The Iran Dilemma

In Monday's New York Times, Richard Clarke and Steven Simon, both counterterrorism advisers under President Clinton with Clarke continuing under President Bush, wrote an interesting op-ed about Iran. Clarke and Simon say if the USA punishes Iran for violating the world's nuclear arms agreement, then Iran will strike back and order suicide bombers to attack us among other things.

Now, the Iranian government has confirmed it would order terrorist attacks against American and Britain, thereby admitting it is indeed a terror state that approves of attacks against civilians.

Well, we all knew that — at least the clear thinkers among us did. Nowhere in their article do Clarke and Simon offer a solution to the Iran conundrum. They just warn of dire consequences should the USA move against Iran militarily.

So, I'm reading this piece and I'm saying to myself, well, what the heck is the USA supposed to do? The conventional answer is diplomacy. OK, fine.

We've been trying diplomacy for years. The Clinton administration was very diplomatic. And on Clarke and Simons' watch, Al Qaeda rose in power and ferocity. We tried diplomacy with the Taliban. We were even going to help them build an energy pipeline. The outcome? We got attacked.

Every time you hear the word "diplomacy," you should know that the speaker has nothing else, no other solution to the growing menace from Iran.

Neville Chamberlain loved diplomacy and so did Hitler. Remember, the Iran mullahs are Nazis. There's no difference.

Clarke and Simon are correct when they forecast that bad things will happen if we ever attack Iran, but many more bad things will happen if that terror state gets nukes.

So, here's my plan: There should be a summit among the industrialized nations in Geneva. Each nation would submit a plan to deal with Iran and those plans should be made public. Then everybody can see which nations want control in this world and which nations want chaos.

After the summit, the U.N. Security Council should vote on sanctions if Iran continues to develop nukes. By all means, let's have that vote. The world needs to understand the danger Iran is posing to the planet. And the summit and the U.N. vote would starkly illustrate that danger.

Finally, America and Britain and other willing nations should then meet secretly and decide the worst case scenario, what will happen if Iran continues its terror policy. Hopefully that case — the worst case deal — will never be implemented, but the mullahs must know it's a possibility it will be.

That's what should happen. Lots of diplomacy, lots of conversation, but behind the scenes, a very real big stick. Terrorism at this level must be confronted.

And that's "The Memo."

The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day

Last week I spoke at a benefit to the Boy Scouts of Syracuse, New York — a very successful event.

Well, the ultra-liberal Syracuse Post-Standard newspaper didn't like that very much and personally attacked me in its pages for absolutely no reason whatsoever. Thus, the Syracuse newspaper joins our "Don't Buy, Don't Advertise" list. Its disgraceful lack of professionalism is not worth your time up in upstate New York.

Now, that paper is owned by the Newhouse Company, which also owns the ultra-left New Yorker magazine, also on the "Don't Buy" list. Last week The New Yorker ran a — surprise — pro-illegal alien article that said, "Bill O'Reilly accused the pro-immigrant demonstrators of intimidation."

Well, that is grossly misleading. Here's what I actually said about the demonstration to Senator Jeff Sessions.


BILL O'REILLY, HOST: You're certainly getting a lot of media play. And I think it's intimidating our lawmakers, Senator, to back away from what has to happen, which is a carrot and a stick in this situation, am I wrong?


So obviously, I did not accuse anyone of anything. The New Yorker does stuff like this all the time. Newhouse should be ashamed of itself for being dishonest and ridiculous.