Tuesday, Oct. 8, 2002 | 8:53 a.m.
WITHIN A MATTER OF DAYS the U.S. Senate, Republicans and Democrats, will give President George W. Bush their blessing for him to attack Iraq. His political ace, Carl Rove, has been wagging the Democratic dog for most of this election year. Many of them, at first hesitant, have concluded that the political cost of not giving the president his way is too expensive. Nobody, especially a politician, wants to have his patriotism publicly questioned.
Those members of Congress who voted against getting into the Gulf War didn't suffer any major political backlash because it was two years before the next national election. It was a short war, that should have been fought, and President George Bush's polling popularity soared into the high 80s immediately after that campaign. Within months the American voters again turned their attention to a faltering economy and the next election saw the incumbent president fall to a governor from Arkansas.
It will be most interesting for observers of history, almost 12 years later, to compare the Gulf War with what happens in today's world. How soon will the president use this strong support from Congress or will he use it? If he does use it, will it be as quick and effective as the Gulf War? With an economy already in the toilet, will a war retrieve it or flush it? These are all interesting questions that will only be answered during coming months and years.
Although some questions can't be answered today, we do have enough knowledge to know that right next door to Iraq is another serious problem. Iran, we know, has also supported terrorists and is working on long-range delivery systems for nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Not only did Iraq use chemical weapons during their war with Iran, but so did the Iranians. Incidentally, at that time the Kurds had sided with Iran and Saddam used it on them also.
So there is no doubt that Iran has large quantities of deadly weapons. Since early this year that country has been sending their latest model of rockets to the Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon for use on farms, towns and cities in Northern Israel.
On a regular schedule, 747 airplanes have flown Katyusha rockets from Iran into Syria where they are unloaded and transported by land to the Hezbollah in Lebanon. From there they rain down on Israeli settlements, causing death and destruction. There has never been a need for ship transportation of offensive weapons to the Hezbollah.
The newest rockets, now going into Lebanon, are more sophisticated and can reach even deeper into Israel. At the same time Iran has ready for production missiles it can fire directly into Israel and several other nearby countries. Iran's intentions are clear and we know their role in terrorism. If we didn't know Iran's role, the Israeli interception of the Karine A. in the Red Sea early this year removed all doubts. The ship, directly from Iran, was loaded with tons of C-4 explosives, mortar rounds, anti-tank missiles and Katyusha rockets for Palestinian terrorists.
Let's recall former President Richard M. Nixon's last of several books, "Beyond Peace," in which he named Iran "the major sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East." Nixon wrote that Iran has "turned state-sponsored terrorism into a science." That observation has only been made more clear in recent years. If we invade Iraq, our troops will be right next door to another threat to world peace.
Before leaving this subject, we hope that our intelligence agencies are keeping a close watch on Libya's Muamar Qadhafi, who is doing his best to produce his own nuclear and chemical weapons.
Yes, that part of the world is a real rat's nest, which holds many threats to peace. Just how much of it we solve during the coming year will determine when, and if, another generation of Americans will be called upon to shed their blood.
archive
