In last week’s post, “An Islamic Declaration of War?”, I (and a number of other bedwetters and paste-eaters) tried to divine (sorry) the intent behind Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s letter to President Bush—a letter that Robert Spencer noted at the time was curiously like a da’waan Mohammedan mandate required before waging war against unbelievers.
Today, we’re again confronted with the prospects of a letter from Ahmadinejad, this one to be addressed to the Pope:
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is writing a letter to Pope Benedict, following an unprecedented letter to U.S. President George W. Bush earlier this month, a newspaper said on Thursday.
“President Ahmadinjad’s second letter is for Pope Benedict and will be sent in the next days,†Jomhuri-ye Eslami newspaper, which is close to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, quoted unnamed sources as saying.
The newspaper gave no details of the letter’s content. Iranian officials were not available to comment.
In the first direct communication between the two countries’ presidents for more than two decades, Ahmadinejad wrote a long missive to Bush this month in which he questioned his commitment to Christian values and criticised U.S. foreign policy.
Well, that’s one way of framing it. But Bryan Preston reminds us:
He also invited Bush to become a Muslim. And you would be wise to interpret the word “invite†to have a whiff of the mob inviting you to dinner at the end of a pier […]
These letters are hardly unprecedented […]. Their origins go all the way back to Mohammed, who often issued letters to the kings of lands he was about to attack to invite them to accept Islam before Mohammed would invade to convert them by the sword. Thus, the religion of peace spread far and wide. This, now second letter from the hand of Ahmadinejad is a da’wa–a call to Islam. It follows Mohammed’s traditional letters. Implicit in such letters is the threat that if the recipient doesn’t accept Islam voluntarily, he and his land will accept it by force. Or die resisting.
In Crazy Mahmoud’s mind, he has now written to the chief of the world’s top secular superpower and is writing to the chief of the world’s unbelieving (vis a vis Islam) religious superpower (there being no equivalent of the pope in Islam). He is inviting them both to accept Islam, both personally and on behalf of their nation and church. Unless I miss my guess, in the letter to Benedict he will be, in essence, calling upon the Catholic Church to accept Islam–or die.
These letters are not well-wishes for the holidays or get-to-know-you cultural exchanges. They are threats. Mahmoud has something planned, and it would seem to me to be in the latter stages of finalization before it goes forward.
Again, far be it for me to be a bedwetting alarmist—but one wonders if recent revelations about highly enriched uranium traces being found at sites connected to Iran’s defense ministry, as well as former Pakistani chief of staff Mizra Aslam Beg’s suggestion that Iran likely already has nuclear weapons, might have something to do with all this…
Either way, I sure do hope John Murtha comes forward with a plan to censure Ahmadinejad, if not for what is beginning to look more and more like an actual imminent attack against the West, than at least for his indecorous behavior with regard to “who can be given nuts and chocolates”.
Which was simply shameful.
****
(h/t Allah; see also, Ace, The Anchoress, Ninth State, Dinocrat, EL Frederick, The Dragon and the Phoenix; and, courtesy John Lane, “Bolton compares Iran Threat to September 11 Attacks”.
And unlike me and my chickenhawk pals, Bolton’s straight-talking mustache “Regis” ain’t no sissified bedwetter…)
Not the like the left gives a shit. I honestly think they believe liberalism is some sort of forcefield which will protect them (as “good people”) in the event of an attack.
Take this nutjob at his word imho.
Did I actually get one in before actus ?
Sounds like the Rapture, in a way…..
Not that I trust Iran but I still have trouble seeing them being aggressive towards anyone if they got nukes. I think the most they would do is demand respect and a seat at the big boys table. Even someone as dumb as Ahmadinejad has to realize they won’t win. I hope I’m not wrong. I just see this as a country that tired of being treated like a child, ignored and marginalized and they see nukes as a way of getting their props. Also they know they won’t get Iraq’d if they got the bomb (even if they can’t throw it more then 10 feet).
Kofi Annan:”…(muttering to himself self confidently) Time to dust off ye olde strongly worded resolution. That oughta do the trick. Now, where is that fuckstick of a waiter who forgot to put capers on my lox bagel? I’ll have his freaking HEAD.”
Matt, It makes them sound like the creepy others on Lost. Then again, it fits.
*Even someone as dumb as Ahmadinejad has to realize they won’t win.*
I think thats the fallacy. I don’t believe he’s dumb. I do believe he’s a fanatic. And as noted, his letters are threats. There is a history behind these type of threads made by muslims.
I re-emphasize that these people said they would nuke Israel as soon as they get the bomb. Other than the apparent disconnect with reality (which much of the middle east suffers from), why would you not take this man at his word and act accordingly. Is it really safer to take a “wait and see if the jihadist nukes anything”.
Ahmadinejad could be doing little more than buying time by trying to shift the media’s focus. He appears to have resigned himself to the fact that he won’t get the traction at the UN that Saddam did.
