Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Group Writing: My Crazy Plan to Deal With Iran
I’m not saying we’re there now, but we could soon find ourselves in a situation where some kind of military action starts to look like the only possibility to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. If we get to that point, assuming that we’ve not yet reached the point where they have a deployable nuclear missile, I’m suggesting a plan that is a little off the beaten path … a little outside the box. Okay, I’m tearing up the box, setting it on fire, and dancing around it naked in a forest clearing with the rest of the coven.
First, some context. Iran is unique in several ways that I think makes it possible to use tactics that would be a horrible mistake in any other part of the Middle East.
To start with, while most of the Muslim world, including almost the entire remaining Middle East, is Sunni, Iran is Shia, and Sunni and Shia hate each other almost as much as they hate us. An attack on Iran would not be seen in the same way, or produce the same reaction, as a similar attack on, for example, Saudi Arabia.
Iran is Persian while most of the rest are Arab, and Arabs and Persians hate each other almost as much as they hate us. This would reinforce the dynamic produced by the Sunni/Shia split.
The rest of the Middle East is far from sanguine about the prospect of Iran becoming a nuclear power. Several of them already see themselves as being in the position where if the Iranians get the bomb, that they either nuke up or knuckle under. Given that they paid for Pakistan’s development, Saudi Arabia will have it immediately.
Finally, and most importantly, there is a completely different population dynamic in Iran than exists in any other Middle Eastern country. In the typical state, you have an overwhelming population of fundamentalist, terrorist-sympathizing crazies restrained by a government that is some degree less fFundamentalist, less terrorist-sympathizing, and less crazy. Iran is the opposite; a relatively secular, relatively pro-Western population with a fundamentalist, terror-supporting crazy government.
It isn’t even really the government, it’s the Mullah-based uber-government that sits above the government, deciding what laws can be passed, who can stand for office, and all the strategic policy for the state. Without the Mullahs, in a comparison with the rest of the Middle East, it would come across as a relative bright spot.
So, my idea is simple: kill the Mullahs. You know … all of them.
I don’t know the state of our intelligence in Iran, but these guys have to get together at some point: The Monthly Mullah Meeting; The Annual Mullah Performance Review; The Semi-Annual Mullah Pancake Breakfast … something. If you can get them all together, then it’s one and done. One bomb, that is.
If you can’t get them together, then get them apart, in a time-on-target salvo, so that no one has a chance to go to ground. The government would remain intact and completely functional, so there is no worry about nation-building. All the infrastructure would be similarly intact, because you’re just trying to kill about a dozen guys.
It may or may not also be advantageous to destroy some portion of the Iranian military to demonstrate how easy it would be to destroy the rest. Sink everything floating in the Persian Gulf, for example.
And that’s it. We’re done. The only thing left to do at that point is to tell them:
- We’re done. We have no intention of taking further action. We have no ill will towards the Iranian people, which is why we chose an option with the lowest possible collateral damage. We only attacked the Mullahs, the ones who took our people hostage, who declared war against us, a declaration that has never been rescinded, and who have committed numerous acts of war against in the years since.
- We will take an extremely dim view towards any attempt by anyone to set themselves up as new Mullahs.
- We will take a similarly dim view towards any attempt by the military to take control.
- We call for elections at the earliest opportunity, in which anyone who chooses to do so may run for office.
One obvious potential downside is that they retaliate through their various proxies but given that I stipulated at the start that we’ve reached the point of a military response, that worry would apply to any plan. And I would argue that the nature of this one might actually be less likely to produce that kind of retaliation.
Most of the remaining potential downside would tend to fall into the category of “they’re already crazy, so how much worse can it get?” The last way that Iran is unique is that it’s harder to make things worse than it would be for other states where the government is keeping a lid on a crazy population.
The potential upsides depend on asking what the Iranian people care about. Do the people want to support terrorist operations in other countries? Do they want to provide massive amounts of aid to Hezbollah in Lebanon? Do they want to ship men and material to Syria? Do the people even care about having a nuclear weapon, or do they want jobs and reasonable prices when they go to the grocery store? If we could put the power into the hands of the people, it would be hard to imagine them not being less crazy than the guys running the place now.Published in Group Writing
All the more troubling about just exactly why Obama and the CIA (little bit of vomit in the back of my throat) chose to let the Green Movement get slaughtered.
