Iran president: Wipe Israel off map
The Scotsman
27 Oct 2005
Iran's ultra-conservative new president has broken his silence on Israel and declared the Jewish state was a "disgraceful blot" that should be "wiped off the map".
"Anybody who recognises Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury; any (Islamic leader) who recognises the Zionist regime is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world," state-run television quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.
On Wednesday Ahmadinejad said "there is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world. As the Imam (Khomeini) said, Israel must be wiped off the map."
---------------------------
Iran leader's comments condemned
BBC
27 Oct 2005
The US said the comment highlighted concerns about Iran's nuclear programme, which Washington suspects is being used to develop weapons. Iran says its programme is for peaceful purposes only.
This is not believed to be the first time a senior Iranian leader has made such comments. In 2001, former Iranian president Hashemi Rafsanjani called for a Muslim state to annihilate Israel with a nuclear strike. Such calls are though regular slogans at anti-Israeli or anti-US rallies.
67 comments:
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3100
Iran's Final Solution Plan
by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun
November 1, 2005
"Iran's stance has always been clear on this ugly phenomenon [i.e., Israel]. We have repeatedly said that this cancerous tumor of a state should be removed from the region."
No, those are not the words of Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, speaking last week. Rather, that was Ali Khamenei, the Islamic Republic of Iran's supreme leader, in December 2000.
In other words, Ahmadinejad's call for the destruction of Israel was nothing new but conforms to a well-established pattern of regime rhetoric and ambition. "Death to Israel!" has been a rallying cry for the past quarter-century. Mr. Ahmadinejad quoted Ayatollah Khomeini, its founder, in his call on October 26 for genocidal war against Jews: "The regime occupying Jerusalem must be eliminated from the pages of history," Khomeini said decades ago. Mr. Ahmadinejad lauded this hideous goal as "very wise."
In December 2001, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former Iranian president and still powerful political figure, laid the groundwork for an exchange of nuclear weapons with Israel: "If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce minor damages in the Muslim world."
In like spirit, a Shahab-3 ballistic missile (capable of reaching Israel) paraded in Tehran last month bore the slogan "Israel Should Be Wiped Off the Map."
Interesting article by Mark Lawson on the same topic .
From the Lawson article:
But both Hitler and Galtieri had invasion plans and the firepower to attempt them. Ahmadinejad's sick hatred of Israel, though morally indefensible, is militarily just wind.
Mmm, let me see. Iran has missiles capable of reaching Israel, is possibly months from having nuclear warheads, and Rafsanjani is on record as saying "If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce minor damages in the Muslim world."
Sounds like the "wind" of a potential nuclear blast in Tel Aviv to me.
Wonder if any of the non-obviously-pro-Israelis among us (eg Wembley) would argue that Israel should *not* attempt to take out Iran's nuclear program? My position is presumably clear...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1920074,00.html
Israel readies forces for strike on nuclear Iran
Sunday Times
December 11, 2005
Nice to see Israel preparing to deal with a nuclear-armed, madman-led Iran. In this case, buying nuclear cruise-missile equipped submarines to allow a second-strike retaliation capability in the event of a nuclear attack.
Deterring the Iranian nuclear threat
Jerusalem Post
Dec. 3, 2005
The Freedland article above (which I strongly recommend) mention Memri - thanks to Harry's Place I spotted a couple of articles on Memri. The first alleges that Memri has its own (Zionist) agenda. The second is a response from Memri. I urge you to read both.
Interestingly, even the critical article does not deny that the articles translated by Memri do in fact exist and are accurately translated.
Gotta hand it to him, there's no beating about the bush with this guy. He has now gone yet further and explicitly called the Holocaust a "myth". Still, I am sure he can't possibly stand up to the various governments expressing their disapproval for much longer.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4527142.stm
14 December 2005
Iranian leader denies Holocaust
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has courted further controversy by explicitly calling the Nazi Holocaust of European Jewry a "myth". "They have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews and they consider it a principle above God, religions and the prophets," he said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/14/AR2005121400174.html?sub=AR
Iranian Leader Calls Holocaust a 'Myth'
The Associated Press
December 14, 2005
Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the ultimate say, has backed Ahmadinejad's calls for Israel's elimination.
Nice one Dan, both those Guardian articles on Memri are well worth the read. The quote that most attracted my attention is this one from the anti-Memri piece:
"Nobody, so far as I know, disputes the general accuracy of Memri's translations".
