Friday, April 28, 2006
Time to do the mullah dance
We have a problem with Iran. What exactly should we do about it?
Here's a dose of reality: there are few options available, and none of them is pretty..simply because the West has let this fester far too long. We now have to pay the price for a number of years of kick-the-can neglect.
One stream of thought out in the ozone opts for diplomacy, or if not actual diplomacy, just a simple acknowledgement that Iran is now part of the `nuclear club' and we will simply have to live with it.
Except we can't afford to.
`Living with it' would be akin to learning to live with a live rattler in the house...except Iran would be more dangerous. For one thing, there's the distinct possibility- I'd say it's almost a certainty - that Iran would provide nukes down line, to the terrorist groups it sponsors and is closely allied with for use against the West. It has said so, as recently as today. 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 do so in the face of massive political opposition and street theater from the Angry Left?
Even worse, in some ways, is the idea that 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. Think the Cartoon Jihad was bad? Wait.
And don't believe the nonsense that Iran is `years away from the bomb'. I give it three years max..provided Iran doesn't already have nukes to play with.
The Manhattan Project,using much less sophisticated technology only took 4 years.
What lots of people who think a simple diplomatic solution is possible don't consider is that Iran may actually be seeking a confrontation with the West as a 'divine mission'. Notice I said Iran, not Ahmadinejad...important to remember that he's merely a hired hand of the Supreme Council of Guardians and Khameini.
To fully understand what we’re dealing with here, we need to throw out the notion that we’re dealing with a Western mindset, and examine Iran’s theological and psychological makeup.
All streams of Islam believe in a divine saviour, known as the Mahdi, who will appear at the End of Days. Several Islamic demagogues have raised vast armies and taken territory by utilizing this belief through history.
Iran's dominant Shia "Twelver" sect believes this will be Mohammed ibn Hasan, regarded as the 12th Imam, or righteous descendant of the Prophet Mohammad.
He is said to have gone into "seclusion" in the ninth century, at the age of five. 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.
By all accounts Ahmadinejad and the Supreme Council are consumed with devotion to this Hidden Imam, and the belief that Iran's government must prepare the way for his return. Ahmadinejad and the Council appear to be acting on the throes of a religious fervor, a sense of divine mission.
Just take a look at Ahmadinejad's international debut, a speech to the United Nations.
The UN delegates were expecting Ahmadinejad to make nice and take a step towards defusing the nuclear crisis after Teheran restarted its nuclear program in August.
Hoo, were they surprised!
Instead, they heard Ahmadinejad speaking in apocalyptic terms of Iran and Islam struggling against an evil West and ending with the messianic appeal to Allah to "hasten the emergence of your last repository, the Promised One, that perfect and pure human being, the one that will fill this world with justice and peace".
And bring on that wonderful period of Dar-Islam, submission to Islam.Batta bang, batta-bing!
In a video released all over Iran last November, Ahmadinejad is shown telling one of Iran's clerical rulers that he had `felt the hand of God entrancing world leaders' when he spoke to the UN General Assembly. He talked about how the other members of the Iranian delegation had seen an aura of light around him while he spoke to the UN.
"I felt it myself too," Ahmadinejad says in the movie. "I felt that all of a sudden the atmosphere changed there. And for 27-28 minutes all the leaders did not blink…it's not an exaggeration, because I was looking."
"They were astonished, as if a hand held them there and made them sit. It had opened their eyes and ears for the message of the Islamic Republic."
Maybe, after a few minutes of Ahmadinejad, the UN delegates might have been using a skill of mine that never failed to amaze my friends in high school... the art of sleeping with their eyes open. Or perhaps they were shocked into rapt attention...kind of like people watching an approaching train wreck or one of those slo-mo violence scenes Hollywood loves to serve up.
Ahamdinejad followed this performance up with a stream of statements like the ones about Israel being wiped off the map that startled Westerners but are perfectly in tune with the Qu'rannic vision of the return of the Mahdi and the Last Days. In the Qu'ran, on the Day of Judgement the very rocks and trees will call out to Muslims to kill the Jews hiding behind them.
These were not casual references.
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?
Let’s look at Iran's recent history and Ahmadinejad’s to get a few more clues, shall we?
During the Iran-Iraq War, the Ayatollah Khomeini imported 500,000 small plastic keys from Taiwan. After Iraq invaded Iran in September 1980 and the Iranians initially suffered military reverses, Khomeini recruited Iranian children, some as young as twelve years old, and sent them to the front. There, they marched across minefields toward the enemy lines in human waves, clearing a path with their bodies. Every one of them had one of those Taiwanese keys hung around his neck…and the children were told that these were their Keys to open Paradise.
No joke.
These children who ran to their deaths in suicide attacks were part of the Basiji, a mass movement created by Khomeini after the Revolution in 1979 and put on the front lines after the war began. The Basij Mostazafan--or "mobilization of the oppressed"--was a volunteer militia, most of whose members hadn't even turned 18 yet. They went by the thousands, willing martyrs for Khomeini and the regime.
Today the slaughter of the Basiji is a source of Iranian legend and national pride...believe it or not. Since the end of the Iraq war in 1988, the Basiji have vastly increased both in numbers and influence, as a cadre of loyal heroes of the Islamic Republic. They’ve been used mostly as religious police to enforce Sharia in Iran, and as Allah's own storm troopers against dissidents. And Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s president, served as a Basij instructor during the Iran-Iraq War…and is now the poster boy for the movement. Recruited from the more conservative and impoverished parts of the population (the exact social class Hitler used for the SA), the Basiji swear absolute loyalty to the Supreme Leader Ali Khameini, Khomeini's successor. During Ahmadinejad's run for the presidency in 2005, the millions of Basiji all over Iran got solidly behind Ahmadinejad in every Iranian town, neighborhood, and mosque and pushed his presidency. He was their guy..and the regime's.
Re-examine that little bit of information for a second…the man who trained children to blow themselves up for Allah at the Mullah’s behest is now the country’s president.
Turn it over in your mind.
The inmates have definitely taken over the Persian asylum. And this suicide martyr complex is deeply engraved in the Iranian/Shia psyche.
After all, why be afraid when the Hidden Imam is on his way?
Something else to turn over in your mind is Iran’s perception of how America and the West has reacted to any confrontation or provocation.
In 1979, the Iranians got away with something no other country has ever done, even in wartime. They seized a US embassy and held diplomats hostage for over a year...and the Carter Administration did nothing about it.
This perception has been reinforced since then by our retreats from Beirut after a Hezbollah suicide attack, our failure to deal decisively with Saddam after defeating him in the first Gulf War and continuing through our retreat from Somalia...not to mention our `nuanced' and indecisive response to having 3,000 of our fellow citizens slaughtered while a significant portion of the adherants of the Religion of peace celebrated it as one happening victory for the Great Jihad. And why wouldn't the mullahs feel that way? Until very recently our leaders couldn't even bring themselves to call the enemy by its right name.
Iran sees us a power in retreat…eager to recoil after any forceful response by the Islamic world. And Iran considers itself the rightful standard bearer of a resurgent Caliphate Islam.
As Amir Taheri has written, the mullahs see Bush as an aberration to the usual Western pattern – a president who can be waited out, while Iran consolidates and upgrades its military, its alliances and its nuclear weaponry.
Diplomacy only works when you are dealing with people that perceive they have something to lose. Although, as I wrote a few months back I wouldn't be surprised to see the Mullahs toy with the diplomacy game for as long as they can, even anounce some sort of token `joint enrichment' scam with Russia as part of that effort to wait Bush out.
Sanctions and multilateral diplomacy has been and will remain a waste of time.
Aside from the fact that Russia, China and certain members of the EU are unlikely to abide by them, the black market is alive and well, especially when you have oil and gas to sell.
So where's that leave us?
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.
President Bush touched on this when he compared `Militant Islam' with the communist menace of the Cold War. Except that the mullahs and their pals have a very different mindset in some ways. The communists actually cared about staying alive.
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.
And anyone who seriously talks about a land invasion and occupation of Iran is likewise not exactly living in reality. While the US military, perhaps with assists from the Ozzies, the Brits(I haven't totally counted them out just yet, Blair's remarks notwithstanding) and others are more than capable of handling the job, the casualties, money and effort involved would be horrendous...not to mention the political fallout from certain quarters. Remember, we are talking about people that consider `martyrdom' a virtue. 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 at 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.
In short, we need to deal with Iran the way we once dealt with Qadaffi and Libya...but on a larger and much more complete scale.
