SouthernWorldwide.com – The sudden halt to a planned military operation against the Iranian regime, as reported, clearly indicates that significant developments are unfolding.
This pause, lasting approximately two to three days, suggests an effort to reach some form of agreement, presumably one that includes Iran abandoning its nuclear ambitions.
However, the question of “no nukes” raises critical concerns. Will Iranian scientists simply forget their nuclear advancements? How long can these capabilities be contained, and what becomes of the enriched uranium?
Reports indicate Iran possesses enough enriched uranium for ten bombs within eleven days, and that further enrichment to weapons-grade (90%) can be achieved in a matter of weeks.
Furthermore, the issue of plutonium, a key component in nuclear weapons, is conspicuously absent from discussions.
The regime’s ballistic missile program, responsible for striking targets across the Middle East and now capable of reaching Europe, also remains a significant threat.
The extent of these missile capabilities was not fully known, and it is uncertain if these will change following military actions.
The article questions whether a regime that expelled inspectors, concealed its activities, and violated all previous agreements would genuinely alter its behavior due to military pressure.
It posits that the actions and rhetoric of the Iranian regime do not suggest a nation that is defeated or fearful of death.
Baca juga di sini: Terrifying fact of Iran war is America is no longer safe from this new threat
The author expresses a belief that the West struggles to comprehend the Iranian regime’s ideology, which is described as a religious, extremist, fundamentalist cult driven by a desire to conquer or destroy those who do not adhere to its beliefs.
This ideology, consistently communicated through their literature, sermons, and public statements, is characterized as a borderless revolution rather than a nation-state seeking coexistence.
The article reminds readers that this has been evident for 47 years, during which many Americans have become casualties of the regime’s ambitions.
A significant concern highlighted is the enforcement of any potential deal. The author questions how compliance can be ensured when the regime is known for cheating, lying, and hiding its activities.
The capabilities of intelligence agencies and satellites are deemed insufficient to detect every violation.
The article raises the crucial question: “And if we find violations, then what?” The response, “Well, we’ll hit them again, Mark,” is met with skepticism.
It questions whether past presidential administrations, including those of Republicans, would have acted decisively in such a scenario.
The author also points to the presence of appeasers, pacifists, and isolationists within American politics and government, suggesting a potential lack of will for decisive action.
The reaction to even a minor increase in gasoline prices is cited as an example of public sensitivity that could undermine long-term resolve.
The continued existence of Hezbollah as a potent terrorist force and Hamas is also brought into question, along with the Iranian regime’s support for them.
The author sarcastically asks if the Brooklyn Bridge is still for sale, implying the futility of expecting Iran to cease its support for these groups.
The article then turns to the plight of the Iranian people, noting that their uprisings, though carried out without arms, have resulted in immense suffering and continue to do so.
European nations are described as likely to be “useless,” even with détente with China and similar arrangements with Russia, suggesting they would still offer support to the Iranian regime.
North Korea is also mentioned as a potential supporter, further complicating any international control over Iran’s actions.
The author anticipates how Democrats might react, predicting rhetorical questions about the cost of war, comparisons to previous administrations, and accusations of wasted resources.
The truth, it is argued, will be secondary to the narrative and spin, particularly concerning the midterm elections, despite calls for “off-ramps.”
The core issue, the article asserts, remains the Iranian regime itself and how to contain it if it survives.
The author explicitly states having no inside information and believes that military action against the regime may resume after the current negotiation period.
However, the importance of thoroughly considering these complex issues and many more is strongly emphasized.