Radical Islamists have continuously shown that they both understand the major western media’s agenda and how to play to it. That has worked fairly well for them by appealing to the instincts for appeasement from the true bedwetters. It’s when they try manipulate the media directly that they fall short. The cultural gap more often than not makes them appear clownish when they try. Recall the meeting after 9/11 on video when Usama and some other Saudi jackass exchanged jollies over what they thought would be the American reaction to the attacks – Americans would see it as an attempted coup.
If Iran has nuclear weapons of any type and the will to use them they still have to be very limited in number and size. Using them might suck for anyone in the way but would suck much worse for Iran. Certainly suicide for anyone in or involved with the current regime in Iran if not national suicide if the wrong target is hit. The political fallout would be an absolute ban on any Islamic nation ever having any suggestion of a nuclear program.
Another thought:
I recall reading some speculation many years ago that all Israel would have to do to insulate themselves from any nuclear attack from an Islamic nation was to adopt and publically announce a slightly modified version of the cold war MAD concept. Any nuclear attack on Israel from an Islamic nation would be considered an attack by Islam on Judaism itself. In which case the approriate portions of both Mecca and Medina as centers of Islam would be immolated in return.
That’s all premised on Ahmadinejad being a rational actor. I don’t think that is something we can take to the bank. Unfortunately.
I’ve got a really bad feeling about this. I think we are entering a whole new, extremely scary, phase of this war. I think by the end of this Summer.
And the fucking Left Wing is going to do nothing but sit back and complain about how we brought this upon ourselves.
Whiney little shits.
Why is my paste yellow?
<sniffs>
Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!
Somebody needs to compile a list of the fundamental errors in the Left’s assessment of the world in which we all live.
The idea that one can “deal with” people who have a lot in common with an adulterous Minnie Mouse (i.e., “fucking Goofy”), is one.
The idea that you follow the rules of criminal procedure in fighting a war, is another.
Others…?
An absolute ban? Well, for a few years, until the forgetting begins again, and the lure of gold trumps (again) common-sense and self-preservation.
Besides, so what if a few Israelis or Americans die? So long as they don’t nuke Monaco everything is just peachy.
word:hot “Is it just me, or is it gettting hot -”
Just, I understand your points but must respectfully disagree. As Nuke points out, its extremely questionable whether we’re dealing with a rationale actor. In fact, it is impossible to know if Amaj is speaking for himself, the mullahs or Iran.
Plus, honestly, I don’t think we can take the chance of the Iranians using a nuclear device, not simply for the loss of life (which would be tragic) but for the consequences that follow. The UN, while likely to “get involved” may not be inclined to take any signficant action against Iran, especially if Iran hits Israel. I would foresee both China and Russia sitting on the fence, Germany is too financially unstable to get involved and who knows which side of the coin the french will come down on (knowing the french, it will be the wrong side). If the UN does nothing but sanction Iran, what does the United States do? If you think this is an unlikely scenario, think about this- what if Iran doesn’t detonate a huge nuke but a much smaller one, destroying a settlement in Israel or a significant amount of buildings, etc (similar to the 9-11 attack). The UN will argue “well its not a whole city” and may respond accordingly. Its anti-semticism and open hostility to Israel is well know.
So we’re left holding the bag. And you have the left in this country starting to make excuses for the jihadists- its Bush’s fault, Bush and Israel caused this, etc. And since Iran hit Israel and not us, how much “heat” would that generate under the left for military action. I suspect probably very little. The left will blame America and Israel and Britain and demand that we let the middle east work out its own problems (I mean, its not like the jihadists would hit the US right ..).
Now I grant you, this is a “what-if” scenario. Maybe Ama is just bluffing. Maybe its all just stall tactics. Maybe they just want a big seat at the table, respect on the level afforded to the permanent members of the security counsel.
However, maybe the biggest state sponser of terrorism is serious about becoming the top Islamic dog in the middle east. What better way to do that then to attempt to destroy a part of Israel ?
HAHA Creepy. TW is “French”. I kid you not.
Amen. The thing that I wish people could get through their heads is that we have no choice about stopping that nuclear program. Even if we can live with a nuclear Iran, Israel can’t.
Israelis are rational actors. The holocaust was only 60 years ago. Iran has spent the past several decades paying people to murder Israelis and talking about wiping them off the map. Rationally, Israel’s supposed to just sit back and watch Iran aquire nukes?
If we do nothing Israel’s only choices are to destroy those nuclear facilities the only way they can or to hang the lives of half the world’s Jews on the slim hope that Iran acts rationally and continues to forever. The region’s messy enough without Israel being forced to nuke Iran.
Ok, I’ll bite.
So what exactly are the consequences that follow if Iran makes a nuke and then uses it on Israel?
1) I expect the Israelis to retaliate. How? I dunno.
2) Ok, what else?
Discuss.
GLADYS! Get in here! George Orwell is commenting on this blog!
You can’t possibly believe Iran would nuke the location of the third holiest place. They want the jews gone from the land they don’t want the land gone. N’ Korea talked tough about nukes and has done nothing but demand respect. Pakistan and India haven’t nuked each other. They can’t, they share a border they’d be nuking themselves. We spent 50 years under nuke threat from Russia without a bomb being tossed.
