US government would arrange for Iran to buy high quality US made weapons in exchange for Iran arranging for the release of hostages.  This deal would never have been possible if Iran was not in control of the terrorists who held these hostages.

Let's bring this to more recent times.  Hezbollah and Hamas are responsible for assassinations and bombings throughout Israel and Lebanon and are supported, most directly, by Syria.  This support comes originally from Iran.  Iran does already have WMDs and used them against Iraq during their ten year was against each other.  Iran now has the capability of producing nukes.  Do we need to wait until another 9/11 with nukes before we take action?  The leaders of Iran have repeatedly stated that their goal is the total annihilation of the state of Israel.  Nuclear weapons gives them that capability; and all in the name of Allah.  Will they actually do it?  I believe they would in a heart beat.  They would do it before they themselves are attacked to prevent them.  This is a growing threat to us and our allies.  We should act before it is an imminent threat.