A nuclear Iran provides a protective umbrella for Shi’ites who are treated as heretics by the Sunnis. The nuclear umbrella also allows Iran to foster Shi’ite “adventurism” in places like Lebabon, the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia.

Who’s going to pre-empt the nuclear Iran?

I don’t think it will be Israel. Instead they will push for a Cold War/proxy war situation. And just to be sure they can’t be caught on a first strike, they bought insurance.

What about the fact that a nuclear Iran creates a more stable regional security arrangement, relieving a bit of the Iranian anxiety that leads to Lebanon “adventurism” and support for subversive terrorist organizations? Or the fact that generally those states which possess nuclear weapons—instead of semi-secretly pursuing them—tend to behave more responsibly towards their neighbors and scale down the revisionist rhetoric?

Dorood “Hoder”,

Please allow this American Bhuddist “infidel” who’s granddad helped build the very first atomic bomb clue you in to why the premis of several aspects of your thinking two years ago is still valid, and why various premis behind statements made in the above article are badly in need of reexamination, from a logical and non-emotional mindset.

1. The environmental aspects of nuclear energy:

Traffic patterns have no bering on the geographical probability of a major earthquake occuring in Iran. Lack of transparent environmental and geological study including public imput on these issues alone should give any rational Iranian pause for thought as to the logical environmental concequences of the future start-up of Bushir (or any other proposed facility) may ultimately become manifest in the region. And this is not simply an Iranian issue, many Gulf nations have expressed exactly this concern, officially.

I just list one environmental aspect here, as my time is limited, but there are many others that need to be factored in.

2. “Political” considerations as you call them, boil down to a question of regime intent, both in regards towards nations in the region, and the international community. As well as its intent towards the people of Iran.
Intent can be redily assesesed in word and deed of the regime itself over a long period of time, and over multiple presidencies, of which the latest selected is on record of stated intent to wipe nations off the map, including the USA.
You talk of the situation in Iraq, but not of the regime’s intent to destabilize a soverign government that exists there today, which with more than enough evidence shows the non-peaceful intent of the regime toward its neigbors, via proxi groups it supports with arms and propaganda. (I’ll be kind to you here and simply make the initial assesment that you are also a victim of “spin”).

If anything, the abysmal human rights practices of the regime are worse that they’ve ever been in the entire 27 year history of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
By way of proof from their own lips, the regime just recently stated that they will kill each and every political prisoner now in custody, should the UN Sec. Council impose sanctions over the nuclear issue.

Again, I don’t have time to write a hundred pages covering all the human rights aspects that remain valid premis to your original thinking, but I would point out that the people of Iran have no say in nuclear matters at present, and that is in itself a violation of their civil liberties, being slaves to the intent of the regime.

A regime which by the way, has over the last two years, recruited by public advertizment in a regime-run publication, some 52,000 Martyrs willing to blow themselves up in suicide opperations against US and allied government’s interests in the region, including Iraq and other Gulf nations.
A regime who’s selected president has gone on record as saying that Martyrdom is the highest order of individual achievment, and who’s Iranian Hizbollai supporters of the 12th imman have declared EVERY Iranian to be potential martyrs of the revolution.

3. Nuclear weapons assesment:

I’m probably among a dozen or so people in the world still living who has held a piece of “trinitite” in my hands. This is the fused sand from the first atomic explosion, bubbled green glass, encased in leaded crystal, given to the department heads and leading scientists at Los Alamos at the end of WW2, including my granddad. The rest has been bulldozed underground at the Trinity test site in White Sands. It is the most concrete example I can show any one of the risk of nuclear war, or the results of it.
Any leader holding this potential future in hand will have something to remember, and think about.

It took America just about 27 months, from 1942-45 to build an industry from scratch, based on designs from scratch, building a city from scratch to build a bomb from scratch, with only theories to go on, in the middle of the largest and most costly war in history. Yet we did this and ended that war that had cost 50 million lives up to that point with the weapon that no one knew would even work at the time it was being produced.

Everyone who worked on the first bomb, being as uncivilized a weapon as it is, believed it would cause mankind to forever choose peace instead of war after it ended WW2. Unfortunately, that direction was not taken, at the expense of the environment, and to the continued threat to all life on this planet.

I stress here the biggest “what if?” is what we might have accomplished as the Human species had we chosen to live in peace, instead of fear after WW2.

Anyone who has witnessed the birth of one’s child can tell you that yes indeed you create your own reality, the question is what do we wish to create for ourselves as reality on this planet, now and for our children’s, and their children’s future? Not just in this country, but the world as a whole, as an international vision.
Inherently, change is viewed with suspicion, as a threat to culture and ways of tradition and ethical belief systems. As it applies to developing countries in this nuclear age, the post-cold war aftermath presents a vast paradox that present no easy solutions, and has culminated in the reality of the war on terrorism as it exists today.

We in America share a concept, united we stand, divided we fall, 9/11 has forced the world to grasp this concept. Ready or not, globalization is at hand, a global response to chaos in the form of potential nuclear terrorism.

So it is now out of a sense of duty to my grandfather’s memory I hereby state this for the record, knowing that I am of sound mind, and good heart, and do my best to remain objective. Objectivity can be hard to come by where it concerns family, or politics, as we are all human beings, and of a species prone to emotions, at the expense of logic.

If there is one thing about people that’s a given, it’s that they can only change themselves. You can try to understand them, change their circumstances, try to point the roads to peace, but in the end, they must want it for themselves, knowing what the alternatives are.

There is a situation soon to be pressed regarding Iran, over multiple issues outstanding, both acute and systemic, with far reaching ramifications for non-proliferation, counter-terrorism, human rights, and the general stability of the Mideast.

