The Case for Attacking

Nuclear Iran will be significant threat to U.S. and beyond


The Case for Attacking
by Fernando Espuelas

Since Harry Truman led the world in recognizing the State of Israel, the United States has been its staunchest ally. Through decades of wars and near-death experiences, America has stood by Israel with military, diplomatic and financial support.

Over the last year, however, tensions have emerged between Washington and Jerusalem. Frustrated by the lack of any meaningful progress in bringing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to a close, the United States has pressured Israel to stop any further development on Palestinian lands, a source of tremendous friction for Arabs on the streets and their governments trying to maintain fragile stability.

The message from the American Government has been clear: restart face-to-face negotiations with the Palestinians.

This pressure has come as a shock to the Israeli political establishment. During the George W. Bush years, American policy had tilted away from the honest-broker posture of past Republican and Democratic administrations to a noticeable pro-Israel bias.

The prospects for a lasting peace moved farther and farther into the future as Palestinians felt abandoned by the historic American referee that had guaranteed them over decades of negotiations a fair deal, while the Israeli government felt no urgency to end the conflict.

With a new administration in the White House, American policy in the region over the last year has focused on simultaneously pressuring for a final peace accord, while grappling with the other strategic flashpoint in the region: Iran.

The United States has sought to stop Iran's illegal nuclear ambitions initially with the open hand of diplomacy, which led to more tactical delays from Tehran and further violations of existing U.N. resolutions, and now with a new round of United Nations, European Union and U.S. sanctions.

But the prospect of a nuclear Iran, an Iran determined to be the regional superpower that threatens Israel while dominating its Arab neighbors, has once again brought the U.S. and Israel into strategic confluence.

Recently President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met at the White House for private talks and a public show of solidarity. The usual vows of an unbreakable alliance where uttered for the global media.

More interesting, and unknowable outside of the top reaches of the American and Israeli governments, is what was discussed behind closed doors.

Israel has stated in the past that it will not wait indefinitely to respond - read unilateral military strike - to what it sees as Iran's hostile intent in developing illegal nuclear weapons capability.

Israelis rightly see a nuclear Iran as an existential threat - a threat repeated over and over again by the Islamic Republic's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, an avowed Holocaust-denier.

The U.S. has also said that it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. The stage is therefore set for a confrontation with Iran.

Mounting evidence of Iranian illegal weapons nuclear development is now the overarching strategic consideration facing the United States in the region. At stake is Israel's security, of course, but also the security of Iran's other traditional regional rivals - the largely Arab Sunni states on its periphery.

Moreover, Iran's provocative testing of long-range ballistic missiles is now putting NATO countries within reach of a potentially nuclear armed Iran.

Some have argued that the Cold War-era Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) doctrine would contain Iran. That is a big assumption - specially in light of the Iranian regime's ideology.

Like fundamentalists in all religions, who are driven by a fanaticism that will supposedly get them closer to their god, the martyr tradition of the Shia is a powerful ideology that distorts traditional notions of realpolitik.

In contrast, the Soviets' drive for world domination was largely the mission of atheists, rationalist men who calculated risks and rewards in the context of winning battles in this world - not in heaven. Mutual Assured Destruction is the ultimate rationalist argument against nuclear war. And it has worked.

The founder of the Islamic Republic famously differentiated his messianic mission from the actual nation of Iran. Ayatollah Khomeini said, "We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world."

In another glimpse at his world view, Khomeini said, "This regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

These are not the thoughts of a rationalist who will be deterred by concepts of mutually assured destruction or even the asymmetric risk of conflagration at the hands of the world's superpower.

Besides funding and arming terrorist organizations Hezbollah and Hamas on Israel's borders, Iran showed its true intent in the slaughter of Argentine Jews in a terrorist attack against a community center in Buenos Aires in 1994. Two years earlier, the Israeli Embassy in Argentina was destroyed by a car bomb. Argentine investigators have tracked the source of the attacks all the way to Tehran.

And clearly Khomeini's ideology drives the current crop of the Islamic Republic's leaders. They have not only threatened us and our allies with words - in fact, they have projected military power into Iraq, attacking U.S. soldiers through proxies, provided the matériel for the missiles raining on Israeli villages, and have sought advanced military technologies from Russia and North Korea.

They are at this moment arming themselves for war.

Ignoring this objective reality is as foolish as it is dangerous.

So what to do? From many corners of the Washington establishment we hear that military strikes will not be effective against Iran. The skill with which the Iranians have spread their nuclear program, the hardening of sites and the redundancy supposedly built into the system makes an attack a huge gamble.

