• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Iran Super Thread- Merged

Certainly, coalition forces have the military capability to knock out even the most hardened and deepest of WMD installations with enough bomber sorties.  The problem is that there would be no way of knowing whether or not we'd destroyed them all. 

Without a fully entrenched intelligence network inside Iran - of which there apparently isn't at the moment - we'd simply never know if it was mission accomplished.

Let's say coalition bombing runs did in fact take out 99/100 Iranian WMD installations; the one we didn't know about would produce enough plutonium for the bomb; and within 5 years they'd have a nuke anyway.  Now, having been pummelled by the coalition previously, wouldn't Iran have all the more desire - and perhaps even justification in certain eyes of certain members of the international stage - to actually use their precious nuke?  Therefore, prior to any airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, we'd have to make sure we weren't going to miss any of them.

But can we ever be 100% sure we'll be safe from a WMD attack, even with good intelligence inside Iran, and even after successfully destroying Iran's WMD facilities?  I don't think so.  WMD weapon technology and components from other countries - Pakistan, N. Korea, China, Russia, Israel, Libya, or even western countries, etc. - might find their way onto the black market and eventually be assembled and used by terrorists anyway.

The only thing we can really do in my honest opinion is to continue with coalition reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.  By doing so, we can show people throughout the region that the west is there to help improve people's lives, not kill them.  If successful in this regard, the young angry men that seem to abound throughout the region will be far less likely to join Al Queda and will most likely just end up settling down, working hard at the jobs they manage to get, and raising good happy children.

WMDs will only be more plentiful and more easily come by in the future.  So, in my opinion, the best we can do is continue helping people in the region.  It's the only sure way to know there'll be fewer terrorists who'd want to use WMDs against us tommorow.
 
If you are determined to live in a place where wishful thinking will carry the day, perhaps you could buy a house in Disney World? 
 
Are you saying that in your opinion such a reconstruction / humanitarian mission is not feasible? 

I stand by my opinion that proving the west's benevolent intentions in the region to the citizens of the region is tantamount.  If coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan were not only to provide security but also facilitate the avergage person's ability to maintain their homes with electricity and clean running water, food, health care, etc., it would have a spill-over effect, proving to the Iranian people next door that we are not the "Big Red Satan" we are claimed to be.  If such were to occur, other measures such as propaganda, internet freedom initiatives, media broadcasts - all of which would subtly bolster support for moderate political forces inside Iran - might have more of an effect in the long term than surgical strikes.
 
I don't see a big problem with Iran 'having' the bomb.  If they want to squander vast sums on the development  of high maintenance warheads and delivery systems - fine.  It would, however, be cheaper and faster just to buy some of the old Soviet stuff, if all you wanted was a 'terror' device.  So, obviously, all of this hype is just that.

There are a lot of practical issues that point towards the declaration of an INTENT to develop nukes being far more of a domestic and foriegn policy tool than the actual ACQUISITION and OPERATIONAL CAPABILITY of nukes.  Nukes, in all aspects, are expensive and suck up a lot of budget. If you want to just get people mad at you, a stolen Arty Shell or MIRV warhead is fine.  Building your own SS-18 with a 20 megaton RV is another matter.

What they need to stay in power is another war.  Let's not give it to them.

Tom
 
zipperhead_cop said:
If you are determined to live in a place where wishful thinking will carry the day, perhaps you could buy a house in Disney World? 
I agree with the kid.

Sun Tzu said: In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regimen t, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them.
Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.
Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans; the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy's forces; the next in order is to attack the enemy's army in the field; and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities. The rule is, not to besiege walled cities if it can possibly be avoided.