Maybe its because I don’t believe in the Raprture or that the jihadists are trying to bring about the end of the world but I can’t past how unbelievably stupid it would be to do anything that would or even might provoke a nuclear response from the US. Especially with a trigger happy wanna be cowboy in the White House.
I hear what you guys are saying and it does have merit but to me its sort of like the theories that we actually bombed the Pentagon on 9/11. I hear the evidence but to really buy into it I first have to be in a frame of mind that lets me believe our governemnt would or could do that to itself and its own people. I can’t go there so its data that doesn’t add up. Same with Iran, I can’t get past that overall stupididty of the act so I can’t see the evidence actually leading there.
Tel-Aviv would be the Iranian target not Jerusalem.
Just a minor gripe – people keep throwing around the term “Rational Actor” all over the place. A rational actor is simply one who calculates what he percieves to be in his own best interests and then acts accordingly.
While you or I would probably be adverse to any one of a number of behaviors, getting one’s forehead tattooed for instance, that doesn’t mean one who does so is not a rational actor. They can be a rational actor and upon weighing relevant factors, could decide that the benefits outweigh the negatives, and then go ahead and get their tattoo.
So Amahdnejad may simply be counting things differently then you or I. That doesn’t make him an irrational actor, but simply means that his threat matrix and overarching decision making paradigm just aren’t the same that ours would be in his shoes.
BRD
JG,
In terms of baffling strategic behavior, consider that in 1991, Iraq was engaged in high-intensity conflict with three nuclear powers – the US, France, and the UK. Nonetheless, out of the blue, it decides to launch ballistic missiles at yet another nuclear armed country that wasn’t even in the fight. That is about as strategically risk-prone as one can get withouth actually using WMD.
So just because you, I, or any other western analysts wouldn’t do something that courts certain disaster doesn’t mean that they won’t do something insanely risky.
The fear here is that Amahdnejad is borrowing from the Saddam playbook (very poor judgement and insanely risk prone) rather than, let’s say, the Qaddafi play book (more patient, media and diplomacy astute, more conservative).
I think I speak for all of us here in asserting that while we fear that Amahdnejad may follow the former, we hope that he’ll emulate the latter leader.
BRD
*Rationally, Israel’s supposed to just sit back and watch Iran aquire nukes? *
Thats what the world expects Israel to do. Its why all you see are “resolutions” from the UN rather than signficant engagement with the Iranians- for god sake, we offered them a nuclear reactor. Maybe I can threaten to destroy Israel and get the Europeans to give me a porsche.
And again, while they’d hate the resulting conflict, I personally think the UN would like nothing more than Israel gone, in some form or fashion. I have no doubt Kofi and Co. lament how much time they have to spend defending the “oppressive jews”.
Don’t get me wrong. I hope Israel stands up, I hope the US and the world stands up with her. But if the tone taken by the UN when it comes to Israel is any indication, Israel is on its own. Thus, the battle for hearts and minds at home, on behalf of both israel and freedom, begins now and its a battle I think we’re losing to the left and media.
jg,
Your points about India and Pakistan are valid, although neither country is 100% Islam, which makes a difference in my mind. But how you can conflate North Korea with Iran, is beyond my comprehension. North Korea is ALL ALONE in the world – it has no allies to speak of (China doesn’t really count in my book), hence no help. Also, Lil’ Kim may be crazy, but he’s a Communist, which means he’s slightly (I said slightly) more rational than your typical Islamo nut. In other words, he’s not a fanatic.
However, crazy Mahmoud is bat-shit crazy IN ADDITION to being a fanatic. The last time we saw such insanity and fanatacism in one package was during the 1930’s, and we know what happened then.
It ain’t a comparison in my opinion. I say we take crazy Mahmoud at his word, and avoid the bullshit that happened 70 years ago.
TV (Harry)
tw: truth – stone cold truth
Matt,
What’s missing from my first post was the explicit statement that it is Israel as a target and retaliator that I am referring to when I talked about immediate consequences for Iran.
I don’t think for a moment that Ahmadinejad is a rationale actor or rather I believe he is fanatical to the point of there being little difference. Ahmadinejad is not the only player in Iran though and their military isn’t likely to be as complacent concerning his fanaticism when it goes to the wall. I don’t think we have a stupid or complacent administration on our side either. I would expect that there are a lot of pressure switches being pushed by the US that the general public doesn’t see and a lot of them within Iran itself.
This isn’t the attack out of the blue that 9/11 was. Ahmadinejad is broadcasting his intent. There’s a reason for that that goes beyond strutting. He, or rather the real powers in Iran that he fronts for, are under pressure. The money flowing out of that country is staggering. That doesn’t indicate a great deal of confidence in the way this is playing.
Hmmmm.
1. Why wouldn’t Iran detonate a nuke that would destroy Jerusalem?
Blame it on the jews.
2. Why wouldn’t Iran detonate a nuke that would slaughter hundreds of thousands of Palestinians?
Blame it on the jews.