The IRI is fast pushing the free world to another alternative that could be far worse, if the IRI does produce a nuclear weapon before the people decide their own fate, and remove the threat both to them and the international community.

Now I hear a fair amount of talk that the US is just using this as an excuse to promote “regime change”. But the reality is if the regime isn’t changed soon, the mullahs who are willing to martyr 10 million recruits (as also noted in IRI statements), and is on record of having an agenda of obliterating nations off the map, would certainly be willing to use such a weapon on their own people to make it look for all intents and purposes as if the Israeli’s or the US had just attacked them, thereby creating the needed justification for holy war (or un-holy war depending on one’s mindset), and thereby create the apocalyptic conditions of prophesy to hasten the mahdi’s return.

Now Iran has had at least 18 years, lots of help from other nations, black market smugglers, and their scientists have had proven designs to work with, and in all probability now has in its possesion, a handful of nuclear devices smuggled in after being bought on the black market.

My conclusion is this,... and I hope you will all consider very carefully what you wish for, because one of the basic flawed premis in modern political mythology is that having a nuclear weapon buys national security.

Regardless of flaws in US policy that one may perceive, the risk the Islamic Republic poses to the Iranian people far outweighs by orders of magnitude, the risk the US government poses to you.

Why is that?

Because for the last 60 years since we dropped 2 atomic bombs to end a war that took over 50 million lives, my government has done everything in its power to make sure not another one gets dropped….by anyone.

However, given the Iranian government’s intent and actions, it is apparent to many globally that in order to maintain global peace and security, the current government of Iran must go….either quietly into the night, voluntarily returning to their mosques never to participate in politics again. Or by removal at the hands of the people themselves and/or be removed by the will of nations and force of arms.

At present, the US government has still a policy of “behavior change” in effect, has made a generous offer to resolve the “nuclear problem” diplomaticly in concurrance with other nations and a UN resolution mandating compliamce with international norms.

The regime has turned it down, and is apparently unwilling to be a functional member of the family of nations.

Don’t blame the US for the choices the regime makes, nor the results that the consequences will ultimately manifest.

Those of the Muslim faith, as well as those Iranians who read this have my great sympathy for the choice that you must now make as individuals, to preserve your nation and the umma itself from those who lead a great nation and people over oblivion’s cliff.

“Hoder” I trust you will also reflect on what has been written here with utmost sincerity.

ba sepaas….

EJ

Posted by: Eric Jette | August 25, 2006 02:34 AM
———————

The above posted on WP Global in response to “Hoder”, and I hope it offers a little food for thought to the readership here.
Call it an “introductory posting”....chuckle….as it’s my first on this forum.

The result is a more nationalist Iran.

I would think it is appropriate to blame Iran itself for becoming more nationalist instead of assuming they are merely reacting to US moves.

As with the question about whether they are serious in their anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism, and threats to regional and world security… can we really afford to entrust so many lives to your opinion? With the pattern of behavior and the history of actions the regime of Iran has undertaken, is it really wise to give them the benefit of the doubt? Can we simply trust them to gain significantly more leverage and not use it in ways that bring disasterous results?

I would say that terrible events in history rarely follow a strictly rational script. You can expect all you want for an empowered Iran to be satisfied with greater influence and the idea that they are more secure behind a nuclear deterrent… But even great nations make mistakes or react catastrophically to their perceptions of world events. Is a nuclear armed Iran, continuing to fun, train, and collaborate with non-state Islamist proxy agents really a prospect any of us can sleep soundly at night with?

I don’t think so. The time for the dismantlement of the Iranian threat has come, one way or another.

We hear a lot of talk that Iran is undeterrable, that now that the “radical 12’er Shi’a” are running the show, Iran doesn’t or won’t act in rational ways. This sentiment is echoed by both the Iranian regime change activists and the aggressive American interventionists, and it’s an ever-present in the comments above. But where is the evidence of Iran acting irrationally? Where is the evidence that the Iranian regime does not, like all other regimes, simply desire to take what steps it finds necessary to increase the state’s possibility for survival?

While I understand typical reactionary “don’t let the bad guys have nukes” logic, I don’t find it terribly compelling. There was once a time where many believed that the possession of nuclear weapons by a regime that paid lip service to the export of world communist revolution was unacceptable, and look how that one turned out…

“I wonder what it was exactly that changed his mind”

Funny you should ask. I spoke to one fellow of average education and a fairly standard right-wing mindset, and when he was speaking of the danger to the United States and Israel were Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, he said, “At least with the Soviets we had M.A.D.”

I suggested that it might be better if only the destruction of Iran was assured- at the very least in numerical terms- and besides, how else would we get to M.A.D. if Iran did not have nuclear weapons? Can Iran really rely on Musharraf?

Iranians believe, based on rhetoric by the Bush administration, Israel’s right-wing government, and their own government’s propoganda, that the U.S. might just be willing to attack them. They would like weapons that might deter the United States. This seems to me to be perfectly rational, although annoying. I hope that most Iranians believe that “the Americans love their children too…”

Believe it or not, they are afraid of us. They think we are the crazy ones. I wonder why.

“my government has done everything in its power to make sure not another one gets dropped”¦.by anyone.”

Except: develop new nuclear weapons of its own; develop defensive techniques that undermined M.A.D. which was a key point in the disarmament process; try to ensure that India’s illegally-acquired nuclear powers were to some extent legitimized; and never forcing Israel to admit whether or not it has nuclear weapons. Perhaps what you meant to say was “another one gets dropped… by anyone else.”

@Kende:

“I would think it is appropriate to blame Iran itself for becoming more nationalist instead of assuming they are merely reacting to US moves.

My point was that there was a reform movement that has grown embittered with unemployment, poverty, and what they perceive as the U.S. undermining of their position with bellicose rhetoric and no outreach. I don’t blame the U.S. for the nationalists, I blame it (partially) for the rise of the nationalists because U.S. policy called on progressives but did nothing to help them. We could’ve started by engaging the Khatami government with increased diplomatic ties and perhaps economic incentives. It would’ve bolstered the reformers campaign in the elections against Ahmadinejad, who won primarily not through Holocaust denial but populism aimed at addressing poverty and corruption.

Can we really afford to entrust so many lives to your opinion? With the pattern of behavior and the history of actions the regime of Iran has undertaken, is it really wise to give them the benefit of the doubt?

Excuse me, but I think basing policy on my or any other individuals opinion would be referred to as a dictatorship or monarchy. As for history, I believe I just gave it to you. This rhetoric has been standard fare for 27 years. My point was that it’s mainly for domestic purposes and there’s no reason to indulge fantasies that Iran wants to provoke Armageddon or a nuclear exchange. I did not argue that Iran is harmless, or that it’s Hezbollah proxy is either.

But even great nations make mistakes or react catastrophically to their perceptions of world events. Is a nuclear armed Iran, continuing to fun, train, and collaborate with non-state Islamist proxy agents really a prospect any of us can sleep soundly at night with?

Try it from another perspective. A nuclear armed U.S. has funded non-state proxy agents in Iran (overthrow of the Shah), Latin America, etc. etc. Welcome to the world. All nations make mistakes and support heinous actions. There has always been, without nuclear weapons, the threat of Iran reacting catastrophically. The Iran/Iraq War was a catastrophe. To argue that nuclear weapons is the threshold seems to me an imaginary one, since conventional weapons can cause immense destruction. Furthermore, dismantlement as you call it can easily increase the likelihood of a catastrophic reaction. Iran’s nuclear facilities are scattered and there’s no guarantee it would be successful. A strike would most likely strengthen and further radicalize the current regime (nationalism!), and at some point they’ll pick up the pieces. We can settle for a nuclear Iran deterred through economic development (bringing them closer to the Core), a clear statement of retaliatory MAD (Israel’s already covered this) and stronger monitoring through proxies (I suggest the Chinese, who have close ties to the Iranian nuclear program). Or, instead, we can devastate Persia and then always look over our shoulder to see if they’re ready to deliver their smoldering revenge.

@Eric Jette:

MAD won’t deter those willing to create armageddon as a pre-condition for fufilling prophesy”¦.that is a “given”Â?....unfortunate and difficult that is for people to grasp.

I’m tired of hearing unsubstantiated assertions that Ahmadinejad and the “mullahs” are bent on ending the world. You refer first to a “reversal of traditional authority” in which the Ayatollah is a sideshow. Then you claim the mullahs are running the show. I believe you’re referring to the fact that Ahmadinejad is linked to the cleric Yazdi and the so-called Hojjatieh Society. As for the Ayatollah being a sideshow, everything I’ve read in the mainstream press says Ahmadinejad still has to follow the council. He tried to let women watch soccer games but they shut him down. He’s trying to tap the Oil Surplus Fund for poverty relief, and they’re fighting him on that. Yes, Yazdi and company are fighting for power on the Guardian Council and believe in the Mahdi. That doesn’t automatically make them the ultimate suicide bombers.

Claims that Yazdi is a Hojjatieh aren’t even supported; it’s a banned group that challenged the Ayatollah. Yazdi’s political rivals labeled him as one in a tit-for-tat because Yazdi says rich clerics shouldn’t vote. Rafsanjani, Ahmadinejad’s election rival and deputy speaker of the Council, is Iran’s richest man. Moreover, Hojjatieh’s origins were anti-Bahai, anti-communist and pro-secular government. They folded to the Ayatollah to unite against a perceived Communist threat. See my last blog post for links. I’ve yet to find evidence that the society even exists, except as a form of domestic political slander.

Dear Dave,

“You refer first to a “reversal of traditional authority”Â? in which the Ayatollah is a sideshow. Then you claim the mullahs are running the show. I believe you’re referring to the fact that Ahmadinejad is linked to the cleric Yazdi and the so-called Hojjatieh Society.”

First please understand that as an American with no roots in Iran, I have been working with the democratic Iranian opposition for the past three and a half years…earned their trust , asked to be a “bridge between cultures” , spent thousands of hours in research writing, analysis, and earned the trust of the US gov in the process.
Nor have I taken a dime from anyone for the effort. An ethical decision to maintain objectivity and credibility- both ways….as well as being a personal effort as a “dad thing” to see a better world for my two daughters to live in.
You have honest doubts…fine. But drop the attitude. I am not partial nor attached to whether you believe me or not, nor do I have time to spare trying to adjust your attitude, nor put up with it.

Let me give you a bit of sound advice….both in reference to Antar’s rhetoric, and in life (and it’s saved mine). If someone tells you he’s going to kill you…just believe him. Now, if a leader of a nation says he wants to see another nation wiped off the map….as that leader of the threatened nation, are you going to risk the lives of your people in thinking the man’s joking? Substantiated or not??

Some may wish to say that it is simply pabum for the locals, but there’s no secret about it…it can be found in open source documentation. Doa little poking about here:

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/

As for the threat to the US????

THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSION TO ASSESS THE THREAT TO THE U.S. FROM ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE ATTACK

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/security/has204000.000/has204000_0.HTM

It’s an interesting read….

You said,

“Excuse me, but I think basing policy on my or any other individuals opinion would be referred to as a dictatorship or monarchy.”

Policy is based on multiple source analysis And opinion….and when folks have given it…the President makes his decision on foreign policy issues and folks get to work on implementing it.
Congress must fund it…

Anyway….note the date on this article a few months prior to the June 2005 elect-show…complete with campaign posters in ENGLISH, as eye-candy for the western press coverage.—————————
On February 14, 2005 a leading member of Iran’s Hizbollah, Hojjat-ol-Islam Baqer Kharrazi after years of silence delivered a harsh speech against the reformists and the administration in Iran, Iran Emrooz reported.

“I kept silent over the past 14 years, because Hizbollah needed to be restructured and I was busy with training the forces. Although no Iranian media reflected Hizbollah leaders’ recent meeting with head of Iran’s State Expediency Council, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, I should say we elaborated on Hizbollah’s activities for Rafsanjani in detail and the former president was amazed with our progress.”Â? Kharrazi claimed.

“We don’t need any guardian. And if necessary we will select our own president, ministers and parliament members. For without the Hizbollah forces the Islamic Revolution will collapse from within.”Â? the hardliner added.

Referring to the Sunni population in Iran’s western, eastern and southern borders, Kharrazi said: “Presently the country’s borders are controlled by Sunnis. We have to counter their growth in the country.”Â?

On Iran’s nuclear issue, Kharrazi noted: “We have oil, gas and all other natural resources and thus we don’t need interaction with other countries. We are able to produce atomic bombs and we will do that. We shouldn’t be afraid of anyone. The US is no more than a barking dog”Â?

————————
It’s a myth that “reformers” exist or did exist ...Katami or anyone else are pretty well on the same page. Antar was picked because of his long standing ties to the Quod’s force (Rev. Guard) and sopme 18 of 22 ministers are former Rev. Guard ….governorships, Mayorial position all across Iran have been filled with former military, these facts and more can be found via open source info.

Iran focus tends to be a bit pro-MEK in it’s editorial aspect, but is not directly associated….often the site has reporting that is dead on accurate, and days ahead of main stream wire services reporting on Iranian topics.

The grand ayatollah is a side-show….and being that the appearances of a traditional power establishment was necessary to establish that soft-sell military coup….they toss him a judicial bone once in awhile….(a la Antar’s letting women into soccer stadiums…makes him look good…makes the Ayatollah look like he’s “got control” of social matters….when there was never any intent to let women into those places to begin with….a page right out of 1984…a total mindsuck…)

You want to know who’s in control? A little kid who dissapeared down a well in 921 AD, that Antar talks to on a regular basis, has his ministers write and sign a pact of loyalty to….and who apparently if one is to believe Antar…surrounded him with green light during his speach at the UN, and wouldn’t allow a single dignitary to blink an eye.

Guess Antar blinked, and missed the US delegation walk out….(chuckle).

Botton line Dave, we got a real live one….fit for a rubber room…and thorozine….and I thought little Kim was a couple sandwiches shy of a picknic…

Would these folks create the apocalyptic conditions required by prophesy for the mahdi’s return from that well and his “occulted state” of being…..in a freeking heartbeat they would!

As I said, I’m not attached to whether you believe me or not….nor is it my job to do the research for you or convince you with it….you can do that fine by yourself, if you are willing to.

Regards,

Eric

The Iranians may have Oil, but they have precious little gasoline (i.e. petrol). Their gas refining as suffered since the revolutions and if things came to shooting, that would be a weak point.

Their economy is a shambles that is held up by high oil prices and Ahmeninjhad is spending even more. I said before that it is perfectly rational for a regional power to seek a nuclear defense, especially given Indian/Pakistan to the east and Israel to the west and America everywhere. It also makes sense for a brittle regime comprised of a fanatical president, entrenched power structure (mullahs), entrenched wealth (the Rafsanjani types) and rampant corruption. Sure, they make trouble elsewhere; but they seek protection for their entrenched interests so they can keep muddling forward with their power and wealth on the backs of average Iranians.

Kharrazi and his ilk can call the U.S. a barking dog and no matter how bogged down we make look in Iraq and Afghanistan, it doesn’t mitigate the fact that we are in Iraq and Afghanistan and Kuwait and Qatar and Turkey and Diego Garcia.

I still am not conviced that the U.S. nor Israel will attack Iran, but surely understands that an attack on one will trigger an attack by all; and despite his millenialist leanings Ahmenidijhad will not alone be able to lead Iran into Armageddon. So, instead, they will try to hound us out of the neighborhood, not by direct confrontatinon, but by nipping at our heels.

Thank you Dave, that was the comment I was looking for.

Ha! But wait, I’m guessing you and I are coming at this from very different angles.

@Eric Jette

Oh there’s a real interesting way to percieve the USA”¦are we not the world?

Huh? I think you misunderstood my point. It wasn’t “we are the world”, it’s that there have been nuclear armed nations for decades who sponsor international non-state violent actors. It has not yet led to Armageddon, and the burden of proof is on those who say Iran plans otherwise.

A melting pot from everywhere, home of the UN, Breadbasket of the world”¦.Yeah, get rid of the US”¦..and what would be the fate of nations? Think man! One Nuke goes off in one US city”¦.total panic, all cities evacuated”¦martial law”¦Katrina style aftermath on a nation-wide social level.

And your point, besides the fact that it’s a terrible hypothetical to contemplate, is what?

You’re EMP link mentions Iran specifically in that they could launch a missile, like a scud, from a freighter armed with a nuclear device. Fine. My point isn’t about whether or not they’ll have the capability, because on a long enough timeline alot of nations are going to have it whether we like it or not. My point is about what their motivations are and the likelihood of such an attack. As I’ve already pointed out, there hardly seems enough evidence to consider either Ahmadinejad or the hardline clerics of Iran looneytunes enough to guarantee their own annihilation by launching a nuclear attack on anyone. You countered not with evidence of such a conviction among the Iranians, but rather with a doomsday EMP scenario. That sort of reasoning in the Cold War would have led to people engaging in pointless anxiety-raising activities like getting under desk when it can’t protect them from radiation… oh, right. We’ve been here before, haven’t we?

Dave, I provided more than one link to open source evidence…and you must have missed the section in testimony that describes Iranian missile testing….

Ask yourself why would they launch a missile….detonate it at or near appogee, and call the test “successful” ?

Note as well there that classified material is not included in that public hearing, or the following one (see link below):

I thought you’d understand the point I was making in describing the US as “the world” and the effect on nations and peoples globally if chaos existed in the US:

http://intelligence.house.gov/Media/PDFS/IranReport082206v2.pdf

My point in illustrating the threat as seen from a US perspective, and supplying you with links to see for yourself the threat from those that know the regime best…Iranians….is to provide you, and everyone else….the means to draw your own conclusions…

The cold war wasn’t exactly cold….came real close on a number of occasions to pulling the trigger on humanity….via proxi wars, over regional control issues…and economic goals…and the reason it didn’t happen is because mindsets changed….the USSR fell as a result….no longer sustainable via the will of the people…

Well, that is one hope for a future free Iran, as a viable member of the international community in good standing….but as long as it is a theocratic system of government….won’t get there from here.

We have lived so long with the reality of imminent destruction that we’ve become numb to it in ways that are as dysfunctional as the “Simpsons”.
One cannot simultaneously plan for the American dream, and prepare for Armageddon.

(and that dream is not exclusive to America)

Dave, the burden of proof is on you to do the research for yourself…

When I consider the failure to contain the spread of nuclear weapons and associated technology, and the current situation, putting the genie back in the bottle requires a miracle, you cannot un-invent something. From a cold standpoint of probability, nuclear weapons will eventually again be used at some point unless the current world situation changes drastically for the better.

You missed another point I made in my original post…The Iranian regime has a long history of using proxi to avoid being tagged as directly responsible for its acts of terrorism….what is a better way to creat a global Jihad then to use a nuke on one’s own people, and blame it on the US or Israel?

Seems to me they’ve been pushing for a war….trying to get us to give them one….and that is also typical of a tyrany that is failing it’s people and using “war feaver” to try and solidify internal support. as well as external moral support…

Seems to me the world stage is set for the Iranian regime to do just that…..and “justify” the “response”, and the rhetoric.

No, they are not going to openly attack the US or Israel….they’ll try and make it look like we attacked them ….

As I said, their insanity has purpose.

Note: I didn’t even bother responding to “hoder”’s assertion regarding China….it was simply the author’s attempt at distracting the reader from the real reason the regime seeks nuclear weapons.
It is not to “deter”, but to discredit…..

Bin Laden tried the same thing in Afghanistan….9/11 was intended to trigger a response from the US that via massive collateral damage inflicted …would discredit the US.

We responded…but not in the way he anticipated….just about the time we suddenly stopped using Tomahawk missiles, we caught three Pakistani nuclear scientists trying to help Bin Laden and the Taliban…shortly after that in Oct 2001 Bin Laden goes public and declares he has a nuke….

Hezbollah tried to do the same in Lebanon, without having one….Israel took the bait….and the conventional devestation is having the effect Hezbollah and Iran wished for…to set up the “big lie”

It’s up to you to decide for yourself if what I say here is starting to make sense to you or not….regarding today’s intent and method of the IRI.

Best,

Eric

Dave, again there is a huge difference between what motivates a socialist government and what motivates a theocratic one…..drawing comparisons of intent between the two is not sound, nor logical, as their premis for existance is totally different.

Times have also changed , and the “big three” have more in common interest, then they do in opposition.

It’s one reason why a unanimous UN Sec. Council resolution was passed on Iran.

@Eric Jette:

You missed another point I made in my original
post”¦The Iranian regime has a long history of using proxi to avoid being tagged as directly responsible for its acts of terrorism”¦.what is a better way to creat a global Jihad then to use a nuke on one’s own people, and blame it on the US or Israel?

You’re right, I did miss that point. And all I see to suggest Iran would do so involves taking a pretty big leap past Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric.

I appreciate your concern for the human rights abuses and authoritarianism that the Iranian people suffer, and I don’t mean to impugn your motives. But I remain unconvinced that Iran’s leadership has a nefarious plan to put Armageddon in motion. And while I see that you’ve argued (in the forums you mentioned) against conflating Ahmadinejad’s extreme statements about the Mahdi with Islam in general, I’m confused why you’ve pointed to a website, activistchat, that seems at first glance to overwhelmingly do exactly that. A website, I might add, based in San Diego and run by Iranian exiles who throw about the word Islamofascist. You yourself remind them that Iran is overwhelmingly Islamic, so I wonder just how in touch these Iranians are if a Buddhist New Mexican has to remind them of this. I also remember the last time we listened to all the tales of a group of Middle East exiles, so forgive my skepticism.

I think a comparison of Mao and Ahmadinejad is not so flimsy as you think; Mao formed a personality cult much as Ahmadinejad is attempting. Both brutally oppress their own people with secret police, arbitrary detention, executions and human rights violations. The only difference appears to be Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric about the return of the Mahdi. You say to believe a man who says he’s going to kill you. Ahmadinejad, as far as I know, has not said he’s going to destroy the world. He has threatened Israel, but with a two decade old quote. And he didn’t say the map wiping would be done by nuclear weapons, but by Hamas. This is hardly novel in the Middle East. Moreover, the topic was the Liberation of Al-Quds (Jerusalem) – liberation implies the Al Aqsa Mosque and everything around it will still be standing (ok, maybe not the Wailing Wall).

When I look at all the details, it seems it takes an awful lot of reading between the lines to conclude that he wants to start a nuclear exchange in order to bring about a global jihad and the return of the Mahdi. It seems too selective a reading, and moreover the repetition of it ad naseum makes it very hard for me to find more information on the players and inner workings of the current government – from sources that aren’t screaming about Islamofascism.

At the end of the day, assertions that “there is a huge difference between what motivates a socialist government and what motivates a theocratic one”¦” must be supported. The premise that the Iranian regime is driven by anything other than a rational calculation of interest has not been convincingly established. Similar claims were made about the Soviet Union and Mao’s China (and sometimes even modern China), claims which were later shown to be nothing more than mere unsupported assertion.

So, in short, someone needs to convince me—citing something more serious than rhetoric—that Iran really is committed to global conflagration. I’m as yet unmoved.

There’s a great deal of polaraization going on, as well as denial, and yeah I do look beyond the rhetoric….and do a lot of “red team” thinking, as to how their (IRI) agenda in the Mideast and globally may be best acomplished. And a lot of “blue team” thinking as to how best to thwart it, as well.

Nor do I base my assesment on the rants of Activistchat members..(obviously)..and some of their thinking is self defeating…but there’s a lot of good pickin’s for info if you dig…and that’s why I posted it…plus as you noted a bit of confusion….I think I just proved to you I can think objectively…(chuckle)...without being influenced. But in touch? They understand the threat posed by the IRI to them as Iranians…that they have an emotional response that tends to an extreme is pretty human….lots of them have lost friends and relatives to the regime…

Check also : Memri.org

-quotes and accurate litteral interpretations from Farsi to English

And it’s not just Antar…..

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/

http://www.tkb.org/Home.jsp (you’ll find a few interesting connections to the IRI and terrorism)

http://www.state.gov/ ( see WMD compliance w/ biological conventions among other interesting facts on a number of issues regarding Iran)

You say:

“...to conclude that he wants to start a nuclear exchange in order to bring about a global jihad and the return of the Mahdi.”

No, you still don’t understand…..If the IRI was to nuke , say Nantez….( which would create the appearance that the US or Israel just pulled a suprise attack, say via a nuke tipped ship launched missile from the Indian ocean….scuttling it with all hands-suicide opp….giving radar tracking virtually identical to sub launched ICBM) , it would create IRI “justification” for a “response” ....but IRI may simply let a billion and a half Muslims globally do the “responding”....having destroyed US credibility, separated the US from allies and friends….the political fallout ….given the mood in America …would make Watergate look like a walk in the park.

If then the regime were to “respond” with a WMD attack….the variables under those conditions would be hard to properly calculate in terms of probability and outcome. MAD is one possibility….

One thing is for sure….I’ve given my gov a “heads up” on this particular nightmare….

Political probability theory is not an exact science….nor is it pure speculation.

“proof” is a matter of taking many bits and pieces of factual info, and assessing their worth….but so far…I have seen nothing in all my reading and research that would suggest my hypothisis is incorrect….rather….so much actually supports it, that CSIS, the Dept of State, NSC ….”gone beyond Cabinet level” ....let me just say I believe the quote here as put to me where it went regarding the IRI last summer would suggest it has been taken very seriously indeed.

As you’ll note in the following, I’m not selling fairy tales….The CIA doesn’t fly out here and buy a person lunch during an interview without reason…(Chuckle)....and it wasn’t regarding a job opportunity.

From: “Mark Schoeff”
To:
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 2:26 PM
Subject: Re: binLadin/Islamic “Jim Jones”???

> Mr. Jette,
>

> Thank you for your e-mail. I’m in the CSIS press office, but I’ll see if I can forward your input to someone in one of our substantive programs.
>

> Thank you for writing.
>

> Mark Schoeff
> CSIS
———————

Note: email addresses above are old and out of service….and the individual noted in the reply has moved on to other digs to the best of my understanding….and is the only reason I’d post it on an open forum….nor can I post everything….so you will have to do some reading between the lines as to why I say this in particular.

One more thing….ever consider that Bin Laden may be an IRI foreign policy consultant? Likes being a “guest”, family is in Iran….and why we haven’t found him yet?....This Sunni/Shiite sectarian violence thing may be simply a coordinated effort to destabilize Iraq….And I do believe the IRI has used the same play-book…with a few variations on a theme.

“someone needs to convince me””?citing something more serious than rhetoric””?that Iran really is committed to global conflagration”

As for me, I’d like to hear from someone who can convince me that the inverse is true- that just as many people in the United States are not committed to global conflagration.

While Ahmedinejad got just 22% of the vote in the first round of the last elections (RFE-RFL), many (including the Encyclopaedia Britannica) estimate that self-declared evangelist-fundamentalist political Christians in the United States make up between 20 to 25% of the population. These are, after all, the same people who believe that the U.S. should be on Israel’s side because God is going to make the Jews win anyway.

Oh, by the way Dave,

I should say that I sure as heck hope I’m wrong about the intent of the Iranian regime…and I appreciate your scepticism, as well as other’s here.