As historian Barbara Tuchman observed, "War is the unfolding of miscalculations." Can we be sure that a preemptive attack will deliver a sufficient blow to stop for decades, if not forever, Iran's nuclear weapons program? No.

But we can be sure that once Iran acquires nuclear strike capability it will permanently be a significant threat to the U.S., our allies in the Middle East, Europe and beyond.

Winston Churchill's warnings about the rising menace beyond the Rhine seem as relevant today as they did in the 1930's: "One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger."

First published in

Fernando Espuelas is host of Café Espuelas on Univision Radio.




by Bavafa on

See, reasons I believe you need more readings and a pair of glasses are confirmed by the following statements and beliefs.

"Unfortunately, many of them follow a wahabist/salafist philosophy that calls for the destruction of non Muslims, and the imposition of a worldwide caliphate. Regimes like the current one in Iran support these maniacs who want to drag the world into the 7th century"

Few people (if any) are unaware that Wahbists are rooted, funded and supported in Saudi Arabia which is has USA as its staunch backer. In fact USA has a large army stationed in SA just to protect that regime. Furthermore, Wahbis consider Shiia and Iran as their biggest enemy, bigger then US. So, to believe that Iran is supporting Wahabis is beyond laughable, but I am not laughing.

"If countries like Iraq and Iran become functional democracies"

Iran had a democracy, once and for a very short period of time. CIA organized a Coup to topple it. Google CIA and Mossadegh, here is a link //

Then start believing what if USA is interested in democracies every where. Again Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan and all other ME countries are ally of USA, yet none are as far away as democracy as it can get.

"During WWII, the Arabs sided with the Nazis and did whatever they could to further their hateful agenda. The Baath party has its roots in the Nazi movement, and the relationship between Hitler and the Grand Mufti is well documented"

Last time I checked, they were being exterminated by Germans, yet Arabs have to pay for that. But to be clear, I am not advocating that they should pack up and go… but what they are doing to Arabs, resembles so closely to what Nazis did to them. So, you can not condemn one act and yet Condon a very similar act by another group. Its called hypocrisy.




by Spike on

We have no real interest in "rescuing" Muslims.  I personally don't care all that much what they do to each other.  Unfortunately, many of them follow a wahabist/salafist philosophy that calls for the destruction of non Muslims, and the imposition of a worlwide caliphate.  Regimes like the current one in Iran support these maniacs who want to drag the world into the 7th century. If countries like Iraq and Iran become functional democracies, the people are much less likely to to allow their governments to create havens for terrorists and various other nutcases.  Scum like Hussein made common cause with them. In the West we have a concept known as "enlightened self interest".  It's very much at play in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As for the evils of Zionism, I doubt that there is a more persecuted group of people than the Jews.  If they're a bit paranoid, I don't blame them. They have been subjected to pogroms and massacres from the days of the Egyptian Empire through the 20th century.  During WWII, the Arabs sided with the Nazis and did whatever they could to further their hateful agenda.  The Baath party has its roots in the Nazi movement, and the relationship between Hitler and the Grand Mufti is well documented. The Jews have every right to a home of their own.  They wouldn't have "parts of Lebanon and Syria" if the Arabs hadn't foolishly attempted to destroy them in the first place. 

The UN is a useless organization, which I have never recognized as legitimate.  It's a horribly corrupt mess that serves as a platform for various America haters and Israel haters to spew their venom.  And then they turn around and stick their hands out demanding our money to support them.  I think we should not give them any of our money and let them move to the Hague.  Donald trump could turn Turtle Bay into something actually useful.



by Bavafa on

I don't need to insult you, you have yourself to thank for doing that job.

If the Arabs are so bad and all cheered on 9/11, then why would you want to go and rescue them. As you believe, they have been killing each other for 1000 years. Why would any sane nation would want to go and have over 4000 of their soldiers killed, many thousand disabled and many billion $$$$ spent to rescue people that cheer our destructions?

BTW, if "racist Israeli" strike a never, be informed that this is what they have brought upon themselves. Zionism has been recognized widely around the world as a racist ideology so has the occupation of Palestine along with parts of Lebanon and Syria. Israel is in violation of many UN resolution but then again, some in US do not even recognize UN when it does not suit them, not sure where you fit in that regard.


P.S. Good luck with your Persian classes, lets hope they teach more then just the language.

P.S.S No instult was intended



by Fatollah on

get real and do some serious reading ...  


