"Nuclear Jihad"

 

Amir Taheri:

"Last Monday, just before he announced that Iran had gatecrashed "the nuclear club", President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad disappeared for several hours. He was having a khalvat (tête-à-tête) with the Hidden Imam, the 12th and last of the imams of Shiism who went into "grand occultation" in 941.

According to Shia lore, the Imam is a messianic figure who, although in hiding, remains the true Sovereign of the World. In every generation, the Imam chooses 36 men, (and, for obvious reasons, no women) naming them the owtad or "nails", whose presence, hammered into mankind's existence, prevents the universe from "falling off". Although the "nails" are not known to common mortals, it is, at times, possible to identify one thanks to his deeds. It is on that basis that some of Ahmad-inejad's more passionate admirers insist that he is a "nail", a claim he has not discouraged. For example, he has claimed that last September, as he addressed the United Nations' General Assembly in New York, the "Hidden Imam drenched the place in a sweet light".

Last year, it was after another khalvat that Ahmadinejad announced his intention to stand for president. Now, he boasts that the Imam gave him the presidency for a single task: provoking a "clash of civilisations" in which the Muslim world, led by Iran, takes on the "infidel" West, led by the United States, and defeats it in a slow but prolonged contest that, in military jargon, sounds like a low intensity, asymmetrical war.

In Ahmadinejad's analysis, the rising Islamic "superpower" has decisive advantages over the infidel. Islam has four times as many young men of fighting age as the West, with its ageing populations. Hundreds of millions of Muslim "ghazis" (holy raiders) are keen to become martyrs while the infidel youths, loving life and fearing death, hate to fight. Islam also has four-fifths of the world's oil reserves, and so controls the lifeblood of the infidel. More importantly, the US, the only infidel power still capable of fighting, is hated by most other nations.

According to this analysis, spelled out in commentaries by Ahmadinejad's strategic guru, Hassan Abassi, known as the "Dr Kissinger of Islam", President George W Bush is an aberration, an exception to a rule under which all American presidents since Truman, when faced with serious setbacks abroad, have "run away". Iran's current strategy, therefore, is to wait Bush out. And that, by "divine coincidence", corresponds to the time Iran needs to develop its nuclear arsenal, thus matching the only advantage that the infidel enjoys.

Moments after Ahmadinejad announced "the atomic miracle", the head of the Iranian nuclear project, Ghulamreza Aghazadeh, unveiled plans for manufacturing 54,000 centrifuges, to enrich enough uranium for hundreds of nuclear warheads. "We are going into mass production," he boasted.

The Iranian plan is simple: playing the diplomatic game for another two years until Bush becomes a "lame-duck", unable to take military action against the mullahs, while continuing to develop nuclear weapons.

Thus do not be surprised if, by the end of the 12 days still left of the United Nations' Security Council "deadline", Ahmadinejad announces a "temporary suspension" of uranium enrichment as a "confidence building measure". Also, don't be surprised if some time in June he agrees to ask the Majlis (the Islamic parliament) to consider signing the additional protocols of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Such manoeuvres would allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) director, Muhammad El-Baradei, and Britain's Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, to congratulate Iran for its "positive gestures" and denounce talk of sanctions, let alone military action. The confidence building measures would never amount to anything, but their announcement would be enough to prevent the G8 summit, hosted by Russia in July, from moving against Iran.

While waiting Bush out, the Islamic Republic is intent on doing all it can to consolidate its gains in the region. Regime changes in Kabul and Baghdad have altered the status quo in the Middle East. While Bush is determined to create a Middle East that is democratic and pro-Western, Ahmadinejad is equally determined that the region should remain Islamic but pro-Iranian. Iran is now the strongest presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, after the US. It has turned Syria and Lebanon into its outer defences, which means that, for the first time since the 7th century, Iran is militarily present on the coast of the Mediterranean. In a massive political jamboree in Teheran last week, Ahmadinejad also assumed control of the "Jerusalem Cause", which includes annihilating Israel "in one storm", while launching a take-over bid for the cash-starved Hamas government in the West Bank and Gaza.

Ahmadinejad has also reactivated Iran's network of Shia organisations in Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Yemen, while resuming contact with Sunni fundamentalist groups in Turkey, Egypt, Algeria and Morocco. From childhood, Shia boys are told to cultivate two qualities. The first is entezar, the capacity patiently to wait for the Imam to return. The second is taajil, the actions needed to hasten the return. For the Imam's return will coincide with an apocalyptic battle between the forces of evil and righteousness, with evil ultimately routed. If the infidel loses its nuclear advantage, it could be worn down in a long, low-intensity war at the end of which surrender to Islam would appear the least bad of options. And that could be a signal for the Imam to reappear.

At the same time, not to forget the task of hastening the Mahdi's second coming, Ahamdinejad will pursue his provocations. On Monday, he was as candid as ever: "To those who are angry with us, we have one thing to say: be angry until you die of anger!""

As you all know I have been following the nuclear steps of Iran for some time now. My posts back in February, made groundbreaking discoveries, which were initially ignored by the MSM, until finally the UK Telegraph woke up and picked up on the story, and after some research decided there were important facts that had to be reported. The more recent ones, caused a stir in the liberal Blogosphere, who sickened me with their irresponsible brushing aside, accusations of 'war mongering', convenient diversion, "batshit crazy" name calling, and spreading the "politics of fear", showing what to some appears mere unhinged bravado but to me shows utter ignorance. And every time, the time line goal posts move, the liberals move with it, but the ever present appeasement policy remains untouched, and the ridicule of America's useful idiots just gets louder and more belligerent.

My friend Shrink Wrapped is wandering "How anyone can feel so sanguine about Iran?"

The New York Times today has an article which suddenly out of the blue does a complete reversal of all that they have said in the past, and announces that Iran will be going nuclear much sooner than the ludicrously long estimate they have given in the past, which I have refuted several times on ATB.

Low and behold this is what we have in print today, with a TV program to be aired this evening @ 8pm on the Discovery Times Channel. I wonder what bullshit the liberal Blogosphere will come up with to refute their own incompetent reporting:

Of all the claims that Iran made last week about its nuclear program, a one-sentence assertion by its president has provoked such surprise and concern among international nuclear inspectors they are planning to confront Tehran about it this week.

The assertion involves Iran's claim that even while it begins to enrich small amounts of uranium, it is pursuing a far more sophisticated way of making atomic fuel that American officials and inspectors say could speed Iran's path to developing a nuclear weapon.

Iran has consistently maintained that it abandoned work on this advanced technology, called the P-2 centrifuge, three years ago. Western analysts long suspected that Iran had a second, secret program — based on the black market offerings of the renegade Pakistani nuclear engineer Abdul Qadeer Khan — separate from the activity at its main nuclear facility at Natanz. But they had no proof.

Then on Thursday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that Tehran was "presently conducting research" on the P-2 centrifuge, boasting that it would quadruple Iran's enrichment powers. The centrifuges are tall, thin machines that spin very fast to enrich, or concentrate, uranium's rare component, uranium 235, which can fuel nuclear reactors or atom bombs. ...

"This is a much better machine," a European diplomat said of the advanced centrifuge, which was a centerpiece of Pakistan's efforts to build its nuclear weapons and was found in 2004 in Libya, when that country gave up its nuclear program. The diplomat added that the Iranians, among other questions, will now have to explain whether Mr. Ahmadinejad was right, and if so, whether they recently restarted the abandoned program or have been pursuing it in secret for years.

If Iran moved beyond research and actually began running the machines, it could force American intelligence agencies to revise their estimates of how long it would take for Iran to build an atom bomb — an event they now put somewhere between 2010 and 2015.[...]

The new claim focuses renewed attention on Iran's rocky relationship with Mr. Khan, who provided [Iran] with much of the enrichment technology it is exploiting today. If Mr. Ahmadinejad's claim is correct, it probably indicates that relationship went on longer and far deeper than previously acknowledged. Mr. Khan and his nuclear black market supplied Iran with blueprints for both the more elementary machine, known as P-1, and the more advanced P-2.

There are other indications that Mr. Khan may have been dealing with Iran as recently as six years ago. President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan disclosed recently that he fired Dr. Khan, a national hero credited with developing Pakistan's bomb, in 2001 after discovering that he was trying to arrange a secret flight to the Iranian city of Zahedan, known as a center of smuggling.

Dr. Khan refused to discuss the flight, saying it was important and very secret. "I said, 'What the hell do you mean? You want to keep a secret from me?' " Mr. Musharraf recalled in an interview with The New York Times for a Discovery Times television documentary, "Nuclear Jihad."

"So these are the things which led me to very concrete suspicions," Mr. Musharraf said, "and we removed him."

As I have said before, we can expect nuclear weapons production to be ready within a year. With all due respect to the liberal Blogosphere, you are dangerously delusional:

All of this points toward a faster development cycle for Iran than anyone has predicted. If they develop a P-2 centrifuge cascade and have plans and a working model on which to build a design, the Iranians only need the fissile material itself in order to produce nuclear weapons. Their existing cascade has been assumed to be P-1 technology, but the Iranians have busied themselves with secret work at Ishfahan and Natanz to fortify and expand both facilities while refusing to answer IAEA questions about their work on the P-2.

If the Iranians have the P-2 technology, they can create fissile material much faster and in greater quantities than has been reported previously. When they have enough, they will move directly into weapons production, and that will not be in 2015. That could well be next year.

The Anti Jihad Pundit has put a very good post together, linking some posts of mine and other bloggers to form an excellent time-line picture of nuclear Iran. Also reminds us of Iran's more humanitarian gestures. It reminds me of Spengler's great column hitting another home run: "The West will attack Iran, but only when such an attack will do the least good and the most harm."

Marc Schulman @ American Future: "The Times reports that Iran has formed battalions of suicide bombers to strike at British and American targets if the nation's nuclear sites are attacked. According to Iranian officials, 40,000 trained suicide bombers are ready for action.

The main force, named the Special Unit of Martyr Seekers in the Revolutionary Guards, was first seen last month when members marched in a military parade, dressed in olive-green uniforms with explosive packs around their waists and detonators held high.

Hassan Abbasi, Ahmadinejad's strategic advisor and head of the Centre for Doctrinal Strategic Studies in the Revolutionary Guards, said in a speech that 29 western targets had been identified: "We are ready to attack American and British sensitive points if they attack Iran's nuclear facilities." He added that some of them were "quite close" to the Iranian border in Iraq."

Hugh Hewitt has an important column in World Magazine on "Irrational Iran" 

And on his blog, Hewitt takes Billmon (the first "son of Kos") apart:

Billmon ends with an appeal for a policy of appeasement, the very slander Billmon set out to rebut.

You can take the writer out of Munich, but you can't take Munich out of the writer.

Billmon has given you a lens into the mind of the left, and I think a pretty good picture of how the Reids/Kerrys/Kennedys/Boxers/Bidens see things.

It is incoherent. It refuses to deal with history fairly, or with facts squarely, and it always blames America.

Now compare Billmon's "analysis" with Mark Steyn's essay on Iran.  Make a note of every inconvenient fact that Billmon ignored.

And then ask yourself, do you want the left, or the center-right, conducting foreign policy and if necessary, war policy, in the age of a near-nuclear Iran?"

Well I know what my answer is going to be. What is yours?

Comments

[Stefan]

Is it just me or is it a bit fishy that Iran reveals a brilliant new technology every other day? I that they shouldn’t be taken seriously or anything but this posturing should not fluster our thinking. As always, the one that keeps a cool head when things get crazy comes out on top.

[epaminondas]

Hamna, don't worry they will..
WE'RE WAITING...

We won't send any intentional suicide bombers to kill people out for lunch though, however, allow me to introduce you to our representatives, they are about 4 1/2 meters long, 2/3 meter wide and have very short stubby arms, their stride is about 2000 km, and they can get there in about 3 hours. They have big funny noses we can see you through, and on the side of the noses they will probably say things like "Khameini", "Rafsanjani", "Galactic Twerp", "12th Mahdi", you know endearing personal messages.

Have a nice day

[hamna]

IRAN MUST ATTACK AMERICA

[Theway2k]

Alexandra von Maltzan has put together an excellent blogosphere indictment on Iran. If Iran was an individual he would be in jail awaiting trial. Iran is an Islamofascist rogue nation with 12th Imam delusions of grandeur. Iran needs to be committed for insanity before it deserves the needle for international homicide.

[Ghost Dansing]

It's so sad America has been so weakened by modern Republicanism, and this Republican administration in general. Everything Dubya has done in the area of foreign policy has played into the hands of Iran...and because he squandered military capability, treasure and blood on Iraq, he is in a poor position to deal with Iran.

This Republican administration's incompetence will haunt us for generations.

[slowtrain]

As I have said elsewhere on this issue, I am not a fan of Friedrich Nietzsche but there is truth in what he said, “Whoever battles with monsters had better see that it does not turn him into a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.” History shows that civilized men often descend into uncivilized behavior when confronted with uncivilized acts that threaten their way of life. I will not give examples because I don’t want to risk distracting from the real issue. The point I seek to make is that military strike of whatever sort may very well turn out to be the only option, yet we must not be perceived by the general Iranian public and the world as arriving at that decision casually or without regards to the lives of millions of ordinary Iranians.

I don’t believe that we are at the point where war is the only option and I don’t believe that majority of the 70 million Iranians would be willing to face a nuclear strike that might hit the wrong target, just to possess a few nuclear weapons. I believe that we have not seriously tried to communicate to the general Iranian public the fact that their incredibly stupid, perhaps maniacal President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his stupid cohorts are prepared to sacrifice their lives and those of their children for some deranged notion of him being ordained by some phantom to lead them and all Muslims into victory over the West and that possession of nuclear weapon is the way to do it. So far, the general Iranian public, left to only the brainwashing of their leadership and the inadvertent complicity of the America media, is on the verge of being convinced that America will attack them with nuclear weapon regardless of what they do and that the only deterrent and hope is to acquire nuclear weapon themselves.

The situation is quickly turning into Catch-22 and it is not only the making of Ahmadinejad, but also the way America and the West have responded.

[MarcH]

Dr. VdeV,

Your post provided the rare but entertaining spectacle of an admirer of the Bathists depicting himself as concerned with the welfare of "US marines and Israeli civilians".

You must play a mean game of Twister (http://www.mathematik.uni-bielefeld.de/~sillke/Twister/).

[MarcH]

Jeff Durkin,

I think that the key is whether 'Tehran may ... gamble that the US, having "solved the Iran problem" will turn its attention elsewhere, particularly after 2008, and allow Tehran to repair the damage done and resume work on nukes'.

McInerney assumes that the American people do have the will to support a large scale air campaign with a long term engagement (but not conventional ground forces).

McInerney seems to call for not just hitting WMD related sites, but also crippling the regime's security apparatus. The implication is that the US will be able to leverage the drop in regime security capability by aiding various political/ethnic opponents to effect regime change. If this succeeds it is possible that some future Iranian regime may resume work on nukes, but any new political establishment in Iran would have to be more sane and pacific than the current one.

IMHO, if we don't have the will to act now (in 1936 when Ahmadinejad is just reoccupying the Rhineland) how can we realistically expect that we'll have the will to contain and slowly pressure him to give up the WMD? It didn't work with N. Korea and it almost didn't work with Iraq. I'm betting that, in the choice between bad and worse, the American people will have the guts to pick bad rather than just chill out and wait for worse.

On a side note, please don't take the above as me painting you as advocating throwing in the towel. I appreciated that you choose to play Devil's advocate in your comments and thought that they added clarity to the various options.

[Dr Victorino de la Vega]

Dear Slavonic-American beauty,

My “answer” would be to get rid of both the Ahmad-i-Nejad AND the Bush regime simultaneously if possible…for I think the latter is actually more dangerous both in terms of nuclear lethality and religious zealotry!

Three years after the conquest of Baghdad, the situation throughout the Middle-East looks rather bleak, as Iran goes nuclear following the example of its US-armed neighbors Israel and Pakistan, while radical Islamic fundamentalism seems stronger than ever with heinous mobs burning churches (not to mention Christians and women) in Cairo, Jakarta and Islamabad, and with potentially explosive Sunni vs. Shiite sectarian tensions now spreading to Syria, Lebanon, Pakistan and the entire Gulf region.

I guess that’s what Neocon Neros such as Mike Ledeen call “creative chaos” whatever that means... “Chaotic cretinism” would be a more fitting appellation for the highly incoherent foreign policy of President Bush and his incompetent Neocon handlers!

Narrow-minded Marxist ideologues be they communists or “neo-conservatives” have always despised the “internal contradictions” of traditional Western rationality (rooted in Europe´s Christian and secular Classical traditions) which they believe to be “old-fashioned” and “formal” (sic). Just like their role model comrade Lenin, these sophisticated thugs prefer the joys “dialectical creativity” even when this means pursuing high policies over the dead bodies of hundreds of thousands of disposable Arab and Muslim peasants… as another Neocon Israeli idol once said: “you simply can’t cook a good omelet without cracking a few eggs”!

But, to use their own vocab of choice, the Neocons themselves are now faced with the “internal contradictions” of their misguided Mideast policy based on a blind belief in accelerated democratization at gunpoint coupled with a systematic scorn of Arab and Islamic public opinion…

Like him or not, Saddam Hussein was a truly modernist, Westernized Arab head of state who protected women’s rights and enforced affirmative action programs in favor of Iraq’s tiny Christian minority. President Reagan and “Old Europe’s” foreign policy establishment both viewed the Iraqi Baath party essentially as a strong secular bulwark against both Persian-Khomeinist fundamentalism and Wahhabi-Afghan terrorism.

The Israelis and Washington’s Neocons thought otherwise: now US marines and Israeli civilians have to deal with the rise of terrorist organizations such as Hamas and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) which their own governments have deliberately brought to power…

[Jeff Durkin]

As I was riding home on the Metro, I had a few more thoughts on possible outcomes of military action against Iran. In my last comments I presented two possible paths.

One, in which I laid all the carnage that could be caused if Iran decides to resist or overtly prolong a conflict, including the use of chemical and biological weapons (which I would call the "messy short-term, victorious long-term" scenario) and then General McInerney's idea of a short, hard hitting campaign followed up with regime change (the "clean short-term, victorious long-term" scenario).

However, as I was riding home, I started to think about what Tehran might do, if they wanted to take maximum advantage of a US strike, while minimizing the potential for regime change.

Two caveats; this scenario is pretty much impossible if we decide to fight a long air/SpecFor campaign, with regime and security targets as primary "aim points." And, it assumes that the regime is, from our point of view, partially rational. In this case, it would mean they believe in the long-term victory of Islam and Iran, but are not looking for an apocalyptic confrontation now. In short, they are more interested in preserving the Islamic Republic than all becoming martyrs.

Let's say we have an "Osirek on steroids" attack. We hit every known nuclear target with assets we either have in the region, can get their quickly or can stage from the US - so, mainly carrier based air, cruise missiles and long-range bombers. It can be almost guaranteed that we will not destroy Iran's nuclear infrastructure, only damage it to some degree. How much? Well, it depends on a lot of things. How good is our intel? When do we hit (if we hit "off hours" there is less blowback from civilian casualties, but more human resources survive)? Do we hit nuclear sites near population centers and risk radiation deaths? Do have any major SNAFUs (an aerial "Desert One") that leaves targets only partially damaged? This seems unlikely, but warfare often sees the unlikely happen.

You get the idea.

It is possible that Tehran may decide to retaliate in safe ways: increase support for attacks on Israel; increase support for terrorism in Iraq, something we have demonstrated will not result in retaliation; increase support for quasi-legitimate groups in Iraq that our hostile to our interests; increase support for terrorist groups in Europe, to show the Europeans the price of being friends of the US, while not directly hitting the US homeland, avoiding public support for a regime changing war; increase ties to places like China and Venezuela, which to some degree hostile to the US; use the attack to solidify support at home, by riding the almost inevitable nationalist surge an attack would bring, coupled with a crackdown on anti-regime elements - who will be written off as Zionists, spies, etc; use the attack, and the regime survival, as a rallying point for supporters in the region; and, finally, gamble that the US, having "solved the Iran problem" will turn its attention elsewhere, particularly after 2008, and allow Tehran to repair the damage done and resume work on nukes.

And, then, in 2012 or so, we have a Tehran with allies in Latin America, weapons from Beijing, and a small covert nuke program, that has managed to inflict casualties on Israel and the West, and might even have partial control of the Iraqi government, all while America - the short-attention span nation - assumes it has "won."

Call this the "clean short-term, defeated long-term" scenario.

The basic point is, if Iran does not play our game - which is to either launch a full-scale, overt counter-offensive or capitulate - than any war short of either regime change or failed status, could lead to our overall defeat.

Anyway, off to dinner.

[MarcH]

1. I would say that Drs. Alexandra and Igout have the correct diagnosis. But we don't need Moscow, Peiking or Old Europe getting in the way during the procedure. Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney (USAF, ret.) describes the only scalpels we'll need for this operation in "Target: Iran - Yes, there is a feasible military option against the mullahs' nuclear program". (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/101dorxa.asp).

2. This was a great post Alexandra. My only complaint is that you didn’t mention the part about the 12th Imam living deep down in the Jamkaran well (that’s “well”, as in a deep hole in the ground where primitive peoples go to fetch water, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamkaran) for the last one thousand years, awaiting his turn in the spotlight. I seem to remember a news story which described Ahmadinejad and his mullah pals going off to the well for a little pow-wow with the Imam. Such accounts make Ahmadinejad seem so … well … normal. I think he’d fit right in at the faculty lounge of any major university.

[Jeff Durkin]

We only have four broad options to follow.
1. We decide to live with a nuclear Iran.
2. We continue to pursue the current diplomatic model, which is offer carrots and continue to talk, even when Tehran makes it abundantly clear that they are not interested in anything we (the US/EU-3) have to offer.
3. Implement sanctions, including an economic blockade.
4. Military strikes of some sort.

The first option is, of course, unacceptable. A nuclear Iran would be, at best, a threat to US regional security interests. It is quite possible that Iran, with a nuclear arsenal, could follow an apocalyptic path and try to destroy Israel and Sunni population centers, not to mention as many Western population centers as it had the ability to hit. At a minimum, this would lead to widespread destruction in the Middle East and a serious global economic downturn (not to mention tens of millions of dead in all but the smallest nuclear war).

The second option, while possible (after all, we have been talking for years) is pointless. Tehran has made it clear that there is nothing that we can realistically offer them that will get them to back off from their nuclear weapons program.

The third option, while it could have a very positive effect, is unrealistic, simply because Iran's major trading partners will not cooperate. So, unless we want to get into the business of sinking oil tankers heading to China, effective sanctions cannot be implemented.

So, that leaves a military strike of some sort as the only option left. Since the options that are likely involve the use of large, overt forces, this action will cause severe problems in the region and will lead, at a minimum, to an increase in terrorism in the Middle East, Europe and the US, as well as strikes against US personnel and interests in the region. It could also lead to chemical weapon attacks on Iraqi population centers (Iran has a large chemical arsenal and the means to deliver them), biowar attacks in the US (Iran also has a biological weapons program and is the most likely WMD attack against the US in the near-term from Iran), a collapse of a country with 70 million people and resources that are critical to global economic health, a chronic failed state, a huge refugee issue (if the attacks on the nuclear program infrastructure cause radioactive contamination near population centers and the central government collapses), and, if our intel is wrong - or the Iranians just don't give up - the prospect of a long air campaign, one that would see the US under increasing international pressure to end as the global economic impact became more pronounced. Admittedly, some of these are worse case and others are contradictory. But, they are all reasonable possible outcomes of a war with Iran. And there are others. The point is, a military action will almost certainly cause serious repercussions, both at home and abroad.

That said, we really don't have any other choice. Diplomacy will not work and sanctions cannot be implemented. Allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons will only make matters worse - unless we are willing to suffer a major blow to our national security. So, it looks like we will be going to war; the questions are what kind of war (unconventional, conventional-air, conventional-ground, long, short, and so forth) and how much damage are we will to put up with to achieve victory (the loss of more servicemen, chemical attacks on Iraq, a terror campaign in Europe, widespread terrorism at home, a global recession, etc.)? While we can hope that Genenral McInerney's rather rosy assessment is right (and massive attack that cripples Iranian nuclear and security forces, followed by an anti-government uprising), if I were making policy, I would not want to count on it, particularly the uprising part. I, of course, do not dispute our ability to win a military conflict with Iran. Rather, I wonder if Americans would put up with another long war or one that saw the use of WMD - chemical and biological - or new terrorist attacks in the US or only pushed back the date for nuclear Iran by "five years," necessitating another campaign in the near future?

Anyway, just some thoughts.

[T.J.]

Alexandra: Tremendous post. Islam is unreformable but I hope you will agree that, as a Christian, Bush had to try. I am so pleased you linked to the riveting Simmons essay. I loved Hyperion and this essay was the most interesting thing I've read all month, besides the Steyn article in City Journal (and your posts, natch.) I must ask you, what does your imagination tell you regarding the "three last words" spoken by the Time Traveler?

Peace means submission. ???

You've been warned. ??? (mind you, that's four words, technically speaking)

Miss that Scotch. ??? (because it no longer exists in 2019?)

Intelligent, insightful theo-conservatives like Redfining Sovereignty editor Orrin Judd don't agree with the Simmons/Steyn viewpoint and even seem to welcome the idea of Islamic influence under the rubric of the U.S. Constitution. I personally believe that Islam does not, cannot, and never shall recognize the U.S. Constitution. Or the U.S., except as a land and people to eventually be made to submit.

That Simmons voted for Kerry and nevertheless wrote this essay is a hopeful sign.

Peace, Alexandra (sans submission)

[gringoman]

Billmon,

Relax, whenever Alexandra dares to stick up for Western Civilization and those who made it and defended it, there will always be a pale comrade to play the untermenschen card in behalf of the barbarians and their hordes who are often even more ignorant and malleable than the West's fat masses of entitlement. (Call it Hitler's gift to Stalin.) He needs to apologize for his paleness. He wants to say, "I can't help it, I know the very sight of me oppresses you poor people, but look, at least in me it's progressive. See? It's all about being sensitive. You dig?"

Posted by: gringoman at Apr 17, 2006 7:06:30 PM

[slowtrain]

Alexandra,

As your March 09, 2006 post:
Iran Is Building A Nuclear Weapon and my comments thereto clearly show, we were ahead of time on this issue. Excerpts from that comment read, “In the apparent nuclear impasse with Iran and the attendant imminent confrontation, two things need to be considered. One, what can history tell us? Two, “how bad does Iran want or need” the nuclear bomb? A careful consideration of these two questions clearly indicates that Iran is determined on acquiring nuclear weapons and Iran will acquire nuclear weapons. The question is what is the rest of the world going to do about it? In the case of what we can learn from history, Pakistan and India come to mind. In the case of the latter question, the leadership of Iran that sees itself and Iran as the ideological leader of the Islamic world, which it believes has been bullied and humiliated by the West, particularly the United States, is bent on acquiring nuclear weapons; primarily as both a deterrent and instrument of intimidation or blackmail.

On a more sinister level, there is Iran’s desire to destroy Israel; a desire that was recently, clearly and unequivocally declared to the world by none other than the Iranian President himself. Of course, there is also the desire to punish the United States, expectedly not to the same magnitude as it hopes to inflict punishment on Israel, but nevertheless, to weaken the United States, by crippling its economy, thus making America less influential, particularly in the Middle East, and less of an obstacle to Iran and its agenda in the world.”

As I have written elsewhere, the success of Iran’s meddling in Iraq that has hitherto created the intractable situation therein, and Iran’s presumption of lack of will borne out of weariness, among a significant number of Americans and Europeans has emboldened it. Also, the 1973 oil crisis in the United States that resulted from the Arab Oil Embargo on America and the fact there are now alternative markets, particularly China and India, for Middle East oil gives Iran’s leadership a pretty good gauge on the potency of oil as a weapon against the United States, even more than there had been in 1973. Speaking of this power, Bob Dylan, a man I consider ahead of his time said,

“All that foreign oil controlling American soil,
Look around you, it's just bound to make you embarrassed.
Sheiks walkin' around like kings, wearing fancy jewels and nose rings,
Deciding America's future from Amsterdam and to Paris
And there's a slow, slow train comin' up around the bend.”

One cannot help but wonder; has that proverbial slow train that Dylan spoke of, about to clear the bend. America and the Western World must realize the gravity of their position here, as Iran appears to hold and expand advantage at every turn.

“How do you fight a mad man? There is an inherent problem of, “damned if you do, damned if you don’t”. The suicide bomber, a product of the same ideology as the Iranian leaders (the mullahs), ought to be a point of reference and a harbinger of what is to come. Win or lose, the madman has less to gain and less to lose, perhaps even nothing in either case. On the other hand, you have more to lose. So what ought to be done and what must we do, in a troubled world and a volatile Middle East, when Iran possesses WMD? That ought to be the question. Not the hand wringing and empty threats, which Iran has considered and accepted as necessary price for acquiring WMD, especially since it has Pakistan and India as models.”

Make no mistake about it, Iran, which sees this issue as intrinsically part of a wider ideological struggle for dominance, will do all it can to draw the entire Muslim world into any confrontation that might ensue with the United States, which is left without its traditional European allies, who are practically immobilized by fear and narrow minded self-interest. I know I will be vilified for saying this, but it has to be said.

Right now Iran is two steps ahead of the United States and the Western world, in this high stakes ‘game of chess’….” Clearly and urgently, America and the Western World need someone or something that can diffuse, not explode this ticking time bomb, one way or another.

[Joe]

I wonder what bullshit the liberal Blogosphere will come up with to refute their own incompetent reporting

But of course it will be the all-purpose excuse "BushLied!!", followed immediately by the squeaking of all those new-and-improved wheeled goalposts being moved yet again.

[gringoman]

Re the cartoon (in gringo color), 'Nanny Man Goes to Tehran,' somehow I get the impression that Alexandra has little faith in Nanny Man.

[igout]

A nukectomy won't do it, we need a total mullahectomy. Since this is in many people's interest, including that of the people of Iran, it'd be good if New Delhi, Moscow and Bejing were made part of the surgical team.

History didn't end, it was just on pause.

[epaminondas]

Look, there is as little to discuss right now between the USA nd Iran as there is between HAMAS and Israel.
They will not stop, we can not allow it.

DO
WHATEVER
IT
TAKES

BTW, if anyone around here hasn't read Dan Simmons little short story about all this...Sometimes it takes a science fiction writer to generate an accurate conviction of future history
it's HERE:

http://www.dansimmons.com/news/message.htm

"The Time Traveler appeared suddenly in my study on New Year’s Eve, 2004. He was a stolid, grizzled man in a gray tunic and looked to be in his late-sixties or older. He also appeared to be the veteran of wars or of some terrible accident since he had livid scars on his face and neck and hands, some even visible in his scalp beneath a fuzz of gray hair cropped short in a military cut. One eye was covered by a black eyepatch. Before I could finish dialing 911 he announced in a husky voice that he was a Time Traveler come back to talk to me about the future."

[RL]

Ciao bella, it's Taheri (& not Teheri). i just thought that it would be nice to point this out to the creator of my favourite blog that is produced by a creative and thoughtful lady. You possibly had Tehran on your very intelligent mind.

[Marc Schulman]

I just followed your link to Billmon. He seems to have overlooked the fact that Germany lost WWI. Using his logic (?), I could argue that the reason for Hitler's success was Kaiser Wilhelm -- after all, he started the war. On second thought, maybe the real culprit was Bismarck -- if he hadn't unified Germany, there wouldn't have been a Kaiser, and if there hadn't been a Kaiser, there wouldn't have been a war, and if there hadn't been a war, there wouldn't have been a Hitler. You get the idea. Historical reductionism, pure and simple.

Applying Billmon's logic (?) to the U.S., the blame for post-WWII "imperial" America rests squarely on the shoulders of Nazi Germany and the Japanese Empire. After all, if they had defeated the U.S., the U.S. wouldn't have become an imperial state. The same goes for the Soviets: if they had won the Cold War, we wouldn't have been able to invade Iraq or threaten Iran.

[billmon]

Oh yes, whip me again, my blonde Aryan slave mistress. I just LOVE it when you compare the Islamic untermenchen to vile rodents. It's so . . . purifying!

[Huan]

The government needs to start laying the military ground work for war with Iran in 2007 and the nation as a whole in 2008.