Sun Tzu said: Raising a host of a hundred thousand men and engaging them in war entails heavy loss on the people and a drain on the resources. The daily expenditure will amount to a thousand ounces of silver. There will be commotion at home and abr oad, and men will drop out exhausted.
Opposing forces may face each other for years, striving for the victory which may be decided in a single day. This being so, to remain in ignorance of the enemy's condition simply because one grudges the outlay of a hundred ounces of silver is the height of stupidity.
One who acts thus is no leader of men, no present help to his cause, no master of victory. Thus, what enables the wise commander to strike and conquer, and achieve things beyond the reach of ordinary men, is foreknowledge. Now this foreknowledge cannot be elicited from spirits; it cannot be obtained inductively from experience, nor by any deductive calculation. Knowledge of the enemy's dispositions can only be obtained from other men.
Whether the object be to crush an enemy, to storm a territory, or to kill an enemy general, it is always necessary to begin by finding out the names of the attendants, the aides-de-camp, and door-keepers and sentries of the general in command. Our spies must be commissioned to ascertain these.
The enemy's spies who have come to spy on us must be sought out, tempted with bribes, led away and comfortably housed. Thus they will become double agents and available for our service. It is through the information brought by the double agent that we are able to acquire and employ local and inward spies. It is owing to his information, again, that we can cause the doomed spy to carry false tidings to the enemy.
Lastly, it is by his information that the surviving spy can be used on appointed occasions. The end and aim of spying in all its five varieties is knowledge of the enemy; and this knowledge can only be derived, in the first instance, from the double agent . Hence it is essential that the double agent be treated with the utmost liberality.
Hence it is only the enlightened and wise general who will use the highest intelligence of the army for purposes of spying and thereby they achieve great results. Spies are the most important asset, because on them depends an army's ability to march.
so does Sun Tzu. Good enough for me.

By continuing to establish democratic nations on each side of Iran, by continuing with economic pressure and political marginalization, by openly supporting legitimate Opposition groups within it's borders, and covertly creating/supporting insurrection both inside and outside it's borders, we stand a much better chance of success.

This whole nuke thing is smoke and mirrors, with Iran trying to establish itself as the Big Dog taking the fight to the Great Satan. What it really wants is to achieve domination over the 'Muslim World' (for lack of a better term), to keep the US busy outside it's borders so it can't affect events inside them, and to ensure that none of its' neighbours become strong enough to threaten it again.

It's all just the Theocracy trying desperately to maintain it's stranglehold on its' own citizens.

We have the President (a powerless puppet) screaming fiery rhetoric, while the Ayatollah (the true power) has already issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons. If they really wanted one, they'd have one.
 
An interesting article comparing the Sun Tzu approach against the Von Clauswitz approach. I think at least some of this is going on in the shadows even as we speak.

http://op-for.com/2006/05/sun_tzu_vs_iran.html

Sun Tzu vs. Iran
By Charlie

Tonight, I am in the mood for Chinese food. That being said, I’ll serve up some Sun-Tzu-inspired strategic commentary on the Iran crisis for the noble readership of the blog.

Says Sun on warfare:

    3. Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans; the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy's forces; the next in order is to attack the enemy's army in the field; and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities.

What I take from this is that if your opponent can be “led” to accept your position without fighting, it is the “highest” form of generalship. This can be done by attacking his plans, or disrupting his strategy; Clausewitz, for an opposing view, says this:

    "The acts we consider most important for the defeat of the enemy are . . --- Destruction of his army, if it is at all significant

    --- Seizure of his capital if it is not only the center of administration but also that of social, professional, and political activity

    --- Delivery of an effective blow against his principal ally if that ally is more powerful than he."

Bottom line: Sun says try to attack the plans first (asymmetrical warfare in today’s parlance), Carl says attack the forces and centers of gravity first (a more “symmetrical” or “conventional” way of waging war.)

Comes now Iran. The basic “beef” we’ve got with Iran is that they are supporting terrorism, rapidly developing nuclear weapons, contributing to the instability of the region through regime statements and support of insurgents in Iraq. All three of these issues are becoming more and more dangerous toward US interests in the region.

A General Clausewitz, if he could be resurrected form the grave and transported to the E-Ring of the Pentagon, would probably be looking at Iran’s deployment of military forces. He would consider the blue force commitment in Iraq, the enemy population centers, and devise courses of action for a military strike to solve the problem. In modern terms, Clausewitz might have looked approvingly on the initial invasion plan for Iraq, as a solution to removing Saddam from power.

A zombie General Tzu might consider the cultural, economic, and political spheres of influence in Iran –and the relation these pressures have on the ruling regime. He might next consider how to exploit gaps and apply pressure in order to accomplish the mission. If the mission was to convince Iran to abandon their nukes and stop supporting terrorism, disconnecting the regime that allows these activities from a population that might have other ideas about where their country should go –and replacing it with a more conciliatory one (or convincing the current one to see it our way) could be the choice he may recommend. Tzu might have nodded if he got to peruse the SOF plans for infiltrating into Afghanistan, teaming up with the Northern Alliance, and using US airpower to thwart the Taliban.