Surely that's all that counts?
Here's Blair's response to Ahmadinejad's call for Israel to be 'wipped off the map':
In respect of Iran, well what you say is indeed what people will say, and we will have discussions with our main allies over the next few days. And this of course is the position that Iran has had, it is just that it has been expressed again and maybe people are just noticing this. I have got to say I am sure there are people in Iran in their leadership who believe that the world is sufficiently distracted with everything else, that we can't really afford the time to focus on this issue. And I think they would be making a very big mistake if they do that. These sentiments are completely and totally unacceptable. I have never come across a situation of the President of a country saying they want to wipe out, not that they have got a problem with, or an issue with, but want to wipe out another country. This is unacceptable.
And their attitude towards Israel, their attitude towards terrorism, their attitude on the nuclear weapons issue, it isn't acceptable. Now if they continue down this path then people are going to believe that they are a real threat to our world security and stability. And as I say, they may believe that with everything else, the eyes of the world will be elsewhere, but I felt a real sense of revulsion at those remarks, and to anybody in Europe, knowing our history, when we hear statements like that made about Israel, it makes us feel very angry. It is just completely wrong, this, and it indicates and underlines I am afraid how much some of those places need reform themselves. Because how are we going to build a more secure world with that type of attitude? It is a disgrace I am afraid. And I am aware, I haven't said in precise terms what we can do, but this is a discussion that we will be having with our allies. And you know there has been a long time in which I have been answering questions on Iran, with everyone saying to me: "Tell us you are not going to do anything about Iran." If they carry on like this, the question people are going to be asking us is: When are you going to do something about this? Because you imagine a state like that, with an attitude like that, having a nuclear weapon?
And here's the link to the press conference in full -
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page8393.asp
Of course the situation is deeply worrying. However, some articles suggest there may be more to it. This report from the Guardian offers a reason for the President's comments that has more to do with domestic than international politics. (See also the Lawson article earlier in this thread.)
Analysts in Tehran yesterday said the wave of rhetoric was calculated to increase Iran's international isolation, strengthening the president's radical camp against more pragmatic regime figures who have been critical of his performance since he took office four months ago.
I'm not arguing that complacency is an option. However, given that there are moderate, modernising voices in Iran, Thomas L. Friedman (no linkable source; it's in his Playboy interview) argues that "engagement" is the best way to deal with Iran, ie. restoration of diplomatic relations and increased trade. Friedman argues that the most profound and lasting changes are likely to come from within, rather than being imposed from without.
I realise this doesn't really answer JP's question, but it is worth noting that the isolatiion caused by the President's anti-Israel outbursts may be exactly what he wants, as part of a strategy to shore up conservative support / control within his own country.
If Israel bombed the crap out of Iran's fledgling nuclear plant, I for one would consider this an act of legitimate self defence in the face of clear and present danger.
Wholeheartedly agree. Unfortunately Iran learned from the Ochirac* episode and have distributed their nuclear program across multiple concealed sites all over their large country.
* http://www.philocrites.com/archives/000336.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1068-1957461,00.html
Mullahs versus the bloggers
The Times
December 23, 2005
The explosive growth of youthful, irreverent online diaries has alarmed Iran's hardline Government
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3258
The Mystical Menace of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun
January 10, 2006
"Belief in the coming of the Mahdi of the Family of the Prophet became a central aspect of the faith in radical Shi‘ism," where it is also known as the return of the Twelfth Imam. ... As mayor of Tehran, for example, Mr. Ahmadinejad appears to have in 2004 secretly instructed the city council to build a grand avenue to prepare for the Mahdi. A year later, as president, he allocated $17 million for a blue-tiled mosque closely associated with mahdaviat in Jamkaran, south of the capital. He has instigated the building of a direct Tehran-Jamkaran railroad line. He had a list of his proposed cabinet members dropped into a well adjacent to the Jamkaran mosque, it is said, to benefit from its purported divine connection.
He often raises the topic, and not just to Muslims. When addressing the United Nations in September, Mr. Ahmadinejad flummoxed his audience of world political leaders by concluding his address with a prayer for the Mahdi's appearance: "O mighty Lord, I pray to you to hasten the emergence of your last repository, the Promised One, that perfect and pure human being, the one that will fill this world with justice and peace."