…
Frankly I think we all have to consider that any and all actions are still on the table. That there is no single or multiple target(s) on this planet that Iran wouldn’t dare to attack. IMHO I think it’s unlikely that they’d attack directly, but using a non-state actor such as AQ would be entirely possible.
And certainly AQ would do it just for the PR bonus.
It is “indecorous” not “undecorous”.
Huh?
The jihadists not only have no respect for anyone else’s holy places, their respect for their own is, uhh, limited. See The Destruction of Mecca. Tel Aviv would be the likely target of a nuclear attack, but if the jihadis feel the desrtuction of Israel is a big enough payoff I’m not sure threatened attacks on Mecca and Medina would be enough to dissuade them.
My concern is that Ahmadinejad may have correctly calculated that the MAD option is off the tableâ€â€he could attack Israel without facing a nuclear attack from anyone except the Israelis themselves. However, he might not understand how hardened the Israeli facilities are to preserve exactly that second-strike option. An Iranian attack using one or two smuggled bombs followed by a more devastating (numerically) Israeli counterattack is a situation that could get extraordinarily ugly real fast.
I hate to say it, but I think some of the earlier commenters were right. This whole conflict has been reminiscent of the Thirties, with guys like Ahmadinejad explaining in detail what they want to do, and what they will do as soon as they get a chance, and seeing no response tougher than a strongly worded resolution. The situation is developing a distinct Summer of ’39 vibe.
T/W: two, as in reaching the end of the countdown. Three, two, one….
….annnd you knew who you were then…
…Goils were goils and men were men…
….Mr we could use a man like Herbert Hoover againnnn…..
….Didn’t neeeed no welllfare state….
….Everybody pulled his weight….
….Gee our old La’salle ran great…..
….Dose were the daaaaaayyyyyyssss…..
– McGeehe – thats a milk carton….
– ?
– Paste doesn’t come in a milk carton…
– Oh….ok
“ONSREF”
That’s what one supposedly rational actor had tattooed on his forehead. Did it himself. In a mirror.
Yeah, he was in a gang from Fresno.
Rational, but stupid, y’know?
Lucky he wasn’t from south OC like me. “atiragraM atnaS ohcnaR” or “onartsipaC nauJ naS” require a pretty damn big forehead.
And a big mailing label.
Crazy yes but still he didn’t do anything to provoke a nuclear response from anyone.
The Ayatollah did not say ‘wipe Israel off the map’ (and Achmadinajad didn’t say it either when he quoted the Ayatollah). He said ‘end the occupying regime’. And he said it while Iran and Israel were selling weapons to each other. Which was during the same time that we were selling weapons to Iran. Leaders and nations talk tough publicly and deal in the background often.
I’m not sure I conflated them. All I said was possibly Iran will use its nuke the same way N. Korea has used theres. As a means to get out from under crippling sanctions, become a player in the world, stop being a pissant little joke of a country. A possiblilty other than the first act in a suicidal end of world doomsday mission.
Yeah, we kicked that little fuckers ass. Are you comparing Iran to pre-war Germany? I grant you both had a an insane leader but otherwise where are the similarities? The german people looked to Hitler for leadership the Iranians look where?
You wanna hear something funny? My submit word below is ‘wrong’.
lol
I never knew spam filters were political.
A letter to the pope?
OH SHIT! WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!
Israel’s been wise enough not to tip off the extent of its…er…defensive capabilities. That in itself is a smart defense, though it’s suggestive of a lack of real firepower. Or not. ‘Cuz they’re shifty. Insert Princess Bride scene here.
But unreadable (non-)bluffs don’t help in this case, because Ahmadinejad doesn’t care either way. Or maybe he does. Whatever, he’s got something other than victory-through-lopsided-exchange in mind. Or not, and he’s insane. Or both. If his religion isn’t an American-style facadeâ€â€and there’s no reason other than provincialism to think that it isâ€â€he goes first, falls, and a billion follow. Maybe. Or…nothing. He’s a shit-talking stooge of bureaucrats with domestic plans that require some public whipping-up. Or…?
The US, squinting at an indecipherable conflict which every conceivable reading fits, pragmatically has to take bare threats at face value: Iran wants to nuke Tel Aviv, and Europe wants to…not stop them. Then cheer. Then pretend they didn’t. If Israel thinks it’s really about to happen, they’ll pre-empt with the maximum available violence, because that’s what they do, and we think this time, probably, they’ve got “glass parking lot” in mind. Perhaps a really big one. Or, most likely, a couple suicidally small ones.
So…the usual. Count the bodies.
What’s going on in he-
*SMACK*
OW!
Shouls spend some of that fundraiser money to raise the ceilings on this blog…
Nuclear weapons are basically big bombs with some interesting side-effects (EMP, fallout). The weapons we will see in the above mentioned countries are kiloton weapons (one 1000 tons of TNT). That is mighty big bang but please keep in mind that during the cold war we were facing megaton weapons (1000 times more powerful than kiloton weapons). Also during the cold war each rocket carried multiple megaton warheads.