It’s showing some signs of revival at the moment.
lol, I am not qualified to comment on foreign policy in any way, but this is a great line: well done. :)
There are a few issues. First, Mullah is just their version of a minister. Getting rid of all the mullahs means hitting every mosque in the country. Perhaps you mean a higher rank, such as these cats and these cats. They are sort of like bishops, but not quite.
Second, there are also these cats. Take care of them, and you’re getting somewhere.
This conversation is an entry in our Group Writing Series. This was part of June’s theme of Now That’s Imagination! July’s theme will be Understanding. Part of the goal of Group Writing is to get newer or quieter members contributing. You don’t have to be a Washington Insider or have the intellect of the late Charles Krauthammer to write on Ricochet. Group Writing has flexible, everyday topics to spur you to write about your life and experience. Come join us.
There is a group of ruling Mullahs. I’m not talking about every iman in the country.
Is that a new Apple product? The iMan?
The Shi’a idea of an imam is very different that the Sunni version. There have only been twelve imams according to the Shi’a Twelvers, who run Iran. The Twelfth is in hiding and will reveal himself at the end times.
But your point was referring more to the Ayatollahs and Grand Ayatollahs, which I linked to their lists in my earlier comment.
Fine, we’ll put you in charge of killing the right guys.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps was the other group I linked to. They were specifically formed to keep the government “an Islamic republic.” They have their fingers in every economic pie in Iran so they can siphon money away to fund “revolutions” in other countries.
I have them on my list.
Thank you, ma’am.
Years ago, I suggested to a national radio host that Bush the Younger should obliterate the Supreme Leader, Council of Guardians, and IRGC equipment concentrations and support bases. At the same time, loudly proclaim support for the great Iranian people, their democratically elected representatives, and the true Iranian national military.
The answer was that Congress would impeach the President. Maybe, but I’d like the popcorn concession on that one.
How about we send three little maids. That’ll freak ’em out.
I think it would be a whole nother kettle of fish with Trump. It could be even more fun.
It all comes down to timing.
I think it goes without saying that I only recognize the authority of one Ayatollah.
Dear Goody Mental, last time the US tried this in Iran it didn’t bear good fruit (ie look at where we are today). It may even do in Iran for Russia what US intervention in Iraq did for Iran.
Yours in prayer and fasting
SeditiousSceptical in Salem
Obama allowed the beginnings of opposition to be crushed then signed an agreement that signaled we’re with the theocracy not the people. So the insane destructively stupid part is already done, perhaps we should follow on by establishing diplomatic relations, expand business then use every conceivable piece of access, to gather intelligence on them. Then begin eliminating them however we can. If that’s impossible, I don’t know the place, what opposition exists and what access we have, then we must begin preparing to blow them up. The people won’t know just how complete our blowing up will be and might just solve the problem for us. If that doesn’t work, then blow them up. But yes don’t invade, don’t try to run the place, don’t try to pick the government, don’t destroy any more than necessary. Just kill them however we can and most of the world will be dancing around the box with us.
So Trump puts out a Fatwa on the Mullahs on Twitter. Hmmm… it has potential!
But first he should try some nicknames, I had no idea that they could be so effective BT ( Before Trump).
Hm. An idea seriously grounded in literature and history. I remember:
I see some of you have already covered similar traditions in entertainment. Well done.
Regime change by assassination? I, too, am skeptical.
I thought the writing assignment this month was fiction?
Nope, just imagination.
Note the takedown of the the mythology surrounding the 1953 anti-Mossadegh coup.
(POTUS-44 was almost sexually enamored of this myth.)
I approve this message
I enjoyed reading this, Judge Mental. I would certainly shed no tears for the clerics, but assassination might be extreme and unnecessary. I would suggest that we infiltrate Iran with a Donald Trump like Manchurian Candidate with the slogan “Make Iran Persia Again.” If we had the Shah or Cyrus the Great back, Iran wouldn’t be such a problem.
I think I’m enjoying the exchanges between you and @arahant as much as the post, @judgemental! All are very creative. Thanks!
A coup is never a nice thing, but Iran was certainly better off without Mossadegh and Chile was better off without Allende.