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. We can count on the mullahs seeking revenge and retaliation using whatever's left of Iran's surrogates 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 ramps up.
But an unchecked Iran results in those scenarios or worse anyway, sooner or later. And less ability to change the situation than we have now. No pain, no gain.
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. How we deal with Iran and jihad is the challenge we face, just as the west has had to face it before. This is a threshhold moment.
Time to do the mullah dance.
Labels:
illegal weapons,
Iran,
Islam,
Military,
Naval matters,
Nuclear weapons,
Oil,
Sunnis vs. Shi'ites,
War On Jihad
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
You have really scared the **** right out of me. I am just wondering when people are going to wake up!
I'm really scared to even think about what type of world my future children and grandchildren will live in.
Lindsey
FF,
Do you do speaking engagements? If not, you should, nice piece.
Hi Russell..I guess I'm glad the piece scared you. It scares me!
Now that that's over, let's do something about it..so we don't HAVE to worry about our kids and grandchildren living in slavery.
Hiya Patty Froghair, long time no hear from. I think (I hope) at the end of the day that Bush will do the right thing.
Muchas gracias, gringo. My regards to the Queen of Tequila. To answer your question directly, I've done a few speeches, mainly locally and during the Bush campaign..but it's not a steady diet.
maybe I should consider it!
Thanks to all of you for dropping by.
I meant to write a couple of entries regarding all the coverage you're doing on the whole issue with Iran... And I'm going to add you to my blog roll.
We really should do something grassroots in order to make sure that the worst possible scenario doesn't occur. Unfortunately, I really don't have a lot of ideas. How to you solve a problem that has been around longer than you have (I was born in December 1980 - just before the hostages were released)? It just sickens me that no one has dealt with it.
Any ideas?
L
Yes, a few.
Regarding Iran specifically: the call is going to be made by the Commander in Chief. He will need to see that there is the political will to do this.
Write to EVERY CONGRESSMAN you can and urge that action be taken. And write to the White House.
On the War Against Jihad: again write your legislators, and write often. look at the curriculum of your schools and see how Islam is being approached and taught.
And don't vote for ANYBODY who equivocates on this issue. Period.
And keep blogging and reaching out.
One blog is an isolated crank. A hundred blogs is a viewpoint. A hundred thousand blogs is a force to be reckoned with.
There are no attractive options here - the West has stuck its head in the sand for so long that options have run out.
As I see it, we now have two options; grasp the nettle and bomb Iran into the Stone Age and remove them as a threat, as well as give an awful warning to anyone who may want to follow their example, killing a few thousand:
Or wait, until somewhere in the civilised world we lose a city and all or most of its inhabitants; a few days, at most, later, the sites of all Iran's cities will glow in the dark, along with possibly the site of Mecca and Medina, and maybe some other Islamic cities, and half a billion or more will be killed.
And that act would leave an indelible stain on the soul of the West, whose consequences are impossible to imagine.
Time to choose. There are no pleasant choices left.
Excellent, anonymous. You get it.
Particularly important is giving a message to others with the jihadi mentality.
If, as our President says this is a `war on terror' or a `war on radical Islam', it's hard to imagine a better stroke than to take out the chief enablers and backers of Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, al Sadr's Mahdi army in Iraq, jemiyah Islaami and al Qaeda all at once.
We need to use neutrons to get the leadership.
Once they're killed, we should be able to throw all of Iran into the throes of a power struggle. And we can pick and choose which side to assist, and which to hamper. While the Iranians are devouring one another, they're hardly going to be able to project power into Lebanon, the West Bank, Gaza, Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq.
While the Iranians are falling out amongst themselves, we will have the time to pacify IRAQ, and settle all outstanding issues with Al Sadr, who will be isolated by the loss of his Tehran backing.
We should send in a battalion into Tehran to seize the files of the Iranian intelligence offices.
We should be able to get them in and out, in the aftermath.
As for the nukes, we must take no chances. So we should be prepared to send in strike teams, to follow up strike packages.
ALL OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN, must be subordinated to the destruction of that Manhattan Project, and to the utter obliteration of the Tehran leadership.
They must be killed. Every single one of them, SIMULTANEOUSLY. And the neutrons are perfectly fitted for the task.
Freedom Fighter, why are you allowing the Mullahs to live after the destruction of the Manhattan Project?
Does that make sense, to allow the leadership to issue orders, long perfected?
Isn't it wiser to eliminate them along with the Project?
Thus eliminating, or at least hindering the response to our actions?
This isn't a time to merely check an opponent, but to utterly crush a foe, a mortal foe, and thus end a mortal feud.
Your failure to suggest the elimination of the Tehran leadership makes me wonder if you see the true landscape before us.
I cannot believe that the MSM and the UN etc have their heads stuck in the sand. I struggle with this all the time I just cannot wrap my brain around why they help to propagate this fallicy of a "moderate" muslim, the hate, the war it's all in the Koran. Col. North said last night on Hannity that the UN is against Israel because they have no oil. 1 answer doesn't answer the MSM question though. Any suggestions?
The Iranian government wants nuclear weapons. So does the USA. The Iranian government sponsors terrorism. So does the USA. The Iranian government maintains a large army of young people willing to die for their country. So does the USA. Iran has military leaders willing to unleash death and destruction on those they fear and hate. So does the USA. Iran's president evokes religious images to justify nationalistic goals. So does the USA's. So far I haven't heard much about Iran that doesn't apply to the good ol' USA.
The real power of your post comes from the effective evocation of fear. Iranians live far away, they are different from us. They seem strange, and so we should fear them. Every time the USA's war drums start beating it's because this enemy is *far different* than any we've ever faced. They cannot be dealt with; they cannot be bargained with. They're barely human. They don't value human life. They think nothing of dying. The Japanese in WWII, the Soviet Union, the Vietnamese, al-Qaeda, and many more; and now Iran. They can't be bargained with, eh? We haven't even tried. Our diplomats won't even try, get this -- diplomacy. We're still sour about having our installed shah kicked out almost 30 years ago; they are no doubt still sour from having the US install him in the first place almost 30 years before that.
In 2002 GWB listed Iraq, Iran and North Korea as the "Axis of Evil" and then went on to invade Iraq. Iran and North Korea have since become very interested in nuclear weapons. Why? Because the only thing that has ever deterred the US has been possession of nuclear weapons. I'm not arguing that Iran and North Korea are just moody and misunderstood; the men in power there are "bad guys" and have killed many innocents (as has the leader of the US). But then the US is not interested in having wonderful, nice world leaders. We care about atrocities only when it is convenient -- the US supported Saddam Hussein through the 1980s with full knowledge of the crimes he committed; for which he is now on trial.
Very few things in this world are inevitable, and certainly nothing is inevitable until you try other options. I'm not advocating weakness or capitulation, but real strength is not defined in your ability to launch war without provocation.
However, in the end, rational discourse and reason will likely lose out. It is more convenient to launch a horrible war and kill millions and then spin it to your favor than it is to compromise a solution that is reasonable to all parties. It is easier to use horrible acts committed in the past as an excuse to commit more. But then, current USA foreign policy is not targetting peace or stability, only power and control.
This is addressed to the last `anonymous'. Obviously, you didn't read what I wrote with any depth I'm afraid.
Of course, if you really see no difference between the USA and the Iranian regime, there's not much point in further discussion.
Here are a few things that apply to Iran that don't apply to the US, just in case you're interested:
-The US has never threatened to wipe another nation off the map, and especially not simply because it happened to be composed mostly of Jews.
-The US is pretty much immune from the suicide martyr mindset that permeates the Shiite mentality.
-There is a major difference between collateral damage incurred when fighting people who use civilians as human shields and deliberately targeting innocents.
As for your equating the Iranian sposorship of terrorists, the baseji, the use of religious martyrdom to fire up the jihadis, etc. with anything remotely like President Bush or the US, its ludicrous.
But of course you're entitled.
Just as your entitled to think that the US has not attempted a diplomatic resolution.
This is a second posting, as the first was deleted; I can't say I'm surprised, since facts often get in the way of good propaganda...
The Iranian government wants nuclear weapons. So does the USA. The Iranian government sponsors terrorism. So does the USA. The Iranian government maintains a large army of young people willing to die for their country. So does the USA. Iran has military leaders willing to unleash death and destruction on those they fear and hate. So does the USA. Iran's president evokes religious images to justify nationalistic goals. So does the USA's. So far I haven't heard much about Iran that doesn't apply to the good ol' USA.
The real power of your post comes from the effective evocation of fear. Iranians live far away, they are different from us. They seem strange, and so we should fear them. Every time the USA's war drums start beating it's because this enemy is *far different* than any we've ever faced. They cannot be dealt with; they cannot be bargained with. They're barely human. They don't value human life. They think nothing of dying. The Japanese in WWII, the Soviet Union, the Vietnamese, al-Qaeda, and many more; and now Iran. They can't be bargained with, eh? We haven't even tried. Our diplomats won't even try, get this -- diplomacy. We're still sour about having our installed shah kicked out almost 30 years ago; they are no doubt still sour from having the US install him in the first place almost 30 years before that.
In 2002 GWB listed Iraq, Iran and North Korea as the "Axis of Evil" and then went on to invade Iraq. Iran and North Korea have since become very interested in nuclear weapons. Why? Because the only thing that has ever deterred the US has been possession of nuclear weapons. I'm not arguing that Iran and North Korea are just moody and misunderstood; the men in power there are "bad guys" and have killed many innocents (as has the leader of the US). But then the US is not interested in having wonderful, nice world leaders. We care about atrocities only when it is convenient -- the US supported Saddam Hussein through the 1980s with full knowledge of the crimes he committed; for which he is now on trial.
Very few things in this world are inevitable, and certainly nothing is inevitable until you try other options. I'm not advocating weakness or capitulation, but real strength is not defined in your ability to launch war without provocation.
However, in the end, rational discourse and reason will likely lose out. It is more convenient to launch a horrible war and kill millions and then spin it to your favor than it is to compromise a solution that is reasonable to all parties. It is easier to use horrible acts committed in the past as an excuse to commit more. But then, current USA foreign policy is not targeting peace or stability, only power and control.
Whoops, my mistake. I saw a near-duplicated response at the bottom and thought my post was missing. Sorry for the dupe, delete if convenient.
I never delete posts unless someone is pushing Viagra, vacations auto insurance, porn or the like.
JoshuaPundit was never intended to be an echo chamber, unlike some sites i could mention.
You're still factually challenged, as far as I'm concerned, no matter how many times you post this...but thanks for dropping by anyway.
The duplicate post was unintentional, my apologies. Let's examine your response:
> "-The US has never threatened to wipe another nation off the map, and especially not simply because it happened to be composed mostly of Jews."
The phrase "wiped off the map" which is by now the staple of the U.S. media's description of Iran and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is at best a slight mistranslation and at worst the corruption of his words. More correct translations[1][2] usually settle on "eliminated from the page of history"; which is certainly not friendly, but is more passive and less ominous. Ahmadinejad is not threatening Israel with imminent military action[3].
References:
1. "Lost in Translation" [ http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jonathan_steele/2006/06/post_155.html ]
2. "Fighting Words" [ http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/transcripts_061606_fightingwords.html ]
3. "Just How Far Did They Go, Those Words Against Israel?" [ http://travel2.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekinreview/11bronner.html ]
> "The US is pretty much immune from the suicide martyr mindset that permeates the Shiite mentality."
This blanket statement, like all other blanket statements about a race or religion is little more than a slur -- propaganda to dehumanize your opponent in the eyes of your readers. Your term "suicide martyr" is actually comprised of two words that never go together; "martyr" being a Christian put to death for one's (religious) convictions [1][2] (and generally held in high regard) and suicide is considered a sin by the Christian church. I would guess you're referring to insurgent suicide car bombs activity, but if so, please say so.
References:
1. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyr ]
2. [ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/martyr ]
> "-There is a major difference between collateral damage incurred when fighting people who use civilians as human shields and deliberately targeting innocents."
I am not certain as to which incidents you are referring, please be more specific so that I may respond specifically. References would be nice.
As for diplomacy, The New York Times as of Oct 27, 2006 agrees that the U.S. isn't doing a whole lot: "Dissent Grows Over Silent Treatment for ‘Axis of Evil’ Nations" [ http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/27/world/27diplo.html ]
Hello, anonymous,
Frankly, I don't consider the Guardian's Joanathan Steele, the NYT or a couple of leftist bloggers to be reliable sources, given their obvious bias..especially as I have access to native Farsi speakers.
Ahmadinajad's meaning is obvious, and it has been something he has said a number of times. I might also call attention to `moderate' Rafasjani's remark about one nuclear bomb solving the Israel question and a number of similar statements made by Khamenei.
And Rafasjani's remark,of course, was made when Iran was clandestinely pursuing nukes.
I'm sure you are perfectly content to put this in the most inocuous light - but I have a feeling the Israelis are not quite as rusting and complacent as you are...seeing as they have more to lose.
BTW, such remarks are a violation of Article 2 of the UN Charter..not that anyone at the UN is going to bother.
Don't misunderstand me...I don't think Iran would attack Israel with nuclear weapons, especially given Israel's second strike capacity. They are more likely to use the Palestinians and Hezbollah in a war of attrition and terrorism against Israel's civilians, perhaps after various politicians pressure Israel into Munich like concessions as a sacrifice for `peace'.
iran's ultimate goal, of course, is to expand into the oil rich Cacausus as th erising star of caliphate Islam, something even our president has belatedly started to realize, even if you don't.
If you are unfamiliar with the history and psychology of the Shiite `twelver' sect and refuse to believe that human beings would welcome death and apocalypse to pave the way for the return of the Hidden Imam, that is certainly your perogative. You might wish to keep in mind that Ahmadinejad used to be a baseji `trainer', as related in the article, and used to brainwash little kids into hanging plastic keys around their necks and working as human mine detectors in the Iran/Iraq war based on that same mentality.
As for the nitpicking reference to `suicide' and `martyr' never ging together, that is true in the Western frame of reference, but not in Islam.
I suggest you read up on the subject from some informed sources.
The bottom line is this, anonymous. Like it or not, we are at war with Iran, whether its through proxies like the Shiite militias, their pals in al Qaeda, a cold war type struggle or openly.
DIplomacy has been tried, to the point of comedy...and, since no agreement with a non-believer is ever sancrosanct to a Muslim anyway according to the Qu'ran and the Hadiths, that was a waste of time anyway from day one.
Not that it matters to me, but I suggest you figure out which side you're on.
Events will likely do that for you in the near future anyway.
ff
> Frankly, I don\'t consider the Guardian\'s Joanathan Steele, the NYT or a couple of leftist bloggers to be reliable sources, given their obvious bias..especially as I have access to native Farsi speakers.
And what news sources would you consider \"unbiased\"? (There are none, of course.) The only \"references\" you provide in your rantings are antagonistic cartoons; and if you have some fresh information available on the translation of Ahmadinajad\'s speech, then please share.
> I might also call attention to `moderate\' Rafasjani\'s remark about one nuclear bomb solving the Israel question
Yes, I found the quote I believe you\'re alluding to:
\"If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists\' strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality. Of course, you can see that the Americans have kept their eyes peeled and they are carefully looking for even the slightest hint that technological advances are being made by an independent Islamic country. If an independent Islamic country is thinking about acquiring other kinds of weaponry, then they will do their utmost to prevent it from acquiring them. Well, that is something that almost the entire world is discussing right now.\"[1]
Words like \"standstill\", \"contemplate\", \"eventuality\" and \"discussing\" don\'t sound like wild threatening to me, although he does make the mistake of discussing planning involving nuclear weapons in public (in the US we do this behind closed doors). He speaks of putting the America \"imperial strategy\" on \"standstill\"; he is still on the defensive; although to America this may itself be outrageous. Hell, Israel may even think twice before dropping cluster and phosphorous bombs on Lebanese civilians[2][3] (violating the Geneva Convention).
As for violating UN Article #2 the US government abides by the UN (and for that matter its own Bill of Rights[4]) only when it is convenient[5].
> I don\'t think Iran would attack Israel with nuclear weapons, especially given Israel\'s second strike capacity.
I agree; striking Israel with a nuclear weapon does not make sense for a sovereign nation. If, however, a nuclear device were smuggled in and detonated on-site with no declaration of war nor claim of responsibility, it would be some time, if ever, until the true perpetrators and supporters were discovered. To that end, it makes sense to take action which mitigates extremism -- instead of current policy which exacerbates it[6].
> They are more likely to use the Palestinians and Hezbollah in a war of attrition and terrorism against Israel\'s civilians, perhaps after various politicians pressure Israel into Munich like concessions as a sacrifice for `peace\'.
They already are; in fact you may have noticed that the Hezbollah-Israel conflict over the summer escalated just in time to switch the G8\'s discussions away from Iran\'s nuclear programme[7][8].
> Iran\'s ultimate goal, of course, is to expand into the oil rich Cacausus as th erising star of caliphate Islam, something even our president has belatedly started to realize, even if you don\'t.
Perhaps; but we saw them first! Iran should know they have no place meddling with other countries, that is the job of the United States.
> ...psychology of the Shiite `twelver\' sect and refuse to believe that human beings would welcome death and apocalypse to pave the way for the return of the Hidden Imam...
You\'re right, I don\'t buy it. The rich and powerful always act the same -- in their own best interests -- no matter what doctrine they espouse. Iran\'s leaders now believe it is in their own best interest to possess nuclear weapons to keep the United States at bay and keep themselves in power; and looking back at the track record I can\'t say it\'s a bad decision.
> Not that it matters to me, but I suggest you figure out which side you\'re on.
Ah, the classic \"with us or against us\". I am on the side of opposing aggression, opposing imperialism, working to minimize extremism, telling a balanced version of the facts to the American people and of using warfare as a last option. If that isn\'t your side, then so be it.
> Events will likely do that for you in the near future anyway.
Indeed, I\'m sure the Bush administration is itching to start another war, if only reality wasn\'t in the way. Even if we destroyed the majority of Iran\'s nuclear facilities using aerial strikes, we\'d only set them back 2-3 years[9]. Aggression is a (bad) short-term solution to a long-term problem.
References:
[1] \"Nuclear Weapons - Iranian Statements\" http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke2.htm
[2] \"U.N.: Israeli cluster bombs an \'outrage\'\" http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/31/lebanon.clusterbombs/index.html
[3] \"Israel Used Phosphorous Bombs in Lebanon\" http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Oct22/0,4670,IsraelPhosphorousBombs,00.html
[4] \"House OKs Detainee Trial Bill\" http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216068,00.html
[5] \"We Don\'t Need U.N. Authority\" http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34726,00.html
[6] \"Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat\" http://travel2.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html
[7] \"Issue of Mideast Violence Dominates G8 Summit Talks\" http://travel2.nytimes.com/2006/07/17/world/europe/17russiasumm.html
[8] \"G8 Leaders Agree on Statement About Mideast Fighting\" http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203869,00.html
[9] \"What War With Iran Would Look Like\" http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1535817-4,00.html
Dear Anonymous,
This reminds me very much of the old journalism class exercise, in which the professor would stage an actual event and then ask the students to describe what happened.
We obviously see some of the same facts and draw totally different conclusions.
You are fine with equating the US and Iran as equally vicious, imperialist and power mad. I disagree, but I'm obviously not going to convince you, no matter what facts I cite. Nor would you convince me that the players are exactly the same in motivation or ultimate goals.
Again, the ultimate question comes up: which side are you on? If, as you say, you are against `imperialism' `aggression' and `minimizing extremism' than you obviously oppose the Iranian regime vociferously. If you have a problem with that kind of ultimate question, you may find it illuminating to ask yourself why.
Perhaps not.
As for your use of the term `rantings', please be advised that I could easily refer to your offerings as `naive, crackpot anti-American stupidity' but chose not to. One of my rules on site is that a respectful post always gets a respectful response from me..please be advised that sort of lingo begins to tread on the borders of what I consider basiic civility.
As regards your question about Ahmadinejad's many remarks, please reread my response - as I said , I have access to native Farsi speakers.
I could also mention that (a) The Iranian regime has never formally disavowed these remarks and (b)given the way the Iranian regime has conducted itself and how it has treated its minorites, the idea of them wishing to perpetrate a new Holocaust on Israel or kill millions in the US is not far fetched.
This is the same regime, after all, that has nurtured and funded the murder of thousands of people already, from Argentina, to Lebanon, to its home country.
You contradict yourself in your own post when you suggest that Iran is not a threat but then freely admit that the Iranians are capable of handing off a nuke `downstream' to one of the many Islamic terorist groups they sponsor and enjoying the fireworks while not being direxctly implicated for some time. That is EXACTLY how they have operated in the past, as in Buenos Aires.
Islamic fascism is not going to be `mitigated' by any policy, diplomacy or `concessions'. This sort of argument has occurred before in history, and your position has proven to lead to exactly the sort of `aggression' you claim to be against.
Fascism of this sort needs to be defeated, humiliated and totally discredited.
We can do it now, or we can do it later, at much greater cost.
And that's exactly my point.
Post a Comment