Bavafa: Oh I forgot, we're responsible for all that's wrong

by Spike on

Thanks for reminding me.  If it wasn't for us, you're right, Shias would have no interest at all in kiling Sunnis.  Or vice versa.  It's only been going on for about 1,000 years.  Maybe you can find a way to back date the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.  All I saw from the Muslim world on 9/11 was cheering in the streets.  And as for the weapons of Hussein, most of them came from the Russians.  His chemical weapons, his nerve gas, his tanks and his artillery.  Even his primary infantry weapon was the AK 47.  They trained his army.  His air force was composed of Russian jets and helicopters.  He organized the Iraqi army on the Soviet model. 

Al Quaeda?  You're kidding.  Al Quaeda was funded and raised up by bin Laden.  We didn't create those monsters.  We supported them and the other mujahideen when they were fighting the Soviets, but we didn't create them.  Read a book called "The Looming Tower".  It might provide some "glasses" for you.  The Saudis cut a deal with them and the other nutters after they took over Mecca. As long as they didn't go after the royal family and threaten the Saudi govt, they left them alone. 

And be careful about the "racist Israeli" stuff-you are revealing more and that is quite telling.

And thanks for confirming my view on the A-jad quote. The fact that you try to insult me and then duck the challenge is revealing and quite telling.



by Bavafa on

As you talk more, you reveal more and that is quit is telling.

I leave this with a couple of short answers…

"The biggest killer of Muslims is other Muslims. Car bombs? Suicide bombers? Killing and maiming little girls on their way to school? "

Did you ever look up to see how much car bombing was there before the Yanks entered the picture?

"I find it fascinating that a Persian cares so much about a bunch of Arabs in Iraq"

It is nothing to be fascinating about, those "bunch of Arabs in Iraq" are just people like you and I. Persians care about them for that very reason, just as they did when 3000 Americans got killed in 9/11. They are innocent people, regardless of what kind of passport they carry.

"He was a Muslim who killed hundreds of thousands of other Muslims. Maybe millions"

Did you ever look up to see who was providing and supporting him with the weapons that he was committing those murder?

"If the mullahs didn't support al Qaeda and other terrorists around the world"

Did you ever look up to see who created and trained al Qaeda?

Meanwhile take a look to see who is supporting the Saudi kingdom and the Israeli racist regime. 

"I see the world on it's own terms and I "call them as I see them".

Perhaps a pair of glasses could do you a lot of good.

Good luck with that, just don't be shocked when you learn the truth.


P.S. As the correct translation for the AN quote, you will learn once you decide to.  I don't need to translate it for you.


Actually Bavafa....

by Spike on

....I am enrolled in an introductory Farsi Language class.  Why don't you enlighten me with the REAL quote (in English please).  The fact that the mullahs have selected him to be the face of their evil regime gives great insight into their thinking.  The people of Iran don't have the levers of power in their own hands, and I and the rest of America have no beef with them. 

The biggest killer of Muslims is other Muslims.  Car bombs?  Suicide bombers?  Killing and maiming little girls on their way to school?  Dictatorial regimes?  Those are all Islamic phenomenon brought to you courtesy of Al Quaeda, the Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood as well as their various offshoots.  I find it facinating that a Persian cares so much about a bunch of Arabs in Iraq, when his own government was supporting the illiterate terrorist Imam al Sadr as well as AQI.  It's nice of you to care so much for the dictator Hussein, who killed what?  About a million of your countrymen?  Do you really mean to tell me that the ME and the world generally would be better off if he was still in power?  He was a Muslim who killed hundreds of thousands of other Muslims.  Maybe millions.  He wanted everyone to think he had WMD.  Congratulations to him!  He fooled us!  It really seems to have worked out well for him.  Maybe there's a lesson in there about WMD programs.  If the mullahs didn't support al Quaeda and other terrorists around the world, there might be more Iraqis (and a lot of other people) alive today.  I don't take marching orders from AIPAC or anyone else.  I see the world on it's own terms and I "call them as I see them".



by Bavafa on

Did you ever ask how he was going to "wipe Israel off the map" since he has no command of any forces beside some 'chomagh be dast' (that means thugs in Farsi) since you don't speak the language?

Akheh aghl ham baraye adam khob cheezi!! (it is wise to think for yourself)


P.S. I assumed you don't speak Farsi, since you are accepting the miss-translated quote of AN that has been widely spread by the AIPAC and their supporters at face value. This is how they got us into Iraq which has resulted in many thousand of Americans and many hunderd of thousand of Iraqis dead.



by Spike on

No.  I'm talking about the short one that looks like Curious George in a leisure suit and promised to "wipe Israel off the map".



by Bavafa on

"And you cannot possibly be claiming that your president is a rational actor. He talks frequently about using nuclear weapons on other nations"

And which president are you referring to? The president of the country which has already used atomic bomb on civilian and constantly threaten other nations with "all option on the table" or the president that does not command even a police station?




by Spike on

I'm not fortune telling and I don't have a crystal ball.  Unfortunately the regime has shown precious few signs of rationality.  And you cannot possibly be claiming that your president is a rational actor. He talks frequently about using nuclear weapons on other nations.  Why should we sit still for that? 


