It's official...Iran says no to ending nuclear enrichment. Will we blink?

How many times do they have to say it?

Ever since June, Iran's leaders have been very straightfoward about the fact that they are not going to end their nuclear weapons program. Especially Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, pictured above. Today, they said it again.

No way.

No how.

Uh-uh.

So what part of `no' do Condi Rice and President Bush not understand?

Ooooh, I forgot...sanctions. That ought to have Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs quaking in their beards.

Perhaps I should trot out a little history for the members of Joshua's Army, in case you've forgotten.

The last time we tried invoking UN sanctions on Iran was in 1979. Had a little something to do with Iran taking over our embassy and holding our diplomats as hostages...remember?

Not only did the Russians veto the idea, but virtually every one of our European allies dialed out on the idea, even after some of them said they would support it no matter what happened at the UN. Guess what..they didn't.

And that was with Jimmy Carter, the Euroleftie's favorite president.

We also have the recent example of one group of sanctions that did pass the UN Security Council, the Oil For Food program for Iraq. Do I have to reiterate what an bogus piece of nonsense that was?

Actually, I can see Iran's rationale perfectly: they feel they have nothing to lose. By ignoring the UN and tweaking the nose of the Great Satan' they once again enhance their own prestige in the Muslim world...already riding high thanks to their proxy, Hezbollah standing off the Israelis. What's more, they really do want nuclear weapons. On the other hand, sanctions are not going to be a problem even if by some remote chance the UN Security Council adopts them.

The one downside is the possibility that the US might do a unilateral strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. But based on their experience with the US since the Islamic Revolution in 1979 and their arrogant conduct since, Iran and its leaders obviously don't think that's too likely.

Iran sees us a power in retreat…eager to retreat after any forceful response by the Islamic world. And Iran considers itself the rightful standard bearer of a resurgent Caliphate Islam.

I wrote here, back in early July that August 22nd is a significant date for Iran, and that their choosing that date for a formal reply to the UN is no coincidence.

What will our reply to them be?

There is absolutely no way that we are going to deal with the War on Jihad without actually turning it into a real war. No concessions, diplomacy or isolationism are going to work.Diplomacy only works when you are dealing with people that perceive they have something to lose.

If Iran is allowed to go nuclear, there's also the almost certain possibility that Iran would provide nukes down line, to the terrorist groups it sponsors and is closely allied with for use against the West. Such attacks could be very hard to trace back to Iran. By then, it might be too late anyway..and if the fingerprints were the least bit uncertain, would a future US president have the will to respond in the face of massive political opposition and street theater from the Angry Left?

Or worse,Iran might not use the bomb...but instead would use it as a threat to coerce `respect' from the West, pump up the price of oil and gas and beef up its leadership of the Islamist bloc while fomenting conventional terrorism and Iran based Islamist takeovers.

In short, we have a problem with Iran, one that impacts our security at the most basic level.

First, we need to toss out the notion that we’re dealing with a Western mindset, and examine Iran’s theological and psychological makeup.

Iran's dominant Shia "Twelver" sect believes that the 12th Imam, or righteous descendant of the Prophet Mohammad will appear at the End of Days.His return will be preceded by chaos, war and bloodshed. After a cataclysmic battle with evil and darkness, the Mahdi will lead the world to an era of universal Dar Islam..domination of the world by Islam and Sharia law.

Are Ahmadinejad and the Supreme council now pushing for a clash with the West because they feel safe in the belief of the imminent return of the Hidden Imam?

And are they trying to speed up things in the hope of hastening his reappearance?

It appears so. The martyr/suicide complex is embedded deep in Islam and especially is the Shiite sect. Why fear death when paradise and the 72 virgins await?

As for the US, we have limited options available, and none of them is pretty..simply because the West has let this fester for so long.

The key to solving this little dilemma is to remember that we're not only dealing with Iran's nukes. We are dealing with Iran as the leader of jihad and the Islamist movement - which is exactly how Iran sees itself.

Are we prepared to be half as ruthless and thorough as the mullahs are towards us to preserve our lives and freedom?

A quick surgical air strike on Iran's nuclear facilities is possible, but only solves half the problem at best and just postpones things, even if we do manage to destroy most of the hidden, protected and dispersed sites our Russian `friends' have so thoughtfully built for Iran.

A land invasion and occupation of Iran is likewise not a desireable scenario. The casualties, money and effort involved would be horrendous. And why bother, when we don't need to?

While going after Iran's nukes is definitely important, even more important is attacking the means of their obtaining nukes and financing terrorism in the future, as well as sending a message that jihad against the West is no longer a painless option. Aside from military targets, the most effective strike would be to target Iran's leadership in Qom and Teheran, and to destroy Iran's ports, navy, pipelines, infrastructure and especially at its oil and gas fields. And we will need to do this in an absolutely thorough and even ruthless fashion.

Once that happens, once the regime is effectively decapitated and its fangs drawn, we can isolate the mullahs and their regime until the whole rotten structure collapses and more moderate forces take control. Or not. That's up to the Iranians.

Not only will we have actually eliminated the nuclear threat by eliminating Iran's cash flow, but we will have struck perhaps a fatal blow at the Great Jihad and Islamic terrorism...and shown its proponents that there is a huge price to pay for attacking the West.

Will it be costly? You bet. Iran will do what ever it can against us in Iraq, Europe and throughout the Middle East and Central Asia, so we will have to deploy our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan accordingly and allocate the necessary firepower available to deal with that problem. And we might experience a domestic rise in oil prices, or even rationing until our domestic production kicks in.

But a nuclear, resurgent Iran results in those scenarios or worse anyway, sooner or later. And less ability to change the situation than we have now.

Thanks to our neglect and failure to act decisively for the last 27 odd years, we face a choice between bad and worse options, and the cost of dealing with Iran will increase every year it's postponed.

The sooner, the better