Any attack will lead to a large loss of life but it is important to keep in mind that unlike a nuclear exchange between the ex-Sovs and the US, such an attack can be viewed as containable. Most of us grew up thinking that a nuclear attack would wipe us all out. It makes such an attack unimaginable to us. The reality is different today and while we still haven’t changed our thinking (see the recent hand wringing about the Pentagon considering tactical/small nukes for use against Iran’s nuke facilities), it doesn’t mean others haven’t as well.
Lucky he wasn’t from south OC like me. “atiragraM atnaS ohcnaR†or “onartsipaC nauJ naS†require a pretty damn big forehead.
And a big mailing label.
Try mine,
leugiN anugaL
for size…..
Or norP
What do you think ‘end the occupying regime’ means? Iran doesn’t recognize ‘Israel’ as anywhere in the Middle East. He’s not talking about getting Israel out of the West Bank, he’s talking about getting Israel out of Tel Aviv, a city the Israelis founded. You’re really splitting hairs on the rest of it to come up with a position that is somewhat less than apocylptic.
After straining so hard, the very best you can come up with is not necessarily genocide, just destruction of the Jewish state, I would really think about that pretty hard and long and see if that makes any sense. From this angle, I’m saying ‘no’.
Vercingetorix is right. Spin out the Juan Cole talking points all you want, it doesn’t change anything.
Whether the Iranians mean destroy Israel as a state or destroy Israelis as a people is a ridiculously irrelevant quible.
That’s not for lack of trying. The Israelis didn’t respond AT ALL because the US asked them not to.
Why are you trying to judge the level of risk Saddam was willing to take by the reluctance of others to respond? We’re talking about the likelihood of Iran making either a first strike or providing weapons to a third party for a “plausibly deniable” nuclear strike. The level of risk is, frankly, extremely low for Iran, because the West is still in the “watch the crazy man dance” mindset.
top Islamic dog in the middle east…
Matt E, nice turn of phrase.
As far as the targeting issue goes, the Tel Aviv scenario sounds about right, especially with a west wind. I would be very surprised if Iran didn’t think they could write of the Paleostinians as busted eggs necessary for the omlet. I thought about the smallest you can make a fission device (unless you are super-sophisticaed, like us, or the Soviets) is around Hiroshima size or 20 kT. Small as Israel is, and particularly if cobalt salting works in a fission device, even a series of such devices will make Israel uninhaibtable. On the other hand, to paraphrase William F. Halsey, when Israel is through with Iran, Farsi will be spoken only in Hell – make that Jehannum.
I’d also like to point out how pathetic it seems that leftists suddenly become intentionalists when it works against the interests of the US or our allies.
And off the top rope… Heh.
Well, the Pope and Iran do have one concern in common: the fate of Jerusalem. Neither Rome nor Tehran has accepted the Hollywood/Newsweek verdict that the Holy City belongs only to the Israelis. Indeed, 99% of the world doesn’t accept it. That is why even the US, despite enormous election year pressures, has never accepted Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
After all, an internationalized Jerusalem was part of the original deal when Israel was created.
My boss is arabic. He backs up JC that there is no direct translation that would result in an american idiom ‘wipe off the map’. Add the fact that this was said while Israel and Iran were trading arms and you get bluster. That’s all. Saying what the folks back hom ewant to hear meanwhile you’re actually behaving like an adult in private.
And if they responded the response wouldn’t have been nuclear. My point was he didn’t do anything to provoke a nuclear response. Its part of my larger point that Iran would be stupid tp provoke a nuclear response from us. We’d slaughter them. We’d probably take a hit in the press but that won’t comfort the glass particles formerly known as Iranians.
Just my opinion here but no way in hell does a country spend years and billions of dollars on wmd, attain the weapon that will give them legitimacy on the world stage and hand it off to a third party for secret use. I never could buy that argument about Saddam and I can’t buy it about anyone who might run Iran. Having a nuke is power. You don’t give that away. Not when it can bring you so much. Iran has always had designs on taking over the middle east. They never could act on it because us and Israel played the nuke card. Their own nuke would trump that card. Once nukes are removed it becomes a land war, in a desert, agaisnt desert dwelling people. This is not a situation I want our soldiers facing.
Well, Rafsanjani, Ahmadingytard’s predecessor blurted it out, and he’s Mullahriffic!
How many times do how many Muslims have to promise to destroy Israel for it to be obvious? How many times do they have to actually attempt to do it? Aren’t a million and at least half a dozen enough?
If your neighbor’s dog keeps howling and digging under the fence when your bitch is in heat, do you feel a need to parse his intent, or is it clear to you that he wants to fuck your girl dog?
It’s pretty much the same thing here. This is their brain on hardcore Islam which, you may have noticed, sometimes causes people to grandiose suicidal gestures. It also causes them to rejoice in doing such things in order to kill Jews.
The dog is actually brighter, but he’s nowhere near as dangerous.
jg – I can find some virtue in your contentions concerning the likely outcome of a nuclear armed Iran, but for a different reason.
– There is a tendency here in the West, to forget the life and death struggle, involved since the doctrines of Mohhamud, between the Shia’s and Sunni’s, quit aside from the Wahhabists. If the slate was bare of the Jihadist/Western confligration, Iran would have more than a small consideration of survival that would serverely limit “sharing” their aquisition of nuclear weapons.
– Still its folly to think they would not share if they thought they’rd be no reprisals.
– Dreams of a return of Persian hedgemony is a powerful incentive, but just plain survival of the Imam driven theocracy is even more-so.
– In any possible senario, an unarmed Iran is the best Iran.
jg, they don’t have to hand anything off to anyone to be a threat. They are the world’s number one terrorist supporter now and have held that title belt for well on thirty years. The improvised explosive devices in Iraq and Afghanistan–increasingly–aren’t. They are made in Iran and shipped across the border. The Khobar Towers was at least partially an Iranian hit.
Do you think that [support for terrorism] will increase or decrease with a nuclear arsenal? Last year, some 11,000 people died worldwide from terrorism. All Iran has to do is escalate its conventional support for terrorism which it can do. At some point, Iran could be nearly as transparent with terrorism as the Palestinians are and warrant a full out attack, and we won’t even be able to mount a Desert Fox on them.
Why? Because of the nukes. Just a conventional terrorism campaign around the world, including Europe, Central Asia, the Middle East, even SOuth America and North America, could kill many times more people than a nuclear strike ever could, when measured over the course of years.
Again, set your sights lower. Even the low range, of what we know is true and will in fact remain true about Iran for the foreseeable future, is completely unacceptable. No cities need to burn, no Israelis need to become flash-paintings, for a military strike against Iranian nuke sites to become the de facto moral and economic best interest choice in the matter.
The nation is the Caliphate. To Islamists, borders are only for erasing. The world is Allah’s, and they’re to make it happen. Just ask them, they’ll tell you.
Money means nothing to them. They’re mega oil ticks, and they’re totalitarians. They’ve got more money than God. They’ve also got a shitload of His oil left. Cost is not a factor.
This is a coherent and logical argument for why we cannot allow Iran to have a nuke. jg just trotted it all out. Once Iran has the nuke, they can attack Israel or Jordan or Kuwait or any othe country in the ME without fear of getting nuked.
Checkmate.
A pity that the Iranians aren’t. Unless the Arabs suddenly decided to speak Farsi instead of Arabic…
And when you claim to speak to the hidden, 12th Imam you worry about that kind of thing?
Are you not a little uncomfortable trying to push this guy into your method of perceiving the outside world?
OK – this is effing spooky, I forgot to sign in, and the TW is “nuclear”. I need to go drink. Now.
The Pope should invite him in for some baked sheep.
Maybe Ahmadinejad wrote to Bush and the Pope to get pointers on how to piss off Andrew Sullivan…did he write one to Rumsfeld or The Corner yet?
jg, considering Iranians aren’t Arabic and speak Farsi for the most part, either your boss is lying to you, or you are lying to us.
Which is it?
Chicago,
All you have to do to piss Sully off as the Pope is to be, well, the Pope.
TW: How ‘bout that 35th Ward.
You guys guys are always try to make The Iran guy sound crazy with “wipe off the map” ect. He said a better tarnslation of it would be “erase from the page of history.” That’s TOTAlY diffrent. That’s just like a old Arab poem or something (figure of speach). If you were Juan Cole, or even his little pinky toe, you would know this, but….
He’s just so damned Catholic. Like Mother.
I kid, of course.
Withheld, are you fucking kidding me? It isn’t like ANY of this is new; for thirty years they’ve said the same thing.
Death to America. Death to Israel. Destroy Israel and drive them into the sea.
GET OVER IT.
They mean it. And a declaration of war is never poetic.
Umm jg,
My boss is from Florida and that has nothing to do with Iran or idioms in Farsi either.
As for your other points–exactly what would lead you to believe, given world history since just 1948, that those who want to run the Jews into the sea, if given the opportunity, wouldn’t? I only offer that question to highlight the laughably absent part of your equation: The current President of Iran does not believe any of the “bad stuff” that happened before 1948 either. Sometimes nutjobs mean what they say. Ever read Mein Kampf?
As for the calculus of using nukes, the United States and the Soviet Union had decades and no nutjobs at the levers to learn each others waypoints in world behavior. Any attempt to apply the same rules of big boy behavior to a country that doesn’t let women attend soccer games is, well, loony.
Vercinegoiterix, dude.
Its like when my sister was late to give me a ride (going to see Hoot, relly good buy the way, thumbs up, way up) and we missed not ONLY previews but a little bit of the opening credits. On the way there I was like, “If we miss the previews I am TOTALY going to kill you!” Did I kill her? No. QDE.
Serously, every time you clownhats repeat “wipe off the map” when Juan COle has made VERY CLEAR there is no such way to even say that in Arab, you are just dropping your creditibility like flies.
Right.
My sisters do not car bomb my barracks, develop high energy atomic weapons, sell weapons by the shipload to my worst enemies, and/or kidnap and hold my best friends hostage for 444 days.
So I think, as fascinating as your familial relations are to the rest of the world, they do not quite translate into geopolitics.
And I am sure that Farsi–and I am equally sure that JC does not speak it in any degree of competence–possesses some word for “Israel” “to wipe, erase, destroy and salt their fields” “off” and “map”. I believe that Juan Cole is quite wrong, being hyperbolic and/or an asshat, and not necessarily in that order.
Try again.
Someone please let the Iranians know that they speak Arabic. They apparently forgot that.
Sigh. QDE?
I believe you are trying to say Quod Errata Demonstrata, “that which was to be demonstrated”, Q.E.D..
How are you keeping up, withheld? Still want to play?
Sort of hard to run with the big dogs, Verc, when you are either a puppy, missing 3 of your 4 legs or have been licking the Prestone puddle in the driveway. I mean, give the cur credit for at least finding the teat.
What part about “death to the little Satan” didn’t you guys get?
Death, last I checked, was, for almost all of us, a pretty permanent state of non-being.
word: means. “Who cares about the means when the end is so righteous!”
For quite some time, I’ve been thinking about the possibility that the 2009 inauguration will play out like the climax of The Godfather. A solemn, public rite (baptism; swearing in a new US President) intercut with quick, purposeful violence (liquidation of Tattaglia, Barzini, Stracci, Cuneo, and Moe Greene in The Godfather).
There’s a certain dramatic inevitability about this scenario, but there are two great unknowns: who will play the heads of rival families in this parallel production, and—as is the case also in the film—whether these should be considered as positive or negative events.
TW: “terms”…oh, my….
Withheld
You know perfectly well Juan COle doesn’t speak any Arabic. Don’t be bringin’ yer damn parodic kant krap here, MoFo! We’ll gut you like a lumberjack guts a California Redwood and have our sisters make plywood out of you! We’ll fry you like a snake in a hot air ballon and have our sisters serve you as groats. We’ll …
AND NO MORE DAMN CAPS!! NOT NEVER!!! NOT NO HOW!!!!
tw: moved bowels. Big time. Way big.
Peach.
Goiter?
I am not afraid of you bedwetting paste-eathers!
Look, All were saying is….
1. “Rubbed out of the page of history” is hardly even close to same thing as “wiped off the map”. They completely different words for two completely differents kinds of paper—one is a book like for school, the other is folded up in the glovebox. “Wipe” implies more of like a damp rag just tidying up a little, where as the other “erased” is a sort of drier squidging around with the back end of a pencil. How can you not GET that! If you don’t speak Arab, or Farci, or whatever, then you should kindly SFTU about it.
2. Either way its just a poetic thing to say—from ancient beautiful tradition of poetry—like like, “We are TOTALY going to slaughter them in the badmitten quarterfinals.” or “I have to pee like a race horse” or “We shall fight them on the beaches, ect.” That doesn’t mean I’m a racehorse, or at the beach or whatever.
Jeez, I can’t belive I even have to explain this. Am i going to fast for you or what is it?
Withheld,
I highly doubt you’ve missed the decades of “death to the Jews” chants.
I don’t think you would know a death threat if a knife was held to your throat, a gun pointed at your head, and a ten-ton weight suspended over you. Then again, maybe you would. Maybe it’s only the death threat to another that you cannot see.
OGM! I AM going too fast for you!
Sigh. Its just pearls before slime.
Sublime.
I have to think that witheld is about 12 or 13. Either that or a HS dropout working at some fast food place. Look at his spelling – not typos – his spelling and figure out his education level.
You can’t be teaching physices to 2nd graders.
Ha! rsl, as long as were doing a/s/l’s I am late thirtysomething, grad-schooled, part-time barrista, free-lance Pilates insturctor. Have a sideline of aromatherapy. Male, slightly gay (like 1 on the gay scale of numbers). Comforbly enschonced in a smallish eastern blue archipelago dot in a red state.
Its true I was never good at physics even all through highschool(I could never get very far up the ropeclimb, had some weight problems, but no more THANKS TO PILATES AND SOUTH BEACH).
Thankyou, Bmoe, for the props.
Gee, B moe, I think you made a life-partner; congrats, buddy.
Now, to the nuts and bolts. First off, states and diplomats do not talk like normal people. It is called diplomacy, you should look it up. Iran, the entire nation, will not dress up in gym shorts and sweat bands and invade Pakistan for a quick match of 10 to the eights on the badminton court.
What evidence do you have that the hostile nation of Iran does not mean to inflict harm on Israel? Put up or shut up.
As the person who speaks the most Arabic (and Hebrew) in the group (a little), beside Major John and a few others, I can speak with some authority that–if JC said what you purport–JC is full of shit. Link it or drop it.
The rest is beneath contempt.
JC is just try to say that “wipe off the map” is not a good translation. Its pure porpogranda. The real thing he said was more like “erase from the pages of history” which is just a poetic expression that doesn’t mean anything even remotely like “wipe of the map.” It’s gentler imagery.