So how would America implement a “Tzu”-like strategy for dealing with the current Iran problem? How could we “balk his plans” best? Obviously, a full-on, Clausewitzian conventional, OIF-1-style attack would be a 100% solution for our three goals: terrorist support, nuke pursuit, and regime change, but it would be a HUGE drain on the nation, the military, and the economy. But we don’t always need a 100% solution to our problems –sometimes a 75% solution will work just fine. Using the three main problems I outlined, and –this is important- assuming regime irrationality, let’s take a look at how to sucker-punch the Iranian regime.

Politically, we should take the Kim Jong Il nuclear acquisition model Iran is currently pursuing and turn it on its head. There’s been lots of liberal talk about negotiating with Iran proper: Let’s extend the invitation to talk to the Iranians, but tie negotiations to 3 goals. Iran must stop uranium enrichment, stop supporting Hizbollah and Hamas, and cool it on the “Death to Israel” speeches –then we will gladly talk to them. By extending this offer (which Iran will certainly not comply with), the international diplomatic chess board will be upset –Iran will be exposed by having to stand by its activities, which even by UN standards aren’t up to snuff.

Economically, Iran is vulnerable. It possesses little ability to refine its top export: oil. According to the World Fact Book, Iran’s top exports are “petroleum 80%, chemical and petrochemical products, fruits and nuts, [and] carpets.” Its imports are “industrial raw materials and intermediate goods, capital goods, foodstuffs and other consumer goods, technical services, military supplies” and its main import providers are “Japan 18.4%, China 9.7%, Italy 6%, South Africa 5.8%, South Korea 5.4%, Taiwan 4.6%, Turkey 4.4%, Netherlands 4.1% (2004).” There is an ability to economically pressure Iran, its exports, its imports, and its import providers.

Finally, Politically (…by other means…) Iran’s regime is vulnerable. They sit on an ethnically diverse populace that while a majority is Shia Persian, there is a significant, and militant, minority of Kurds in the West, and Arabs in the south (who conveniently sit on a good chunk of the country’s oil fields.) In the vein of “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” perhaps we should start fomenting a Kurdish nationalist revolt across Iraq’s border –as Iran seems to be just as willing to foment a Shia revolt in Iraq. The Kurds would love weapons and money to fight “the man,” and as long as we make it clear that they can’t carry out their revolution in Turkey, it would cause significant problems for the image-conscious Iranian regime. In the south, significant across-the-border Information Operation campaigns targeting the Arabs in Iran should simply say: “look across the border, where the Iraqis are getting a cut of their oil wealth –how much are you getting from your regime?”

Fomenting domestic troubles in Iran, economically pressuring them, and giving them a way out (ala Libya) through negotiation and compromise (read: acquiescence to US demands) would be a dramatic change of course in US policy. It may be the course of action Sun Tzu would recommend, while Clausewitz may simply recommend launching the IBCMs.
May 17, 2006 04:14 PM
 
If these reports are reliable, then maybe the situation isn't as bleak as we think:

http://thespiritofman.blogspot.com/2006/05/anti-regime-protests-on-rise-in-iran.html

I am reading different reports (also here) of unrest through out Iran, mainly in cities of Tabriz and Tehran these days.
"An Iranian blogger says: So far I have not heard of any casualties, only that Revolutionary Guards of the Islamic Republic opened fire on the demonstrations..."
Iran va Jahan reports, via NYTimes, the massive protests by the Azeri Iranians, in north west of the country, against the regime.

Reuters picks up the story / Link to original NYTimes article / Persian language Gooya.com also reports via Iran labor news agency that thousands are protesting against the Islamic regime in city of Tabriz, and many were shot at and there are unconfirmed numbers of dead & wounded.

I have also been viewing images of student protests in Tehran: Tehran University of Amir Kabir (formerly known as Poly-Technic Uni) & University of Tehran 1 & University of Tehran 2

Students are demonstrating, mainly, against the militarization of their schools and the anti-democratic path that regime is taking. I understand that there were similar protests around the country and many more students have joined the rallies to voice their anger through their demonstrations.

Their main slogans were: Down with Tyranny, Down with Dictator

One of the banners reads: Leave the nukes, Take care of us!

These two banner read: This is University, not a religious madrassa and the other one reads: University is not a military garrison

Also, Jane's Defense tells us that there is some sort of insurgency going on in south eastern parts of Iran

I guess this is the beginning of an end! We'll see...
 