On returning to Iran from New York, Mr. Ahmadinejad recalled the effect of his U.N. speech: one of our group told me that when I started to say "In the name of God the almighty and merciful," he saw a light around me, and I was placed inside this aura. I felt it myself. I felt the atmosphere suddenly change, and for those 27 or 28 minutes, the leaders of the world did not blink. … And they were rapt. It seemed as if a hand was holding them there and had opened their eyes to receive the message from the Islamic republic.
What Mr. Peterson calls the "presidential obsession" with mahdaviat leads Mr. Ahmadinejad to "a certitude that leaves little room for compromise. From redressing the gulf between rich and poor in Iran, to challenging America and Israel and enhancing Iran's power with nuclear programs, every issue is designed to lay the foundation for the Mahdi's return." ... "This kind of mentality makes you very strong," the political editor of Resalat newspaper, Amir Mohebian, observed. "If I think the Mahdi will come in two, three, or four years, why should I be soft? Now is the time to stand strong, to be hard." Some Iranians, reports PBS, "worry that their new president has no fear of international turmoil, may think it's just a sign from God."
...
The most dangerous leaders in modern history are those (such as Hitler) equipped with a totalitarian ideology and a mystical belief in their own mission. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fulfills both these criteria, as revealed by his U.N. comments. That combined with his expected nuclear arsenal make him an adversary who must be stopped, and urgently.
Two recent articles on the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: 1st up Nail Ferguson offers an apocalyptic predition of the possible outcome of current events in The Sunday Telegraph
Second Jason Burke writes a profile on the man he calls 'The West's Worst Nightmare'
Maybe History will come to judge the Iranian President as the real threat and danger rather than Sadam.
Here's an article from Charles Moore on Mahmoud.
Moore's writing can be at either end of the quality spectrum: this one is full of good sense.
Our eggs were placed in the fragile basket of former President Khatami's "reformists" and were duly addled. In the presidential election last year, Britain decided that the winner would be another "moderate", Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. Mr Rafsanjani is "moderate" only in the sense that Molotov was more moderate than Stalin or Goering than Hitler
...
Relentless media attention in the West has focused on the errors of the Coalition in Iraq, and plenty of errors there have been. But almost no scrutiny from press or Opposition has been given to the way that the supposedly intransigent George Bush has actually been so accommodating to European sensibilities that he has delegated the policy on Iran to Europe. This has produced the current disaster.
-------------
And here's some more on the Holocaust Denial Conference sponsored by Amadinejad, mentioned by Moore:
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/01/16/tehran_calls_for_review_of_holocaust_evidence/
Tehran calls for review of Holocaust evidence
Associated Press
January 16, 2006
Iran announced plans yesterday for a conference to examine evidence for the Holocaust, a new step in hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's campaign against Israel -- one that could deepen Tehran's international isolation. Ahmadinejad already has called the Nazis' World War II slaughter of European Jews a ''myth" and has said the Jewish state should be wiped off the map or moved to Germany or the United States.
Those remarks prompted a global outpouring of condemnation, and it wasn't clear who would be willing to attend an Iranian-sponsored Holocaust conference.Last month, however, the leader of Egypt's main Islamic opposition group joined Ahmadinejad in characterizing the Holocaust as a myth and lambasted Western governments for criticizing those who dispute the Jewish genocide happened. ''Western democracies have slammed all those who don't see eye to eye with the Zionists regarding the myth of the Holocaust," Muslim Brotherhood chief Mohammed Mahdi Akef wrote on the group's website.
Not to worry, that prick Straw is on the case. Am sure the Iranians are now quaking:
http://publicservices.pipex.com/Pipex/News/Story_Page/0,13319,5337_943438,00.html
Straw urges 'patient approach'
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw on Friday called on the international community to take a "sensible, patient" approach to ending the nuclear stand-off with Iran.
Let's give Iran some of its own medicine
Mark Steyn
Telegraph
17/01/2006
So let me see. On the one hand, we have a regime that is pressing full steam ahead with its nuclear programme and whose president has threatened to wipe another sovereign state off the map. And, on the other side of the negotiations, we have Her Britannic Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Jack Straw has been at pains to emphasise that no military action against Iran is being contemplated by him or anybody else, but in a sign that he's losing patience with the mullahs Mr Straw's officials have indicated that they're prepared to consider the possibility of possibly considering the preparation of a possible motion on sanctions for the UN Security Council to consider the possibility of considering. But don't worry, we're not escalating this thing any more than necessary.
