Aim at the head!
We already know the enemy’s weakest spot, and it’s not just in Tehran, it’s also in Damascus and its in Riyadh. The enemy’s weakest spot is the bankers and politicians who support militias like Hamas. These mob-style governments don’t understand diplomacy, they understand extortion, influence and brutal pursuasion. To fight terrorism, we need to show the terrorists and their supporters that we can reach out and destroy them at any time, and destroy all they hold dear. Assad isn’t afraid of Israeli bombs, but he would be afraid of a government that showed him how vulnerable he is. We should stop thinking WWII and start thinking Godfather. Assad’s favorite horse’s head at the foot of his bed would probably intimidate him more than tons of bombs falling on Gaza.
A reader e-mails:
I read the Hitler vs Hamas article - more scary stuff, but at least it lets everyone know where Hamas stands. My approach to the "militant Islam" problem is assassination. As soon as a nutty militant leader appears anywhere in the world he should be killed. The government involved would make no mention of it or deny any involvement; people would just start mysteriously dying. Any militant who finally gained power would die immedi-ately.....I think we have to play hardball with these folks.
It is rather odd that we embrace the taboo on assassination so uncritically. Given the inexorable fact that dangerous maniacs exist and sometimes rise to positions of great power, what is the most effective and moral way of dealing with them? Take for example our biggest and most menacing immediate problem -- Iran. Why would it be worse to kill off Khamenei, Ahmadinejad, and the few hundred similar bloodthirsty fanatics who hold power at the top of the Iranian state, than to deal with the threat by a conventional war in which tens of thousands of ordinary Iranian soldiers and civilians would be killed and the leaders who are the real problem would mostly remain untouched?
(I know there are people whose moral convictions would prohibit either form of killing even in this kind of situation. The only reason such people are not living out their lives in slavery is that they are being protected by others who do not share their unrealism.)
Of course, the case in Iran is easy to make since by all accounts the Islamist regime there is hated by most of the Iranian people. In other cases, such as Nazi Germany or the present-day Gaza Strip, we find genocide-minded regimes apparently supported by most of their subjects. In such instances, conventional military action is probably unavoidable.
But wherever possible, if we must kill to protect ourselves, isn't it best to kill the guilty and spare the innocent?