Iran’s supporters pandering to the US media have created a serious mistep. They say Iran will threaten the US with terrorism if we take out their nuclear weapon processing capability.

As tensions increase between the United States and Iran, U.S. intelligence and terrorism experts say they believe Iran would respond to U.S. military strikes on its nuclear sites by deploying its intelligence operatives and Hezbollah teams to carry out terrorist attacks worldwide.

Play this scenario forward. It means Iran will threaten us with attack whenever we feel they are acting aggressively or illegaly and we feel we must take steps to curb their intentions. Which means once Iran has nuclear weapons, and decides to arm like minded radical states with them, Iran will threaten us with terrorists armed with nukes if try to stop them at any point. Which means if we wait Iran will make moves they would not dare make today.

Well, I guess that settles that question. Iran is already covertly supporting terrorists against us. We know this for a fact in Iraq. So we have indisputable evidence of how a nuclear armed Iran would react.

Game over it would seem. I doubt the intent was to expose the Iranian threat for what it is when these ‘intelligence officials’ ran to the media to highjack US foreign policy. But I do see their point: Iran is a threat with their army of terrorist sympathizers. I guess the difference between Iran and Iraq is the intelligence community agrees the Iranians are building WMD capabilities and they have extensive ties to terrorists. And the Iranian leaders are insane enough to confront the US and Western powers to follow their bloody path.

Iran would mount attacks against U.S. targets inside Iraq, where Iranian intelligence agents are already plentiful, predicted these experts. There is also a growing consensus that Iran’s agents would target civilians in the United States, Europe and elsewhere, they said.

So we are supposed to feel this situation would improve if we just let them have nuclear weapons? All this tells me is we have no choice left. And how do they feel this threat compares to Al Qaeda:

But terrorism experts considered Iranian-backed or controlled groups … to be better organized, trained and equipped than the al-Qaeda network that carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

OK. So Iran, per the experts leaking to their media buddies, is clearly marching to have nuclear weapons, and has a much broader, better trained terrorist network than Al Qaeda ever had running up to 9-11. One of the darlings of the left is adament about how Iran would act:

Former CIA terrorism analyst Paul R. Pillar said that any U.S. or Israeli airstrike on Iranian territory “would be regarded as an act of war” by Tehran, and that Iran would strike back with its terrorist groups. “There’s no doubt in my mind about that. . . . Whether it’s overseas at the hands of Hezbollah, in Iraq or possibly Europe, within the regime there would be pressure to take violent action.”

And this entire picture is better with Iran having nuclear weapons? If Iran considers Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad extensions of their state, won’t they use the same logic when one of these groups is attacked or rounded up for blowing up a school someplace? Are these liberal mouthpieces even thinking about the implications of what they are saying?

The Iranian government views the Islamic Jihad, the name of Hezbollah’s terrorist organization, “as an extension of their state. . . . operational teams could be deployed without a long period of preparation,” said Ambassador Henry A. Crumpton, the State Department’s coordinator for counterterrorism.

These people are trying to create some reasonable sounding media spin to blunt the military option being used to stop Iran getting nuclear bombs. These are talking points pulled together to give the impression Iran is too unstable and a much greater terrorist threat than Al Qaeda, so we cannot ever contemplate stopping their efforts to gain WMDs.

It is this suicidal ‘logic’ of capitulation in the face of blood thirsty animals that is the real threat. We can take out the nuclear processing capability before they are armed, or afterwords. But Iran can make any act an ‘act of war’ if they want. They can also, at any time, give up their desires for the ultimate WMD.

If a martyr gets 72 virgins when dying to kill the enemy, how many vrigins will be lined up for Iran if they have a Jim Jones moment and decide that they will take out the US and become a martyr nation in the process – sacrificed via our now too late retaliatory strike? The Iranian leadership is nearly mad, like Hitler and Stalin. They dream of removing, by force, the Western states and Isreal. The difference seems to be Hitler wanted the 3rd Reich to last 1000 years!

Iran may not care if they last 2 seconds after acheiving their goals. That is what is dangerous about suicide bombers. They have decided to die the moment they strap on the bomb. The picture these people paint of Iran is eerily one of a nation getting ready to strap on THE bomb.

But regardless of Iran’s desire to martyr itself or not, what these ‘experts’ are clealry saying is Iran is worse than Iraq and Al Qaeda combined. They are building nuclear capability, they have ties to terrorist groups they consider extensions of their state, and their terrorist allies are much more organized and dangerous than Al Qaeda ever was.

I can agree with that conclusion…

The media and their preferred government ‘experts’ seem to think we must surrender all hope of confronting this threat.

That I think would be national suicide.