Thanks for the advice (and condescension) but I think I'll keep on sharing.


@ Spike

by spatima on

"How much damage is the Iranian govt willing to absorb in order to bring on its end times apocalypse?"


I think you leaving out a basic element in your rather bizarre fortune telling methodology

-All states are rational beings

It seems to me that you confuse deterrence and political pressures that both the Mullah regime and its Western counterparts pursue, as actions that move us closer to a so called "armageddon"

As a word of advice, dont become engaged in political discussions prior to understanding the full nature of the problem. otherwise all you are going to contribute, is foxnews style analysis.


have a nice day



In hope of a Free, Independent and Secular Iran



by Spike on

The Long War is a sign of resignation/recognition that Islam will be waging war against the West for a long time to come.  Attacking Iran is the last and least desireable option.  History shows that if you are not prepared for war, it will be thrust upon you when you are least ready.  The regime perceives the current administration as weak.  They're probably not wrong.  Unfortunately, Black Jesus' lack of nerve may well cause us to be backed into a corner, leaving us only one option.  The question I have is this:  How much damage is the Iranian govt willing to absorb in order to bring on its end times apocalypse?  I've been out on the "pointy end of the spear", and I have no wish to feed my grandchildren into the meatgrinder of war.  I also have no desire to live under Sharia law and have the women in my life treated like cattle.


WHy is it always a hispanic

by spatima on

Is it me or everytime someone posts an article on nuking Iran here

they happen to carry a hispanic last name.




In hope of a Free, Independent and Secular Iran


with such enthusiasm, Mr.Espuelas is just the guy to

by bushtheliberator on

be strapped onto the first cruise missle sent into Iran.

Viva Mexico !


"Niloofar parsi"

by fooladi on

Take a prozac, make an appointemet with your therapist and calm down. I know this sanctions thing has released hundreds of ants in your pants, but you'll get paid for a few more months, dont worry. After that IHOP is recruiting. your other persona "no fear" I hear is employee of the month there :)

Yea, we Iranians are all united against the foreign enemy , the islamist regime of Iran, and will send them packing soon. So hurry up and ring that IHOP, but you work there already, dont you?

Now as you say in south Lebanon: IMSHI :)



by Fatollah on

thanks for the info. on the ownership of ...


So much mis-information, so little time...

by eroonman on

It is not illegal for Iran to acquire a nuke. Unwise, stupid, arrogant, dangerous, retarded, Yes. Illegal no. If it was illegal Israel would not have them... Oh wait...

While every word you say is said very well and entirely valid, as a member of the hispanic community, being neither American, nor Israeii, I fail to see how your opinion has anything to do with US immigration reform, or the drug wars in Mexico. Additionally, Hugo Chavez is your Ahmadinejad.

This piece demonstrates how the desire to increase internet hits, provokes outside writers to re-post their pieces on other sites to increase hits to their name. This must be his PR person's ploy to increase ad sales. How sad!



by jalaledin99 on

Haim Saban, an Israeli-American media tycoon, owns Univision Communications which in turn owns Univision Radio.  Univision is the largest Spanish-speaking entertainment company in the US.  




by Bavafa on

I do believe few in America are interested to be fighting for the next 100 years, very profitable for them of course. And that is why they want to ensure "the long war" take place by attacking Iran. Their wish may just come true… but I sure hope not for the sake of humanity.



Spanish program in LA

by ahmad_ on

Now even an Spanish Radio Program in LA has the nerve to promote a pre-emptive attack on Iran. It shows how divided we are living outside Iran.

Café Espuelas is Fernando Espuelas' daily talkshow on 1020AM in Los Angeles, the number 1 Latin AM station in the market, and part of the Univision Radio network, and also online at

Blame it on the leaders of the so called opposition who are only good at attacking each other.


That was a Chinese saying....

by Spike on

Chairman Mao said that power emanates from the barrel of a gun.  The stupid hippies of the 1960's took it as their own and used it as part of their counterculture revolutionary lexicon. 

Who are we to call the Iranian nuke program "illegal"?  Who are you to call a first strike against it "illegal"?  There is a fundamental misunderstanding on both sides of this issue.  I'm not sure that a strike would rally the mass of the population to the mullahs.  On the other hand it might set off a mass uprising against them.  That's the hard part-would they rise up or wouldn't they?  The leadership is scared.  During the election riots,  they had their jets fueled up and ready to fly them out of the country.  My preference is that "Black Jesus" would nut up and support the opposition Green Party, and overthrow the regime.   Wishful thinking.

On the Iranian side, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of Americans and how we think.  Americans take people at face value.  If someone says "We want to kill you" and they have, or are getting a weapon, we tend to believe it-and then we act on that belief.  The Iranian govt has given no reason to believe that they would not use nuclear weapons against our allies or us at the first opportunity.  The president of Iran thinks he's the "12th Mullah" and that the way to paradise is to bring on an apocalypse.  The "real power" behind him, the other mullahs fund and train Hamas and Hezbollah on an ongoing basis.  They also are supporting al quaeda in both Iraq and Afghanistan. If that stopped, and if Arafat hadn't stolen all the US aid for the Palestinians, Gaza and Palestine would be relatively peaceful and prosperous. Didn't you ever wonder why Mrs Arafat lived in a luxury apartment in Paris and went shopping on the Champs Elysee?

Until the idea of the "worldwide caliphate" goes away, and Muslims stop tacitly if not overtly supporting the idea, this will never end.  Policymakers in the US have taken to calling the current conflict "the long war" in recognition that we'll probably be fighting this war for 100 years or more, unless there is some sort of "Muslim Reformation" that casts out and ostracizes the terrorists in its midst.

Niloufar Parsi


by Niloufar Parsi on

i am fully aware of your extensive ignorance. why you need to parade it so much though? anyone who thinks iranians would not unite against a foreign attack is basically a foreigner. an american disguised as an iranian.


Anything NEW? I'm tired

by Kooshan on

Anything NEW?

I'm tired of all this same 'al nonsense!!!!!!!!!!!


Baba Basseh digeh......Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh


The Case for Ignorance


You replicated the same Jargon that has been spat by all other Neocons war mongers.  You offered no constructive adage of value.  You need to spruce up your knowledge of Middle East a little, or better yet stick to your Mexican Politics, if you know anything about that!  


"where do they grow such creepy logic?"

by fooladi on

In your twisted mind of course!

I am 100% against a military attack on Iran. But on the other hand I do not believe at all that "people would rally behind the regime, if Iran is attacked". Far from it. An attck on Iran would be very similar to the attack on Iraq, where only a small minority supported the regime for a short time. The vast majority of population stood by and watched happily as Saddam, his henchmen and supporters were massacred.

My opposition to an attack on Iran is two fold:

1) The civilian casualty (Just like Iraq)

2) The regime will be replaced with another bunch of unselected, unrepresentative, anti democratic murderers, this time in service of USA. (Just like Iraq) 


what's in it for the Author?

by jalaledin99 on

Preemptive war is illegal under international law.  Even if IRI was seeking nuclear weapons, denied the Holocaust, and believed in fanatical Islam, the US wouldn't have a legal justification for attacking.  According to Michale Postl, former Austrian ambassador to Iran, Iran allowed 38 inspections of its nuclear sites between 2008-2010.  How many inspections has Israel allowed? 

This liar compares IRI to Nazi Germany.  Has IRI invaded any country?  Does IRI have the worlds most militarized society?  Does IRI force its jewish population to live in concentration camps?  Are they being exterminated?  Does IRI prevent Jews from serving in Parliament?  The obvious answer to all of these questions is NO!

The author claims that the US has stopped supporting Israel.  Are you kidding me?  Israel still receives billions in military and economic aid from the US.  Israel has always been given the green light to steal Palestinian land in violation of UN resolution 242. 

In 2004, the International Court of Justice, the highest judicial body in the world, ruled that Israel has no title to the land, sea, air, or subterrane of the terrorities captured in 1967.  Obama, who is supposedly anti-Israel, only asked Israel to temporarily halt its theft of Palestinian land and they are coming down on him like he is the devil.  Israel is not entitled to any Palestinian land, but notice that the author uses the word Jerusalem to represent the Israeli government.  As if the Israelis have any legitimate claim to Jerusalem?  The entire international community refuses to recognize Israels soverignty over Jerusalem.  Israel is the rogue state, not Iran.  



its unanimous

by Kaveh Parsa on

garbage indeed....


I wonder...

by Midwesty on

What's in it for the Hispanic community?

When I looked at this article hard I realized what a sad situation we, Iranians are all in.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are now officially the world best known scapegoat. As you see, even Mexicans have finally realized we are a perfect diverging target from the real issues this country is facing now...



garbage indeed

by Fatollah on