It might be a realistic scenario that the Iranian Government is stirring the pot, hoping the US or others do something precipitous enough to create a threat the government can then use to get the people to forget their troubles and come together to beat off the invaders...or some such...add your own conspiracy theme...but it worked before, why not now?
 
I thought the Azeri's were protesting yet another cartoon fiasco, wherein they were compared to cockroaches in an Iranian newspaper?  Different protest?  ???
Where is my usher, I need a program.
 
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&pubid=968163964505&cid=1153820829434&col=968705899037&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News


Iran warns Israel of looming 'hurricane'
Jul. 25, 2006. 12:38 PM

DUSHANBE, Tajikistan (AP) — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned Tuesday that the conflict between Lebanon and Israel could trigger "a hurricane" of broader fighting in the Middle East.

Ahmadinejad's country is a major backer of the Hezbollah militant group and a sworn enemy of Israel. In his comments, he referred to a proverb that says: "He who raises the wind will get a hurricane."

"That proverb fully relates to the Middle East, which is a very volatile region," he said. "And it will be a strong hurricane which will strike really hard."


He has such a way with words, doesn't he!  I would suggest that this proverb he referred to could also be used against him and his Middle Eastern allies as well.
 
Octavianus said:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&pubid=968163964505&cid=1153820829434&col=968705899037&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News


Iran warns Israel of looming 'hurricane'
Jul. 25, 2006. 12:38 PM

DUSHANBE, Tajikistan (AP) — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned Tuesday that the conflict between Lebanon and Israel could trigger "a hurricane" of broader fighting in the Middle East.

Ahmadinejad's country is a major backer of the Hezbollah militant group and a sworn enemy of Israel. In his comments, he referred to a proverb that says: "He who raises the wind will get a hurricane."

"That proverb fully relates to the Middle East, which is a very volatile region," he said. "And it will be a strong hurricane which will strike really hard."


He has such a way with words, doesn't he!  I would suggest that this proverb he referred to could also be used against him and his Middle Eastern allies as well.

I think if they carry on the way they are, he should be concerned about the sun rising two, three or maybe even four times before 9 am! ;D

Cheers,

Wes
 
The cult of death in Iran. This is a very long article, but well worth the read:

http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de/contents/ahmadinejads-world

Ahmadinejad's World
The deployment of the Basiji in the mine fields shows what one can expect from the Mullah-Regime · By Matthias Küntzel

In pondering the behavior of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I cannot help but think of the 500,000 plastic keys that Iran imported from Taiwan during the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88. At the time, an Iranian law laid down that children as young as 12 could be used to clear mine fields, even against the objections of their parents. Before every mission, a small plastic key would be hung around each of the children’s necks. It was supposed to open for them the gates to paradise.

“In the past,” wrote the semi-official Iranian daily Ettela’at, “we had child-volunteers: 14-, 15-, and 16-year-olds. They went into the mine fields. Their eyes saw nothing. Their ears heard nothing. And then, a few moments later, one saw clouds of dust. When the dust had settled again, there was nothing more to be seen of them. Somewhere, widely scattered in the landscape, there lay scraps of burnt flesh and pieces of bone.” Such scenes could henceforth be avoided, Ettela’at assured its readers. “Before entering the mine fields, the children [now] wrap themselves in blankets and they roll on the ground, so that their body parts stay together after the explosion of the mines and one can carry them to the graves.”[1]

The children who thus rolled to their deaths formed part of the mass “Basij” movement that was called into being by the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979. The Basij Mostazafan – the “mobilization of the oppressed” – consisted of short-term volunteer militias. Most of the Basij members were not yet 18. They went enthusiastically and by the thousands to their own destruction. “The young men cleared the mines with their own bodies,” a veteran of the Iran-Iraq War has recalled, “It was sometimes like a race. Even without the commander’s orders, everyone wanted to be first.”[2]

The western media showed little interest for the Basiji – perhaps because journalists could not be present during the hostilities or perhaps because they did not believe the reports. Such disinterest has persisted to this day. The 5000 dead of Saddam Hussein’s poison gas attack on the Kurds of Halabja have remained in our memory. History has forgotten the children of the minefields.

Today, however, Ahmadinejad appears in public in his Basiji uniform. During the war, he served as one of the Basiji instructors who turned children into martyrs. The generation that fought in the Iran-Iraq War has come to power along with Ahmadinejad. He owed his election in Summer 2005 to the contemporary Basiji movement. In Fall, he announced a “Basiji Week.” According to a report in the newspaper Kayan, some 9 million Basiji heeded the call, “forming a human chain some 8,700 kilometers long…. In Tehran alone, some 1,250,000 people turned out.”[3] In his speeches, Ahmadinejad praises the “Basiji culture” and the “Basiji power” with which “Iran today makes its presence felt on the international and diplomatic stage.” Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, Chair of the Guardian Council, goes so far as to describe the very existence of Iran’s nuclear program as a triumph of those Iranians who “serve the Basiji movement and possess the Basiji-psyche and Basiji-culture.”[4]

Far from being the subject of criticism, the sacrifice made of the Basiji in the war against Iraq is celebrated nowadays more than ever before. Already in one of his first television interviews, the new President enthused: “Is there an art that is more beautiful, more divine, more eternal than the art of the martyr’s death?”[5] The Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, held up the war against Iraq, on account of the fearlessness of the Basiji, as a model for future conflicts.

This would already be reason enough for us to be interested in the history of the Basiji. But there is another reason. The deployment of the Basiji in the Iran-Iraq War is the primordial crime of political Islam: here the cult of the religiously-motivated suicide attack finds its origins. If we want to understand why a woman sits in the Palestinian parliament who is honored, above all, because she sent three of her five sons to martyrs’ deaths, if we want to know why still today 50,000 young Iranians volunteer for suicide missions – there is no avoiding the Basiji.

The Child-Basiji in War

In 1980, the Ayatollah Khomeini called the Iraqi invasion of Iran a “divine blessing.” The war provided the perfect opportunity to Islamize both Iranian society and the institutions of the Iranian state. Within no time, Khomeini’s fanatically devoted Revolutionary Guard – the Pasdaran – had been transformed into a proper army in its own right, complete with navy and air force. At the same time, the regime hastened to develop a popular militia: the Basij Mostazafan.

Within just a few weeks, teenage boys between 12 and 17 – as well as men over 45 – had been prepared for war. During training, lack of weaponry was compensated by a surplus of religious propaganda. When their training was done, each Basij received a blood-red headband that designated him a “Volunteer for Martyrdom.”

On the battlefield, the Basiji, representing 30% of the armed forces as such, constituted the greater part of the infantry. The Pasdaran represented some 40% of the armed forces and the regular army the remaining 30%.[6] The members of the Pasdaran had generally obtained a higher level of education than the Basiji, who mostly came from the countryside and were often illiterate. While the Basiji were sent to the frontlines, the Pasdaran brought up the rear. As a rule, the Pasdaran would be sent into battle when successive waves of Basiji had already been killed off.[7]

The human wave tactic was implemented as follows: the barely armed children and teenagers had to move continuously forward in perfectly straight rows. It did not matter whether they fell as canon fodder to enemy fire or detonated the mines with their bodies: the important thing was that the Basiji continued to move forward over the torn and mutilated remains of their fallen comrades, going to their deaths in wave after wave.[8] The tactic produced some undeniable initial successes for the Iranian side. “They come toward our positions in huge hordes with their fists swinging,” an Iraqi officer complained in Summer 1982, “You can shoot down the first wave, and then the second. But at some point the corpses are piling up in front of you, and all you want to do is scream and throw away your weapon. Those are human beings, after all!”[9] By Spring 1983, the Pasdaran had sent some 450,000 Basiji in shifts to the front. After three months, whoever survived his deployment was sent back to his school or workplace.[10]

How were the Basiji recruited? Principally, in the schools: the Pasdaran sent “special” educators who hand-picked their martyrs from the obligatory paramilitary exercises. Propaganda films – like the 1986 television film “A Contribution to the War” – praised this alliance between students and the regime against those parents who tried to save their children’s lives.[11]

Secondly, the regime employed incentives. Thus, in a campaign called “Sacrifice a Child for the Imam”, every family that lost a child on the battle field was offered interest-free credit and other generous benefits. Moreover, enrollment in the Basij gave the poorest of the poor a chance for social advancement. Basiji reservists are still today treated as protégés of the Mullah-regime.[12]

Thirdly, the regime employed coercive measures. The following story of young Hossein, which was documented by the German weekly der Spiegel in 1982, is merely one among thousands:

“Why did you enlist?” The youngster in the camouflage fatigues, with both sleeves and pants legs rolled up, doesn’t answer. “His name is Hossein. He doesn’t know his family name,” the translator says. The boy is twelve at most. His face is gaunt, his body is bent forward, he breathes in spurts. One can see that he has trouble staying on his feet. “Polio,” the translator says. …Hossein comes from Mostalbar, a tiny spot somewhere between Shiraz and Bandar Abbas. …One day some unknown Imams turned up in the village. They called the whole population to the plaza in front of the police station and they announced that they came with good news from Imam Khomeini: the Islamic Army of Iran had been chosen to liberate the holy city Al-Quds – Jerusalem – from the infidels. …Hossein had no choice. The local Mullah had decided that every family with children would have to furnish one soldier of God. Because Hossein was the most easily expendable for his family and because, in light of his illness, he could in any case not expect much happiness in this life, he was chosen by his father to represent the family in the struggle against the infidel devils.[13]

Of the twenty children that went into battle with Hossein, only he and two others survived.

In 1982, during the retaking of the city of Khorramshahr, 10,000 Iranians died. Following “Operation Kheiber”, in February 1984, the corpses of some 20,000 fallen Iranians were left on the battle field. The “Karbala Four” Offensive in 1986 cost the lives of more than 10,000 Iranians. All told, some 100,000 men and boys are said to have been killed during the Basiji operations.[14] Why did the Basiji rush with such fervor to their own destruction?

Why indeed? The survivors are now of age where they are in positions of leadership. A "Purple Finger" revolution in Iran will be far harder to implement than perhaps previously thought, since in terms of sheer numbers, the Basiji and Pasdaran outnumber the regular Armed Forces of Iran, and are obviously willing to commit atrocities against their fellow citizens to maintain their hold on power.
 
a_majoor said:
Why indeed? The survivors are now of age where they are in positions of leadership. A "Purple Finger" revolution in Iran will be far harder to implement than perhaps previously thought, since in terms of sheer numbers, the Basiji and Pasdaran outnumber the regular Armed Forces of Iran, and are obviously willing to commit atrocities against their fellow citizens to maintain their hold on power.

Unfortunately, the solution will likely involve lots of ammo, and many barrel changes.  :(
 
Mark your calendar:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008768

August 22
Does Iran have something in store?

BY BERNARD LEWIS
Tuesday, August 8, 2006 4:30 p.m.

During the Cold War, both sides possessed weapons of mass destruction, but neither side used them, deterred by what was known as MAD, mutual assured destruction. Similar constraints have no doubt prevented their use in the confrontation between India and Pakistan. In our own day a new such confrontation seems to be looming between a nuclear-armed Iran and its favorite enemies, named by the late Ayatollah Khomeini as the Great Satan and the Little Satan, i.e., the United States and Israel. Against the U.S. the bombs might be delivered by terrorists, a method having the advantage of bearing no return address. Against Israel, the target is small enough to attempt obliteration by direct bombardment.

It seems increasingly likely that the Iranians either have or very soon will have nuclear weapons at their disposal, thanks to their own researches (which began some 15 years ago), to some of their obliging neighbors, and to the ever-helpful rulers of North Korea. The language used by Iranian President Ahmadinejad would seem to indicate the reality and indeed the imminence of this threat.

Would the same constraints, the same fear of mutual assured destruction, restrain a nuclear-armed Iran from using such weapons against the U.S. or against Israel?

There is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other governments with nuclear weapons. This difference is expressed in what can only be described as the apocalyptic worldview of Iran's present rulers. This worldview and expectation, vividly expressed in speeches, articles and even schoolbooks, clearly shape the perception and therefore the policies of Ahmadinejad and his disciples.

Even in the past it was clear that terrorists claiming to act in the name of Islam had no compunction in slaughtering large numbers of fellow Muslims. A notable example was the blowing up of the American embassies in East Africa in 1998, killing a few American diplomats and a much larger number of uninvolved local passersby, many of them Muslims. There were numerous other Muslim victims in the various terrorist attacks of the last 15 years.

The phrase "Allah will know his own" is usually used to explain such apparently callous unconcern; it means that while infidel, i.e., non-Muslim, victims will go to a well-deserved punishment in hell, Muslims will be sent straight to heaven. According to this view, the bombers are in fact doing their Muslim victims a favor by giving them a quick pass to heaven and its delights--the rewards without the struggles of martyrdom. School textbooks tell young Iranians to be ready for a final global struggle against an evil enemy, named as the U.S., and to prepare themselves for the privileges of martyrdom.

A direct attack on the U.S., though possible, is less likely in the immediate future. Israel is a nearer and easier target, and Mr. Ahmadinejad has given indication of thinking along these lines. The Western observer would immediately think of two possible deterrents. The first is that an attack that wipes out Israel would almost certainly wipe out the Palestinians too. The second is that such an attack would evoke a devastating reprisal from Israel against Iran, since one may surely assume that the Israelis have made the necessary arrangements for a counterstrike even after a nuclear holocaust in Israel.

The first of these possible deterrents might well be of concern to the Palestinians--but not apparently to their fanatical champions in the Iranian government. The second deterrent--the threat of direct retaliation on Iran--is, as noted, already weakened by the suicide or martyrdom complex that plagues parts of the Islamic world today, without parallel in other religions, or for that matter in the Islamic past. This complex has become even more important at the present day, because of this new apocalyptic vision.

In Islam, as in Judaism and Christianity, there are certain beliefs concerning the cosmic struggle at the end of time--Gog and Magog, anti-Christ, Armageddon, and for Shiite Muslims, the long awaited return of the Hidden Imam, ending in the final victory of the forces of good over evil, however these may be defined. Mr. Ahmadinejad and his followers clearly believe that this time is now, and that the terminal struggle has already begun and is indeed well advanced. It may even have a date, indicated by several references by the Iranian president to giving his final answer to the U.S. about nuclear development by Aug. 22. This was at first reported as "by the end of August," but Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement was more precise.

What is the significance of Aug. 22? This year, Aug. 22 corresponds, in the Islamic calendar, to the 27th day of the month of Rajab of the year 1427. This, by tradition, is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to "the farthest mosque," usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back (c.f., Koran XVII.1). This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world. It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind.

A passage from the Ayatollah Khomeini, quoted in an 11th-grade Iranian schoolbook, is revealing. "I am decisively announcing to the whole world that if the world-devourers [i.e., the infidel powers] wish to stand against our religion, we will stand against their whole world and will not cease until the annihilation of all them. Either we all become free, or we will go to the greater freedom which is martyrdom. Either we shake one another's hands in joy at the victory of Islam in the world, or all of us will turn to eternal life and martyrdom. In both cases, victory and success are ours."

In this context, mutual assured destruction, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, would have no meaning. At the end of time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter will be the final destination of the dead--hell for the infidels, and heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint; it is an inducement.

How then can one confront such an enemy, with such a view of life and death? Some immediate precautions are obviously possible and necessary. In the long term, it would seem that the best, perhaps the only hope is to appeal to those Muslims, Iranians, Arabs and others who do not share these apocalyptic perceptions and aspirations, and feel as much threatened, indeed even more threatened, than we are. There must be many such, probably even a majority in the lands of Islam. Now is the time for them to save their countries, their societies and their religion from the madness of MAD.

Mr. Lewis, professor emeritus at Princeton, is the author, most recently, of "From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East" (Oxford University Press, 2004).
 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060822/ap_on_re_eu/romania_iran_shooting

Excerpt:
BUCHAREST, Romania - Romania said Iranian troops opened fire from a warship and seized a Romanian oil rig Tuesday off the coast of Iran, holding its workers in an incident stemming from a commercial dispute.
 
Sergiu Medar, a national security adviser to Romanian President Traian Basescu, said the seizure resulted from a commercial dispute Iran is treating "in an extreme way." He gave no details.

Romania's Foreign Ministry called on Iranian authorities to immediately free Romanian crew members being held by the troops who took over the rig. The rig operator said seven Indian crew members had been released but 20 Romanians were still detained.

 
Hmmm... guess that the Iranians are looking after trade disputes using alternative techniques......
And we're waiting for them to anounce their decision on how they will deal with the Enrichment of Uranium?

Is there any doubt how they will answer?

:???
 
geo said:
Is there any doubt how they will answer?

I think you forget who leads the UN: terrorist-loving, peace-hating, cojones-less leftist peacenik remnants of the '60s. Of course we'll wait and see!
 
http://www.nato.int/structur/countries.htm           I did a search on google and came up with this web site and it list Romania as being a member of NATO  isn't it supposed to say that an attack on  one NATO  country is an attack on all of them ?  That's a pretty foolish move for the Iranians I wonder what kind of response they will receive?
 
Back
Top