Checkmate Iran with a Cold War concept
The United States has no vital interests at stake in Libyaís civil war. So, why are American and NATO troops in harmís way in Libya? Because Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama are engaged in a cojones-measuring contest aimed more at the upcoming Democratic Presidential Primary than at the unlikely demise of Libyan dictator, Moammar Gadhafi.
Donít be fooled that turning the job of ousting the Libyan dictator over to NATO means U.S. forces are scarcely involved. NATO is first, last, and always a U.S. creation whose main military might depends on U.S. forces and technology.
Instead of Libya, our focus should be on Iranís nuclear-weapons program, on Iranís support of terrorism, and on Iranís ability to close off our supply of oil from the Persian Gulf. But wait. What if Iranís neighbor, Saudi Arabia, suddenly has "access" to nuclear weapons while Iran, as yet, does not?
Here is a proven Cold War concept for making Iranís nuclear weapons development program moot while, at the same time, keeping the waters of the Persian Gulf and the seas of the entire region free and open for the shipment of oil around the world.
In the 1950s, the U.S. Army Artillery Center at Ft. Sill, Oklahoma, started developing howitzers and missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads. To counter the Soviet Cold War threat, NATO nations, including: the United Kingdom, West Germany, the Netherlands, Greece, Italy, and Turkey purchased U.S.-made 8-inch and 155mm howitzers. Some NATO nations also bought the Honest John, Corporal, Lacrosse, and Sergeant Missiles from the U.S. They trained their crews at Ft. Sill or had their crews trained at home by officers and NCOs from Ft. Sill.
In return, the U.S. agreed to station nuclear-weapons custodial detachments in those NATO countries. The mission of each custodial detachment was to keep the nuclear warheads in its possession in readiness and release them to their host nations only on the orders of the President of the United States. (For two years, this writer helped provide counterintelligence support for U.S. nuclear weapons detachments in West Germany and the Netherlands.)
At no time did our NATO allies have possession of our nuclear warheads. But had the President of the United States so ordered, the nuclear warheads would have been readily available for firing at invading Soviet ground forces.
So, here is a proposal for Saudi Arabia: ďYou agree to halt all funds flowing out of Saudi Arabia in support of Islamic jihad. You agree to accept a dozen or so U.S. nuclear-weapons custodial detachments on Saudi soil. You agree to let us build cruise missile sites in such a way that the missiles can be fired only in the direction of Iran. We agree to sell you the missiles, although the missiles will be programmed internally to fly only in the direction of Iran. We keep custody of the nuclear warheads. You pay all the costs.Ē
Thus, instead of Iran eventually towering over the Persian Gulf and the Middle East with nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia would have the capability - but only with our concurrence Ė of reducing Iranís key facilities to irradiated dust. Thus, it becomes pointless for Iran to continue its nuclear-weapons development program; proving, once again, that nukes work -- even when not fired.
Pros: The Saudis stop funding terrorism. The Saudis checkmate Iran. Our maritime oil-supply lines are more secure. The Iranians must respect the U.S. lest we enable the Saudis to nuke them. The Saudis cannot turn the missiles on Israel. The Saudis pay for the entire program. We start getting some of our gasoline money back. Cons: The Saudi Sunnis might rather bow down to the Iranian Shiites than accept U.S. custodial detachments on Saudi soil. Well, maybe, not.
Someone call Hillary. Even at 3:00 a.m.
Nationally syndicated columnist, William Hamilton, was educated at the University of Oklahoma, the George Washington University, the U.S Naval War College, the University of Nebraska, and Harvard University.
©2011. William Hamilton.