Trouble is, I don’t think I am wrong, given what I know.

Either way, the next 60-90 days should manifest the answer for sure, one way or another…

UN sanctions not being unanimous and without resolution would be
I think the trigger point for the IRI. If sanctions are put into effect….that obviously delays any perceived military action by US, and thereby would not give the Iranian regime the political validation needed for hoaxing the world into thinking the US or Israel just nuked them. Their reaction to sanctions may be interesting to see, whether they carry out threats already made.

Be well,

Eric

“So, in short, someone needs to convince me””?citing something more serious than rhetoric””?that Iran really is committed to global conflagration.”Â?

Convince yourself…..here’s the “tip of the iceburg”:

Jordan tells Iran of concern over Hamas support-Wed. 17 May 2006

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7242

Aznar: Khamenei said in 2001 Iran aimed to ‘set Israel alight’

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6293

Iran threatens to create disturbances for U.S. and EU

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5579

Teheran ‘secretly trains’ Chechens to fight in Russia

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4597

Teheran ‘providing refuge for al-Qaeda terrorists’

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4323

“As for me, I’d like to hear from someone who can convince me that the inverse is true- that just as many people in the United States are not committed to global conflagration.”

Elizabeth, I think the operative word here is ‘committed’ to global conflagration. Many evangelicals believe that global conflagration is coming (end of the world type stuff), but very very few are actually serious about doing anything to hasten it along. I know many evangelicals and certainly, many do believe that the end times are coming, but I’ve never met anyone who has even suggested taking action to hasten it all, let alone anyone actually contemplating doing something (and if anyone ever talked about doing such things, they’d be reported to the police right away in most evangelical circles-almost all evangelicals would be horrified to hear of plans for committing crimes). Where’s the proof that anyone in the US is working towards global conflagration because of what they believe in the bible (other than a handful of nuts)?

Check also : Memri.org

-quotes and accurate litteral interpretations from Farsi to English

Check out Abu Aardvark. He’s got a couple of other digs on MEMRI’s Arabic translation accuracy. And dig up the New York Times translation of Ahmadinejad’s Map-wiping speech and compare it to MEMRIs. Sorry, but they’ve got a shoddy record in my book. I notice you got your other quotes from the House Intelligence report, which

scuttling it with all hands-suicide opp”¦.giving radar tracking virtually identical to sub launched ICBM) , it would create IRI “justification”Â? for a “response”Â?

The world sees a nuclear detonation in Iran… what happened? Russia and China would have both street cred, the capability to identify the actual source and would back up the U.S. because they’d have just as much interest in pinning it on the real culprit and avoiding a nuclear retaliation.

but IRI may simply let a billion and a half Muslims globally do the “responding”Â?

You’re really serious, aren’t you? A billion Sunnis outraged over some dead Iranians who were working with nukes AND were sponsoring death squads killing Iraqi Sunnis? You can’t have it both ways, either they’re nasty because they kill Sunnis or nasty because they’ll spur a Sunni wave of doom. And what are these Sunnis gonna do? Do you imagine them actually getting up in masse and marching on Jerusalem? Or Europe?

As you’ll note in the following, I’m not selling fairy tales”¦.The CIA doesn’t fly out here and buy a person lunch during an interview without reason”¦(Chuckle)

I recognize that you actually do some homework, and respect that. I don’t appreciate name dropping and self-promotion that can’t possibly be confirmed, especially when you ask me to read your alleged prominance in intelligence circles “between the lines”. I’m sure you meet all sorts of important people and that doesn’t make you any more or less right. Most of us keep anonymous on here and don’t go throwing our supposed weight around.

One more thing”¦.ever consider that Bin Laden may be an IRI foreign policy consultant? Likes being a “guest”Â?, family is in Iran”¦.and why we haven’t found him yet?

The 2005 State Department Terrorism Country Reports you link to say that Iran has “detained” senior Al Qaeda officials. Not guests. You’d think the State Department, given half a chance, would suggest they’re “guests”. Moreover, Council on Foreign Relations raises no challenge to the December 2005 statement by the Iranians that they have handed over all their Al Qaeda suspects to Saudi Arabia. Finally, and most importantly, it doesn’t address my main assertion – they will employ terrorists as proxies for mischief making but it does not follow from this that they will start a nuclear conflagration or nuke their own people.

Then to answer my question that they want to end the world by nuking themselves, you throw out links to the Library of Congress report, which seems to have last been updated in 1989 and contains only general information, the State Department Human Rights Report, as if my question was about a) how nasty they are or b) that for some mysterious reason wanting to annihilate the world logically follows from being brutal dictators. Then there’s alot of Iran Focus reports, who have an agenda you’ve already confirmed, that more or less prove what we already know – that the IRI has big mouths and tough talk. Sorry, but if you read between these lines that Iran will nuke its own people, then you’ve jumped the shark on this one. Tell you what, we can revisit the issue in 90 days.

First of all, sorry for the double post- none of those showed up the first time. Either the first or second could be deleted if Younghusband wished… I had to retype the second from memory, hence the difference.

Eric: The National Security Strategy has nothing to do with the Christian Coalition or Christian fundamentalists’ long-term aims in the Middle East. Such Christianists, if I may adopt that term, look forward to and propose actions to support, Israel’s domination in the Middle East, at any human cost. I am talking about extremist against extremist here: if our fears of Iran are based on what its extreme element wants for the world, we cannot blame Iranians if their fears stem from what our extremist element wants for the world.

“Where’s the proof that anyone in the US is working towards global conflagration because of what they believe in the bible (other than a handful of nuts)?”

Well, these are the same people who support Israel at any cost- including overlooking Israel’s nuclear program and overlooking the apartheid that exists in Israel today. Support for Israel when we know that its activities are hastening and/or exacerbating tensions, and justifying this with “well that is the way it is supposed to be in the end times”, is to my mind being committed to global conflagration. And if that’s not, supporting war after war after war, and insisting that these are holy wars, when they kill thousands of people on both sides, sounds to me like being committed to such a thing. Or by “global conflagration” do we mean, “not only in all those poor countries where they’d probably be fighting anyway but also in the United States and Israel”? In that case, probably our Christianist friends would only support “global conflagration” everywhere else, but no, certainly not here.

I think your characterization of evangelical Christians is way off base. There are many people who support Israel who do so not because such support is called for in the bible, but because they think Israel should defend itself against attacks (many would disagree with the claim that Israel is an ‘apartheid state’). Do the Israelis go overboard sometimes? Probably, but plenty of support in the US has little to do with the bible and more to do with the belief that Israel is justified in defending itself (I’m not going to argue over the justification for supporting Israel, only that many do believe that Israel is justified in its actions, at least to some degree).

‘Blaming’ all this support for Israel on evangelicals who are hoping for ‘global conflagration’ is, to me, a total stretch. Do evangelicals support ‘war after war’? What wars do they claim are holy wars? Seems like generalized attacks with no basis in what most evangelicals really think. I really don’t see why you focus on evangelicals to demonize. Plenty of conservatives do support Israel and have supported the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, so to single out evangelicals makes little sense to me. It’s like singling out the neo-cons to criticize US foreign policy (they’re influential, though they don’t run the show, despite oft-repeated claims that they do).

The fact is, US support for Israel and US foreign policy is supported (more or less) by a large number and variety of people in the US. Evangelicals are only one group made up of a diverse number of individuals, many holding a wide range of opinions and ideals. About the only thing many evangelicals have in common is their strong belief in Jesus and the bible, but after that, their diversity is as wide as the community at large.

Dear Youngblood,

Iranfocus has its bias, but is mostly a compilation of news reporting from outside original sources…while it is a bit pro-MEK, I do not consider that org credible in claiming to be THE Iranian opposition, nor credible with the Iranian people… nor as an American would I support a designated terrorist group (as the MEK is).

I personally have never run across an unbiased news source globally on any topic, and generally I follow my dad’s good advice to me long ago regading things political.

“Son, never believe anything you hear, only half of what you read…But believe what you see, and get your eye’s checked often.”

(chuckle)...When you haver a regime as proficiant in double-speak as the IRI is…only actions being assesed can bring one to know which side of the mouth they speak from truly.

A pattern of behavior forms over time, and one may extrapolate probability from that, as I have done in reaching certain conclusions of intent.

Often what can be most revealing is what one doesn’t do or say.

If Iranian intent were peaceful, why go through all the trouble that they do to disguise it as something less than that?

If Antar didn’t say what he’s been quoted as saying, why hasn’t he come out and told folks to get the wax out of their ears, that that’s not what he said? (in reference to wiping nations off the map)....

Now folks may question, wonder and even be confused as to what to believe, but one things for certain….all of it has left global peace and security twisting in the wind.

I was intrigued with the name of this site, “Coming Anarchy” I don’t know whether its coming or already here….but in any case, posting a link is not a finite destination to the truth, but simply a door into the investigative process that most folks here seem to be level headed about, and so that’s why I hope I can add a little perspective to the mix.

Best Regards,

Eric Jette

Snow- Actually, many fundamentalists are opposed to a Palestinian state (in the normal sense of the word “state”: one that would be geographically contiguous, that would include the territories that they traditionally lived on, and allowing them to keep their own army). This is because Palestinians also believe that Jerusalem is part of their homeland, and for those who believe in the Zionist dream, that is just not possible.

And again- let’s not confuse conservatives, many of whom are not Christian at all, much less fundamentalist, with political Christian fundamentalists.

Examples, however, that such people do influence not only the Republican Party and U.S. policy, but also the Church and other Christian bodies:

About.com on conservatives Now this is just bizarre.
Christian Aid had to put this Q&A on its website to assuage doubts by its Christian donors
The NYTon a poll describing a number of related trends
The Republican Party of Texas Platform Now don’t tell me that’s purely culturally and economically conservative.

I will grant you that in Iran, a hardliner is the head of the present policy. However, this is as much the result of a multi-party system (he should have been running against at least two other candidates, not one) as Bush’s ascendance is very much a result of our two-party system. It doesn’t demonstrate the level of extremism in the country.

Moreover, A-J does not have the ability to push Iran into a nuclear war any more than Cheney does the U.S. This is because although he is the head of the government, Khamenei is the head of the State. Khamenei is no dove, but he’s also not as crazy as A-J. His big threats lately amount to basically implementing what Russia has already done to its closest neighbour, which is cut off fuel supplies. Oooh, scary.

Khamenei on A-J

Eric- I was responding to later comments that argued that Iran presented a danger to the United States and/or Israel, not to Hoder’s assertion that Iran needs nuclear weapons.

I am fully aware that evangelists do not run American foreign policy. The amusing thing here is that nobody seems to get the point of my comments.

Armageddon-mongerers do not run the United States, although they have won victories in policy and have some of their people in Congress and the White House.

Armageddon-mongerers do not run Iran, although they have won victories in policy and have some of their people in parliament.

I don’t know why I have to repeat that to everyone who responds to these comments.

Regarding Hoder’s comments, I think he over-estimates the influence of extremist interventionism in the US, just like others over-estimate it in Iran.