See, When I hear “wipe off the map”, it makes me think of a crowed bar, noisy, people are smoking yelling. The map is harder to picture, I’m thinging maybe like Joni Mitchell has drawn it on the back of her cartoon coaster. Okay, so someone knock over your dacquiri, it gets all over everything, sticky, messy, some one has to WIPE IT UP and be quick about it, probably mad to have to do it, busy, a violent motion. Cussing is probably involved. That is a scary image to rile you dingers all up for another wrong war.
On the other, “erase from the page of history.” Its a quiter more poetic image, like were in a library, in the comfy chair part, maybe, just the quite giggles of some soroity girls studying for Soc midterm, the shush of the cute librarian. Uh oh. ! What’s this? Someone has written a embarrasing word in our history book. Very calmly we take our pencil and turn it around eraser and softly, almost with a tenderness, we rub it cleanly away. A little poof or breath to clear off the rubber eraser dusts, and were done. See? not so bad.
You see now? The differents? Its porbably not that easy to see if you are not a poetry guy like me. This is why I am hear to help you with (the imagery). Just try to calm down, dont fly off the handle and wet yourslef!
Am I the only one who thinks Witheld is a Jeff Goldstein created parody of a leftie?
tw: consider. Nah.
ROFOLROLRLDOR!
There should be a hyphen in “Goldstein-created” pretty sure about that. Just for future referents.
But no, Goldstein is a wingdinger, whereas I am a progressive. So that doesn’t even make sence.
Secret word: “possible”? No.
Jeff-created or not, it has to be a parody. And I’m thinking not even a self-parody.
(Hey, I got to work the TW into the actual body of that comment!)
A couple of minor observations:
(1) There is a difference between “wiped off the map” and “rubbed from the pages of history”.
The first implies total destruction, but a memory will remain. The second implies that there will be no memory at all. It never had been in the first place.
A difference, truly. Although for the unfortunates who first ceased to exist and then never existed, I can’t really see why they would care very much for either eventuality.
(2) I most say that I did like how Withheld made the analogy that Israel is just like a naughty word scribbled in a book. One word that shouldn’t be there; one that should never have been. I’m sure the whole analogy reads better in the original German. It’s so hard to get the proper nuances when translating from a foreign language into English.
word:running. “If Withheld isn’t a parody, he is in the running for the “Most Amoral Monster of the Year Award”.”
But I also compared to a a dacquiri (yummy), so its evens out.
Witheld, a true credit to port-blogosphere.
I think this is another type. It is supposed to read grade-schooled.
rls, I think grad school is correct. Little children are simply not as vile as Witheld; they haven’t put in the practice-time.
I don’t know where get off calling me “vile.” I just want peace and love. Look, what JC said which is he’s an actual PROFESSOR. They will maybe even hire him to Yale! (cross fingers!) He said, that “rubbed off of the page of time” is just an old poem meaning when something is happily over and done with. Its in no way implies an attck. Just sort of not THERE anymore. SOmehow. Its almost a mystical thing I think to hear him tell it, like Israel just poofs away (destiny). I think its sort like Brigaddon in the mists of time.
Like… I’m try to think of a good example of this that will not make you all mad at me. Let’s say its back to the 80’s and your haircut was kind of a little too Flashdance for the new era of lattes and noserings. So you get it cut off the style. That doesn’t refelct badly on the Flashdance style that you loved for so long—that was who you were then, but its just a new time to moveon. So you could say your Falshdance style was “erased from the page of time,” yes, but gently, in a poetry way, snipped and sweeped up neatly from the salon floor. that’s how you woud say it with poetry. no hard feelings.
I think that’s all JC (Professor, remember) is try to say, and by extension all the Iran President is saying. No worries. But of coarse, you WARMONGERERS want to all misconstrue it into something its not so you can fell better about your small manhood whatever by chickenhawking us into another wrong war.
if you want to see more of with helds genius check out http://www.iragwarwrong.blogspot.com And no I have nothing to do with his blog. Just a fan.
tw: riiight.
Right, Witheld.
How do you erase a nation, a people from the pages of history? With a UN resolution? Usually takes more action than that. Much more blood than that. And you accuse me of wanting war?
You are vile, and you don’t even know it. Come back when you discover the shred of a clue, child.
word: term. “Vile’s a fitting term for you.”
Jezz, Mikey, your the one who needs to buy a clue.
I don’t want to erase anybody! The point is that when The Iran President guy says “erased from the pages of history” I’m and PROFESSOR JUAN COLE (soon of Yale, if the Fates allow) willing to believe that the Iran guy doesn’t either when he says it. Its just poem (kind of a mystical). He’s try to tell his people (Palestians or whatever) “Cheer up, my brothers, because in a mystical magic way Israel we ceased to exist in a quiet peaceful way (softly vanished gently from the page)” That’s all.
Well, that and furthermore anyone who is not willing to interpret Iran guy’s intentions this way is because THEY ARE JUST ITCHING FOR ANOTHER WRONG WAR (blood lust).
Whatever, Witheld. Just promise me that you won’t take any candy from strangers because they “seem so super nice and everything”.
No prob, there, Mikey. I try to stear clear of the candy (South Beach).
Thanks for caring.