Excerpted from ENN Daily Intelligence Report-Friday, July 11, 1997 Vol. 3, No. 192

ENN EDITORIAL:

BEING PASSIVE NEVER GOT ANYONE ANYWHERE ...
By Steve Macko, ENN Managing Editor

In an article published by the Air Force Times this past Monday, George C. Wilson wrote an article entitled: "On Terrorists, Think First And Shoot Last," In the piece, Wilson said that the United States may wish to reconsider any retaliatory action if it is determined that the Iranian government was involved in the terrorist truck bombing in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. In that terrorist attack, 19 U.S. airmen lost their lives and several hundred others were wounded.

Mr. Wilson stresses in his article that one big problem in retaliating to that cowardly attack is "nobody knows what the crazies would do in return." Wilson then cited a passage from former CIA Director Stansfield Turner's book, "Terrorism and Democracy." Admiral Turner, in his book, recounted all of the options that were considered when the Iranians took hostages at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1980.

Turner wrote in his book and as cited by Wilson: "No one could assure the president that we would get the hostages back alive if we took punitive action. We were in the same quandary as President Johnson when the crew of the intelligence research ship Pueblo was being held in North Korea. Our nation's immense advantage in military power was of little use."

Then Secretary of State Cyrus Vance argued that Iran, in retaliation for U.S. military action, would capture more American hostages or kill the ones it already had. Vance, reportedly, resigned in protest after President Carter decided to send in Delta Force and a team of U.S. Army Rangers to try to rescue the hostages from the Embassy in Iran.

Wilson, in his Air Force Times article, also relates how eight years later, Admiral William Crowe, Jr., the then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, did the world a "disservice" by blaming Iran for the shooting down of an Iranian airliner by the USS Vincennes -- killing all 290 people aboard the plane. In an apparent retaliation, a terrorist bomb was placed aboard Pan Am Flight 103 and it exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, just before Christmas in 1988 -- killing all 259 people aboard.

I don't believe that Mr. Wilson was saying that the U.S. should not retaliate and said at the end of his article: "We need to think first and shoot last to find better ways to deal with this new terrorism now confronting us at home and abroad." Unfortunately, Mr. Wilson did not offer any options on how to deal with the terrorism.

I don't know if he thinks that the U.S. should negotiate with terrorists. I also don't know if he thinks that the U.S. should do nothing to retaliate against by what most definitions would call an act of war that killed 19 U.S. airmen in service to their country.

So, I will just accept Mr. Wilson's words and accept that all he is saying is to think first about the consequences before we start dropping bombs on Tehran.

I step back to objectively reflect on what the options might be should it be announced that there is evidence that absolutely connects the government of Iran to the crime.

SCENARIO A: The United States does not retaliate and just publicly scorns the government of Iran for committing such an act. Iran's response, as it always is, will be denial. According to Iran, they're never involved in any terrorism. The United States would be, in Iran's opinion, just making up more lies to discredit the Islamic Republic.

In the above scenario, the U.S. would continue to try and pressure its allies to agree to economic and political sanctions against Iran, which as past experience tells us, they won't do because they see a buck to be made in Iran.

In this most passive of options, nothing happens to Iran. One thing will happen though, Iran will become more emboldened and will think like any other criminal that is let go without any kind of punishment, that they can get away with killing U.S. service personnel and all the strongest nation on Earth can do is verbally scorn it. Ouch! That really hurts. In the long run, contrary to what Wilson was warning in his article, these crazies will then commit another act of terror without fear of retribution. Why not? There are no consequences to be paid.

SCENARIO B: Representatives of the United States sit down and negotiate with representatives of Iran to talk about the differences between the two countries. What are they going to agree to? Are we to take the word of a criminal regime that has aspirations to expand its Islamic revolution from Pakistan (Perhaps even India) all the way across Northern Africa to Morocco? It must be remembered what Iran's goals are and how they will do anything, anything in an effort to achieve those goals. The leaders of Iran are not like the leaders of Japan, Italy, Brazil or any other like industrialized nation. They have an ulterior motive and they intend to achieve it.

In such negotiations, what would the U.S. receive in return? A promise that they won't do it again? A promise that Iran will change its behavior? To the contrary, Iran has maintained that it is the United States that should change its behavior to accommodate Iran.

Unless someone can say what can be gained by any such negotiations or talks with Iran -- they essentially, in this scenario, still get away with murder.

SCENARIO C: The United States Air Force and Navy avenges the death of 19 fellow servicemen by attacking and destroying, effectively reducing to rubble, the Iranian intelligence and military headquarters, as well as a number of terrorist training camps and perhaps the electrical power grid to Tehran. This option sends a clear message. If you attack the United States of America, it will reach out and extract retribution against states that have no regard for the rule of law.

In Mr. Wilson's article, he says that we should then be concerned about how Iran or its supporters may retaliate. He's right. We should probably be concerned and prepared, but I think to do nothing will probably send an even worse message and would encourage more terrorist acts because there would be no price to pay. It probably does sound cavalier to say if they want to get involved in a tit-for-tat encounter, we'll accommodate them and reduce Iran to the dark ages.

One thing should be remembered. Being a victim, and only a victim, never got anyone anywhere. How long is someone supposed to stand there and continue to get slapped across the face before something is done to stop the slapping? Past experience shows that the only thing that people, like the ones that rule Iran, understand is greater force that is used against them. Leave them alone and all you've done is issue them a license to commit terrorist acts without fear of retribution.

(C) Copyright- EmergencyNet News Service, 1997. All rights reserved. May be reproduced with permission.

Return to the Opinion/Editorial page