Initially, the FCO is considering "narrowly targeted sanctions such as a travel ban on Iranian leaders". That'll show 'em: Iranian missiles may be able to leave Iranian airspace, but the deputy trade minister won't. No more trips to Paris for the spring collections or skiing in Gstaad for the A-list ayatollahs.
Needless to say, the German deputy foreign minister, Gernot Erler, has already cautioned that this may be going too far, and that sanctions could well hurt us more than it hurts the Iranians. Perhaps this is what passes is for a good cop/bad cop routine, with Herr Erler affably suggesting to the punks that they might want to cooperate or he'll have to send his pal Jack in to tear up their tickets for the Michael Moore première at the Cannes Film Festival.
But, if I were President Ahmadinejad or the wackier ayatollahs, I'd be mulling over the kid glove treatment from Jack Straw and Co and figuring: wow, if this is the respect we get before the nukes are fully operational, imagine how they'll be treating us this time next year. Incidentally, the assumption in the European press that the nuclear payload won't be ready to fly for three or four years is laughably optimistic.
So any Western strategy that takes time is in the regime's favour. After all, President Ahmaggedonouttahere's formative experience was his participation in the seizure of the US embassy in Teheran in 1979. I believe it was Andrei Gromyko who remarked that, if the students had pulled the same stunt at the Soviet embassy, Teheran would have been a crater by lunchtime.
...
Who else could we stir up? Well, did you see that story in the Sunday Telegraph? Eight of the regime's border guards have been kidnapped and threatened with decapitation by a fanatical Sunni group in Iranian Baluchistan. I'm of the view that the Shia are a much better long-term bet as reformable Muslims, but given that there are six million Sunni in Iran and that they're a majority in some provinces, would it not be possible to give the regime its own Sunni Triangle?
No option is without risks, though some are overstated, including regional anger at any Western action: I doubt whether many Arab Sunni regimes really wish to live under the nuclear umbrella of a Persian Shia superpower. And, indeed, one further reason (as if you need one) to put the skids under Boy Assad in Damascus is to underline that there's a price to be paid for getting too cosy with Teheran. But every risk has to be weighed against the certainty that Iran would use its nuclear capacity in the same way it uses its other assets - by supporting terror groups that operate against its enemies.
Saudi Foreign Minister in "its Israel's / the West's fault" shocker:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4615832.stm
16 January 2006
Iran nuclear bid 'fault of West'
Saudi Arabia has said the West is partly to blame for the current nuclear stand-off with Iran because it allowed Israel to develop nuclear weapons.
Possible agenda for the Iranian Holocaust Denial conference:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/44701
Well said, Frau Merkel. But will anything actually be done? Don't hold your breath.
Iran as bad as Nazis: Merkel
The Sunday Times
February 05, 2006
THE German chancellor, Angela Merkel, compared President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran to Adolf Hitler yesterday as Tehran vowed to resume the enrichment of uranium which could be used to make nuclear weapons. Amid growing fears that the Iranians are intent on acquiring an “Islamic bomb”, Merkel warned that the world must not repeat the mistakes it made in appeasing the Nazis.
“Looking back to German history in the early 1930s when National Socialism was on the rise, there were many outside Germany who said, ‘It’s only rhetoric — don’t get excited’,” Merkel told an international security conference in Munich. “There were times when people could have reacted differently and, in my view, Germany is obliged to do something at the early stages,” she added. “We want to, we must prevent Iran from developing its nuclear programme.”
Merkel issued a blunt warning to Ahmadinejad, who has called for Israel to be “wiped off the map”. “Iran has blatantly crossed the red line,” she said. “I say it as a German chancellor. A president who questions Israel’s right to exist, a president who denies the Holocaust cannot expect to receive any tolerance from Germany.”
....
It will now be up to the Security Council to decide what further action to take. It is expected to start by making a so-called “presidential statement” reinforcing the IAEA’s demands. Diplomats said any tougher action, such as sanctions, were further down the line and would depend on Iran’s behaviour. China, a permanent member of the Security Council, opposes sanctions.
Calls for stronger measures were growing last night, however. At the Munich conference, the influential American senator John McCain said the military option could not be ruled out if diplomatic efforts failed to stop Iran acquiring a nuclear bomb. “Every option must remain on the table,” he said. “There’s only one thing worse than military action, that is a nuclear armed Iran.”
More Iran stuff in this newer thread:
'Cut a deal with the mullahs' - Polly Toynbee
Well, guess who really blew up that Shia shrine in Iraq? Go on, have a guess!
Spectre of civil war in Iraq grows as 130 die in one day
Telegraph
24/02/2006
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, the only Shia state, warned Western powers that they would face the wrath of Muslims following the devastating bombing. "These heinous acts are committed by a group of Zionists and occupiers that have failed," Mr Ahmadinejad said in a speech broadcast live on state television.
Did you get it? Wasn't such a tough one after all....
I for one am in total agreement with Bernard Lewis that the delusional, conspiratorial attitude so prevalent in the Muslim world is a massive threat to us all and will hold them back from true progress until they can face up to reality.
City gripped by fury, fear and wild search for a scapegoat
Telegraph
24/02/2006
"It is the Sunnis being blamed but the mosque was the pride of our city," Mohammed, 45, a local businessman, said when questioned about the hostile reaction afterwards. "It is a plot by the Iranians to discredit us and create sectarian war so they can take control of our country."This government are their agents in our midst. Look how they do not stop the retaliatory attacks."
Some blamed the militiamen of Moqtada al-Sadr for the destruction of the Golden Mosque. That they had mobilised to offer protection to other Shia holy sites following Wednesday's explosions was proof they had been forewarned, they said. Others thought the Americans were responsible, the destruction part of their scheme to keep Iraq in chaos so they could maintain their occupation. But no Sunnis interviewed would believe that any of their own could have been responsible for an attack that has brought infamy and increased violence to their home city.
Interesting anti-preemptive strike article from the Times.
The madness of bombing Iran
Robert Skidelsky
As our leaders soften us up for a new war, the arguments we can’t afford to ignore
Here's the main thrust:
The biggest danger of nuclear proliferation is not that rogue states will learn how to enrich uranium enough to build nuclear weapons but that already enriched uranium stocks will leak out to terrorist groups. A terrorist group that obtained 50kg of highly enriched uranium would probably be able to make a nuclear device. But it could make it anywhere — in a garage in London, for instance. The answer to this is not to bomb Iraq, but to reduce such stockpiles (mainly in Russia and the United States) to a minimum, and make sure they are under iron control.
People who support military action ask: how do we know that Iran isn't lying when it says that its uranium enrichment programme is intended only for civilian use? Surely, this is a clear case for invoking the precautionary principle: the risk may be slight but the consequences of ignoring it may be catastrophic. But no one is arguing that the risk should be ignored. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty now also allows for intrusive inspections. Hans Blix has written: “If you want a control system that gives a maximum of assurance, you can . . . require that inspectors have the right to go almost anywhere, any time, and demand any kind of documents.” Iran has accepted this protocol and operating under it the International Atomic Energy Agency has found no evidence that it is developing a weapons programme. However, the protocol could be strengthened for states such as Iran whose leaders make Hitlerian pronouncements.
Given that it is possible, though difficult, to put in place a series of checks on Iran's nuclear ambitions, our leaders need to weigh very carefully the equivocal comfort that a so-called preventive strike may buy against the massive costs of mounting one. It is as certain as it can be that a strike against Iran would inflame Muslim hatred throughout the Middle East and beyond. It would interrupt oil supplies and disorganise the world economy. It would swell the insurgency in Iraq, multiply the numbers of “terrorists” and strengthen their determination to exact a terrible vengeance, especially on Israel. It would be against every counsel of prudent statesmanship. The danger is that we will drift into war because we lack the will and imagination to create institutions to make peace safe.
For my own part, I'm far from certain what the correct course is. I'd been leaning towards pre-emptive strike, which is why I'm particularly interested in counter arguments. (I think deep down most people just wish Israel would do a bit of bombing which the rest of the world could then roundly condemn.)
Steyn gets it exactly right again:
Iran MPs threaten nuclear treaty
BBC News
7 May 2006
Iran's parliament has threatened to force a withdrawal from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty if Western pressure over its programme increases. The threat came in a letter to the UN a day before key UN members discuss a tough draft resolution on the issue. Pulling out of the NPT is the ultimate threat of non-cooperation by Iran, says our Tehran correspondent. A withdrawal would mean the country's programme could no longer be inspected by the UN nuclear watchdog, the IAEA.
Policy on Iran nukes seems to be off-target
Mark Steyn
Sun Times
April 16, 2006
You know what's great fun to do if you're on, say, a flight from Chicago to New York and you're getting a little bored? Why not play being President Ahmadinejad? Stand up and yell in a loud voice, "I've got a bomb!" Next thing you know the air marshal will be telling people, "It's OK, folks. Nothing to worry about. He hasn't got a bomb." And then the second marshal would say, "And even if he did have a bomb it's highly unlikely he'd ever use it." And then you threaten to kill the two Jews in row 12 and the stewardess says, "Relax, everyone. That's just a harmless rhetorical flourish." And then a group of passengers in rows 4 to 7 point out, "Yes, but it's entirely reasonable of him to have a bomb given the threatening behavior of the marshals and the cabin crew."
That's how it goes with the Iranians. The more they claim they've gone nuclear, the more U.S. intelligence experts -- oops, where are my quote marks? -- the more U.S. intelligence "experts" insist no, no, it won't be for another 10 years yet. The more they conclusively demonstrate their non-compliance with the IAEA, the more the international community warns sternly that, if it were proved that Iran were in non-compliance, that could have very grave consequences. But, fortunately, no matter how thoroughly the Iranians non-comply it's never quite non-compliant enough to rise to the level of grave consequences. You can't blame Ahmadinejad for thinking "our enemies cannot do a damned thing."
It's not the world's job to prove that the Iranians are bluffing. The braggadocio itself is reason enough to act, and prolonged negotiations with a regime that openly admits it's negotiating just for the laughs only damages us further. The perfect summation of the Iranian approach to negotiations came in this gem of a sentence from the New York Times on July 13 last year: "Iran will resume uranium enrichment if the European Union does not recognize its right to do so, two Iranian nuclear negotiators said in an interview published Thursday."
Got that? If we don't let Iran go nuclear, they'll go nuclear. That position might tax even the nuanced detecting skills of John Kerry.
By comparison, the Tehran press has a clear-sightedness American readers can only envy. A couple of months back, the newspaper Kayhan, owned by Ayatollah Khamenei, ran an editorial called "Our Immortality And The West's Disability," with which it was hard to disagree: Even if one subscribes to the view that sanctions are a sufficient response to states that threaten to nuke their neighbors, Mohammad Jafar Behdad correctly pointed out that they would have no serious impact on Iran but would inflict greater damage on those Western economies that take them seriously (which France certainly won't).
...
All the doom-mongers want to know why we went into Iraq "without a plan." Well, one reason is surely that, for a year before the invasion, the energy of the U.S. government was primarily devoted to the pointless tap-dance through the United Nations, culminating in the absurd situation of Western foreign ministers chasing each other through Africa to bend the ear of the president of Guinea, who happened to be on the Security Council that week but whose witch doctor had advised against supporting Washington. Allowing the Guinean tail to wag the French rectum of the British hindquarters of the American dog was a huge waste of resources. To go through it all again in order to prevent whichever global colossus chances to be on the Security Council this time (Haiti? The South Sandwich Islands?) from siding with the Russo-Chinese obstructionists would show that the United States had learned nothing.
Bill Clinton, the Sultan of Swing, gave an interesting speech last week, apropos foreign policy: "Anytime somebody said in my presidency, 'If you don't do this, people will think you're weak,' I always asked the same question for eight years: 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?' If we can kill 'em tomorrow, then we're not weak, and we might be wise enough to try to find an alternative way."
The trouble was tomorrow never came -- from the first World Trade Center attack to Khobar Towers to the African Embassy bombings to the USS Cole. Manana is not a policy. The Iranians are merely the latest to understand that.
How To Deter Tehran
by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun
May 9, 2006
As the Iranian regime barrels forward, openly calling for the destruction of Israel and overtly breaking the nuclear non-proliferation rules, two distinctly undesirable prospects confront the West. The first is to acquiesce to Tehran and hope for the best. Perhaps deterrence will work and the six-decade moratorium on using atomic weapons will remain in place. Perhaps the Iranian leadership will shed its messianic outlook. Perhaps no other states will repeat Iran's decision to flaunt the rules they had promised to obey.
The key words in this scenario are "hope" and "perhaps," with the proverbial wing and prayer replacing strategic plans. This is not, to put it mildly, the usual way great powers conduct business.
The second prospect consists of the U.S. government (and perhaps some allies) destroying key Iranian installations, thereby delaying or terminating Tehran's nuclear aspirations. Military analysts posit that American airpower, combined with good intelligence and specialized ordinance, suffice to do the needed damage in a matter of days; plus, it could secure the Straits of Hormuz.
But an attack will have unfavorable consequences, and especially in two related areas: Muslim public opinion and the oil market. All indications suggest that air strikes would cause the now-alienated Iranian population to rally to its government. Globally, air strikes would inflame already hostile Muslim attitudes toward the United States, leading to a surge in support for radical Islam and a further separation of civilizations. News reports indicate that Tehran is funding terrorist groups so that they can assault American embassies, military bases, and economic interests, step up attacks in Iraq, and launch rockets against Israel.
Even if Western military forces can handle these challenges, air raids may cause Iranians and their supporters to withhold oil and gas from the market, engage in terror against energy infrastructure, and foment civil unrest, all of which could create an economic downturn rivaling the energy-induced recession of the mid-1970s.Faced with these two unappealing alternatives, I conclude, along with Senator John McCain, a Republican of Arizona, that "There's only one thing worse than the United States exercising a military option. That is a nuclear-armed Iran."
Relevant Con Coughlin article posted here
Meanwhile, Iran gets on with its bomb
By Con Coughlin
Telegraph
21/07/2006
Outstanding writing from a guy I've never read before. Who can resist an article that contains the sentence "the Iranian Revolution of 1979 will one day be seen as an epochal event, as significant as the French Revolution of 1789 or the Russian Revolution of 1917"?
Iran's nuclear threat must be faced
Daniel Hannan
Telegraph Comment
31/07/06
It won't be a "durable" ceasefire, Condi, and it won't be "sustainable"; not while the ayatollahs are in power in Iran. This war isn't about border security, or prisoner exchanges, or the status of the Shebaa Farms. It isn't really about Lebanon at all, for Hizbollah is not, in any meaningful sense, an indigenous Lebanese phenomenon. The paramilitaries, rather, are creatures of Teheran: the Levantine branch of the Islamic Revolution.
The Iranian Hydra has many heads. The mullahs sponsor militias and political movements across the Muslim world, in the old Silk Road Khanates and as far afield as Bosnia. You can lop off the head called Hizbollah. You can even cauterise the wound, by demilitarising southern Lebanon. But, as long as the monster's heart continues to beat in Teheran, the head will grow back.
The Iranian Revolution of 1979 will one day be seen as an epochal event, as significant as the French Revolution of 1789 or the Russian Revolution of 1917. Like those earlier upheavals, it immediately burst out from behind its borders, disregarding all the accepted rules about how states should deal with each other. Like them, it refused to recognise the legitimacy of foreign governments, and sought to replicate itself around the world.
The ayatollahs' contempt for national sovereignty was manifested in the very first act of their regime: the seizure of the US embassy. Diplomatic immunity is the foundation of all international relations. Even during the Second World War, when irreconcilable ideologies fought to extirpate each other, embassy staff were peacefully evacuated through neutral countries. By seizing sovereign American territory, the revolutionaries were sending out a message: "We do not acknowledge your rules; we despise your notion of territorial jurisdiction".
And they got away with it. Even while the embassy staff were being held hostage, a counter-revolutionary group occupied the Iranian embassy in London. And how did we respond? We secured the building, our SAS men sliding down like spiders on their threads, and we handed it politely back to Teheran with a purse of money to compensate for the damage caused during the assault. Not unnaturally, the mullahs concluded that they could have it both ways. They could continue to be accorded the privileges of a sovereign state without having to reciprocate. So began a global campaign to spread the revolution.
Iranian agents set out to radicalise the Shia populations of Iraq, the Gulf monarchies and the Fertile Crescent. They sought to reawaken the old faith among people who had long since turned away from it, notably in the Balkans and in Central Asia. Nor did they confine themselves to the Muslim world.In 1989, Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwah against Salman Rushdie. In other words, the leader of Iran presumed to pass sentence on a British subject - a sentence reconfirmed by Khomeini's successor, Ayatollah Khamenei, last year. In 1994, Iranian extra-territoriality crossed the Atlantic. A bomb in Buenos Aires killed 100 people and injured 250 more, prompting Argentina to issue warrants for a number of Iranian diplomats and politicians.
What possible strategic interest did Iran have in destroying a Jewish community centre in South America? The answer, surely, is that it was precisely the remoteness of the target that made it so attractive. The ayatollahs were again flaunting their ability to act whenever and wherever they chose. These are the same men, remember, who are three or four years away from developing nuclear weapons. They already have Shahab-3 missiles, which, in their modified form, have a range of 1,500 miles. But why worry about delivery mechanisms? We have already seen the mullahs' readiness to equip their proxies in Lebanon with rockets, their agents in South America with bombs. Can we be confident that they would not tack on nuclear warheads?
I am no neo-con. I opposed the Iraq war, because I didn't believe that Saddam had WMD. But who can doubt that Iran is developing them? Indeed, Iran provides the answer to one of the great conundrums of the decade, namely: why did Saddam pretend that he still had weapons stocks when he had in reality destroyed them? The answer, it seems, is that he didn't want the ayatollahs to see how weak he was.
A legacy of the Iraq war is that it is much harder to make the case for confronting Iran militarily. Still, there are plenty of intermediate steps that we could take: targeted sanctions, seizure of assets, direct assaults on arms facilities - even, in extremis, the kind of siege, complete with a no-fly-zone, that paralysed Saddam between 1991 and 2003.
At the same time, we could sponsor internal dissent. Plenty of groups oppose the mullahs: monarchists, communists, students, secularists. There are Kurds, Arabs, Turkmen and Azeris with little loyalty to the Persian state. There are Iranian Sunnis who are not even allowed a mosque in Teheran (unlike their co-religionists in London).
But we must first recognise the magnitude of what we are up against. The 1979 revolution introduced many Muslims to the novel idea that there was a conflict between their faith and their secular loyalties.
When Britain made war on Ottoman Turkey in 1915, a Cabinet memo fretted that "attacking the Caliphate might agitate our Mussulmans in Egypt and India".
In the event, of course, British Muslims volunteered happily to fight for the Crown, seeing no tension between their private devotion and their civic duties. Their sons and grandsons were, for the most part, equally patriotic. Yet today, some of their great-grandsons are crossing half the world to take up arms against British troops.
This is the poisonous ideology that we are fighting. Our chief purpose in defeating it should not be to restore the comity of nations, nor to bolster Muslim moderates, nor even to bring freedom to the long-suffering Iranian people - though all these would be happy side-effects. Our main object, rather, must be to forestall a nuclear attack.
A while back Andy mentioned having read about Iran having a jewish member of parliament. Quick bit of googling yielded this, which I thought might be of interest to other impdecers:
Lone Jewish MP confronts Ahmadinejad on Holocaust but stresses loyalty to Iran
Ewen MacAskill, Simon Tisdall and Robert Tait in Tehran
Wednesday June 28, 2006
The Guardian
Maurice Motamed has one of the loneliest jobs in the Middle East. When Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made his controversial Holocaust statements, the sole Jewish MP in Iran's 290-member Majlis (parliament) felt he had no option but to confront him.
"When our president spoke about the Holocaust, I considered it my duty as a Jew to speak about this issue," Mr Motamed said in his office in Tehran. "The biggest disaster in human history is based on tens of thousands of films and documents. I said these remarks are a big insult to the whole Jewish society in Iran and the whole world."
Mr Ahmadinejad, president of an overwhelmingly Muslim state, has not apologised. But Mr Motamed said the president had since qualified his statement by insisting that he had not denied the Holocaust and was not an anti-semite.
Mr Motamed represents Iran's 25,000-strong Jewish community, the largest such group in the Middle East outside Israel. Since 1906 Iran's constitution has guaranteed the Jewish community one seat in the Majlis. The Armenian, Assyrian and Zoroastrian minorities together hold a further four seats.
Although he took on Mr Ahmadinejad about the Holocaust, Mr Motamed supports the president on other issues, including the standoff with the US, Europe and Israel over the country's nuclear programme. "I am an Iranian first and a Jew second," he said.
Read on...
Time to welcome the latest blogger in the blogosphere:
www.ahmadinejad.ir
[link not working at the time of posting. But more info can be found here.]
Can't quite imagine the posts:
"Aug 14th. I really hate jews. Allah will smite them."
"Aug 13th. I really hate Israel. Allah will smite it"
etc. etc.
Or is gthat Mel Gibson's blog?
Andy just posted an article by Niall Ferguson, which I reckon is worthy of further quoting:
A coup, a riot, a UN rant-fest, and the world just stifles a yawn
By Niall Ferguson
Telegraph
24/09/2006
... Ahmadinejad's speech the day before was seriously scary. