Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics
On Point

When Iran's Genocidal Mullahs Think the Unthinkable


by Austin Bay
May 9, 2006

Ever since Ayatollah Khomeini toppled the Shah, Iran's theocrats have regularly threatened Israel with genocide. That is what destruction and extermination mean -- genocide, with murder measured in the millions.

The Israelis have decided to respond to Iranian genocidal menace by reminding the mullahs of the stakes.

Israeli Vice Premier Shimon Peres made the warning explicit, telling Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that he "should remember that Iran can also be wiped off the map. Tehran is making a mockery of the international community's effort to solve the crisis surrounding Iran's nuclear program. Iran presents a danger to the entire world, not just to us (i.e., Israel)."

The Peres statement is Middle East speak for what the Cold War called MAD -- Mutual Assured Destruction. It's the Dr. Strangelove paradox behind nuclear deterrence -- you try to nuke us, we'll turn you into radioactive glass.

The Israelis are not bluffing, and anyone who thinks they are is a contemptible naif. Hitler's Holocaust is an unforgivable historical fact, and when the Israelis say, "Never again," they mean it.

Peres is right -- Iran presents a danger to the entire world, but this "entire world" has too many regimes either rhetorically or financially sympathetic to Iran. The rhetorical sympathizers really aren't the biggest obstacle to restraining -- and ultimately defanging -- Tehran's mad mullahs. Charges of "American imperialism" made by Third World dictators don't create the political stir they once did. The financially sympathetic, however, are another matter. China and Russia appear to be willing to sacrifice Israeli blood for Iranian oil.

Ahmadinejad knows who his real enemies are: the Western democracies. In a rambling 18-page letter to President George Bush, Ahmadinejad opined: "Liberalism and Western-style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today, these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems."

No doubt Russia's throwback fascists and the authoritarian suits running China harbor hopes that Ahmadinejad is right. China's bosses, however, fear the democratic forces in their own country.

Iran's turbaned tyrants also sit on an angry and alienated populace. The mullahs fear their own people. In the long run, the Iranian people would topple the turbans. The mullahs' regime is a kleptocracy, a cultural desert and an economic bog. However, the short nuclear fuse may short-circuit the long run.

I am not convinced that war between the United States and Iran is inevitable. For years, I've advocated Western support of Iranian democratic opposition groups, to include overt and covert aid. The Iranian regime is rife with internal corruption. The regime itself is no monolith.

Real economic sanctions could shake Ahmadinejad's government. Iran's sick economy relies on numerous imports. But the prospect of "real sanctions" emerging from the U.N. Security Council are slim. Real sanctions ultimately mean enforced sanctions, and given the porosity of Iran's borders -- and the porosity of commitments by the likes of Russia and China -- the likelihood of enforced sanctions drops from slim to none.

So what's the United States to do, if the Iranians obtain a nuclear bomb and we know the Israelis will then proceed to make very certain Iran's nutcases never use it?

The most potent U.S. military option is the "simultaneous strategic bombing strike." This attack would produce the most hellacious 10 minutes in Iran's long and illustrious history. One eye-popping scenario has aircraft, cruise missiles and perhaps ballistic missiles with conventional warheads delivering at least 2,000 precision blockbuster-sized weapons within that time frame on Iran's two dozen or so "critical nuclear-related targets." The United States may also take control of the Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf, by eliminating Iranian naval and shore facilities.

Defensive preparations will include the deployment of additional anti-missile missiles in the region. Some planners suspect Iran will try to attack its neighbors. Iraq, with its U.S. troop contingents, may not be the primary target. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait's oil fields and oil transportation facilities are tempting targets for conventional, terrorist or even chemical weapon strikes.

Dangerous? Regrettably so. Iran's genocidal mullahs have chosen a dangerous path. The irony is that such an attack might save Iran from becoming a radioactive wasteland.

Send Link to a Friend
Comment     View Comments (13)
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
lightningtest    RE:When Iran's Genocidal Mullahs Think the Unthinkable   5/10/2006 5:14:59 AM
Two points; 1."Ahmadinejad knows who his real enemies are: the Western democracies. In a rambling 18-page letter to President George Bush," Does a reasonable man write an 18 page letter to an enemy. Either Ahmadinejad doesn't believe the POTUS is his enemy, or Ahmadinejad isn't reasonable. Given that you know POTUS is his enemy the only option apparently left is Ahmadinejad isn't reasonable. But what if Ahmadinejad thinks that POTUS is effectively a neutral party who runs a presently powerful country which is soon to be eclipsed by India, China etc. Ahmadinejad must do his best to ensure the long term security of his electorate (stop laughing please, I trying to make a point). Thus the long rambling letter indicates Ahmadinejad doesn't intend to allow Iranian sponsored attacks on western homelands. He can't prevent Iranian sponsored attacks on our assets closer to Iran even if he thought it wise. What has the US to gain by "produc[ing] the most hellacious 10 minutes in Iran's long and illustrious history."? 2."when the Israelis say, "Never again," they mean it." Given that - Why does the US need to do anything except make sure the Israelis have the means to act effectively when the time comes? I think the longer the game runs the greater the chance reason will prevail. i.e Iran will stop sabre rattling and make nice. In effect just what you said; "Iran's turbaned tyrants also sit on an angry and alienated populace. The mullahs fear their own people. In the long run, the Iranian people would topple the turbans."
 
Quote    Reply

lightningtest    RE:When Iran's Genocidal Mullahs Think the Unthinkable   5/11/2006 4:50:01 AM
I've been double checking my assumptions on the meaning of the 18 page letter and found the following useful document on near east culture entitled, "FACE" AMONG THE ARABS", Peter A. Naffsinger http://www.odci.gov/csi/kent_csi/docs/v08i3a05p_0001.htm this in turn references Hamady, 8ania; Temperament and Character of the Arabs, Twayne Publishers, New York. 1960. p. 37 I could well be very wrong to ever assume reason will previal and the iranians will eventually make nice with the israelis as the near eastern culture prevents public compromise; Somes extracts of the source above which may explain an alternative reason for the genocidal statements (i.e other than a desire to do what is said); "The Arab's need to project his self in a form completely acceptable to the harsh judgments of society renders his face, his dignity mask, a type of surrogate as thought of in the philosophy of Jung, one in which he wraps the very essence of his being. This is another form of that transference of self in complete allegiance which is an easily accomplished maneuver in the Arab world and the entire Near East. In politics the surrogate takes the form of a popular personality who has become the leader. The political surrogate with which the people identify themselves and their very souls must almost undergo deification to be worthy of their complete faith, allegiance, and devotion, and he must necessarily remain free of any conceivable flaw, unblemished in their eyes. At the first sign of failure, faltering, or political error, he immediately loses all allegiance-transferred to some new strong political personality moving in-and suffers his demise without anyone wondering why he was once in such high acclaim. " "The lack of objective self-analysis in the Near East generally permits a type of boasting which is honest in that there is no real discrepancy between an Arab's [can this also apply to Iranian leadership?] outward show of, say, fantastic courage and his true feelings. In the absence of analysis he does not realize that he has weaknesses and could not perform accordingly. Unending talk of courageous endeavor and boasting his own virtues in order to give himself faith in his surrogate of face may make the Arab seem insincere to the Westerner; but if the latter challenges his boasts the two are brought to an impasse. The Arab could not be made to recognize his own weakness, and even if he could he would not admit the threat to his dignity. " So it semms to me application of western reasoning to a near east MAD situation could lead to a severely illogical outcome. Even the supposidly irrefutable logic of 2000 simulatanous bunker busting strikes may not be heard inside the mind of the man inside the 2001st bunker / warehouse/ airline office/ ships cabin who holds in his hands the power to unleash effective biological agent. Why would we want to bring this day to pass a day sooner than necessary?
 
Quote    Reply

ConZ    RE:When Iran's Genocidal Mullahs Think the Unthinkable   5/12/2006 9:18:28 AM
All, What do you think the Iranian reaction might be if, after some egregious terrorist attack, probably in Iraq, we declare Iran to be a terrorist state, and freeze all her assets around the world, and put in the injunctions against anybody who deals with Iran? Could we do to Iran what is happening to Palestine?
 
Quote    Reply

Herc the Merc    RE:When Iran's Genocidal Mullahs Think the Unthinkable   5/12/2006 6:12:50 PM
Iran just started moving its money to Hong Kong banks--besides if we freeze their assets they will freeze us come winter-no gas for the nasties. Iran has no interest in a terror attack against US- the threat of one is enuff to perpatuate its regime and maybe get a future shot at Iraqi oil--this game is too big to think in terms of JDAM strikes & terrorists attacks- The Ayatollahs are not crazy- besides the threats against Israel are blusters and rants for domestic & Arab audiences. My guess is the Ayatollahs primary aim is to perpetuate its own regime peacefully and secondarily expand into Southern Iraq-hence the need for the Bomb--when they move into Iraq they will need it as a deterrent, when ur about to grab 40% of Iraqs oil reserves get all the ammo u can. I think they will win.
 
Quote    Reply

Herc the Merc    Misdirection is a favorite Persian ploy--   5/14/2006 5:44:19 PM
Another read on their tactics-- I keep repeating that the Ayatollahs are interested in Iraq oil (with Chinese alliance) not Israel. Follow the money.
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:When Iran's Genocidal Mullahs Think the Unthinkable   5/15/2006 12:04:45 AM
"...we declare Iran to be a terrorist state, and freeze all her assets around the world, and put in the injunctions against anybody who deals with Iran?" Depends on the details, but one result might be a quickening move by Iran towards China.
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:Misdirection is a favorite Persian ploy--   5/15/2006 12:07:41 AM
"...the Ayatollahs are interested in Iraq oil (with Chinese alliance) not Israel." This is too clever. It's usually a good idea to look carefully at what a regime or systems says, consistently, over many years. They're generally serious about basics in their declared ideology in some way. It's also a mistake to assume that a country can only have one idea in it's mind at a time. There's nothing logically inconsistent in a simulataneous concern with making money, preserving a system, maintaining political independence. and killing Jews.
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:When Iran's Genocidal Mullahs Think the Unthinkable   5/15/2006 12:17:02 AM
"Does a reasonable man write an 18 page letter to an enemy." History is littered with examples of this sort of thing. It's done for a variety of reasons, sometimes overlapping reasons. The reasons can include: -Cheerleading the domestic audience -Intimidating an external audience -Manuevering politically -Posing for history -Fufilling a perceived ethical or religious duty WW2 was full of examples of the first. Among others, look at the speeches of Churchill and Roosevelt. (Note that a statement ostensibly made to a distant recipient can actually have a more local intended audience). The Cold War was full of examples of the second reason. All sorts of people made all sorts of statements intended to convey a position to foreign audiences. The third factor? The Declaration of Independence comes to mind. The fourth? For several hundred years, European practice called for public declarations of policy when war was contemplated. That's where the whole idea of an actual "Declaration of War" comes from. American culture has traditionally favored direct, blunt speech and tended to look favorably in warning an enemy that you were getting ready to deal with him. And, of course, you can't look back over the history of the Iranian mullacracy all the way to it's origin in Khomeini's exile to see repeated examples of the apparent belief by the mullahs, as a group, that they have religious duties relating to their rule. Their are mountains of speeches by one or another of them, again, beginning with Khomeini, to the effect that it is the duty of good Muslims to destroy the illegitimate conquerors of part of the Islamic patrimony. When a religious autocracy takes a consistent position over many years about a religious duty, it's probably a good idea to give their declared beliefs some weight as a factor in their planning, intentions and probably actions.
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:When Iran's Genocidal Mullahs Think the Unthinkable   5/15/2006 12:20:09 AM
"when the Israelis say, "Never again," they mean it." Given that - Why does the US need to do anything except make sure the Israelis have the means to act effectively when the time comes?" Because, 1) It's not clear that Israel, a far smaller, far weaker, far less powerful country than the US is capable of acting as effectively as the US is. 2)The problem is **not** limited to the threat against Israel. The threat is against, inter alia, the entire West, *including against the US, directly*. IOW, waiting might produce not a nuclear attack on an Israeli city but an attack on an *American city*. And, 3) Because two or three efficient fission devices successfully delivered against Israel might not leave an Israel surviving. Now, if we could be assured that the Iranian bomb would go off in, say, France....
 
Quote    Reply

Herc the Merc    RE:Misdirection is a favorite Persian ploy--   5/15/2006 3:30:34 PM
Why the Palestinian issue is a bluff-simple mathematics - # of Palestinians = 5million or so # of Moslems in World= 1.5 billion or so 80% of Moslems live in poverty so for Iran to commit major resources to save 5million and risk war and survival of its regime makes no sense there are 800 million other Moslems who can be helped so whats special about this 5 million?? Nothing!! In fact the Palestinian cause is a dead issue except on TV here and in radical Islamic fringes--Its almost boring to talk about it. Also Palestinians are Sunni- Iran is Shia- no love there.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2
Return to Index For More Austin Bay    



To find out more about Austin Bay and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2001 - 2013CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.


StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2013StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy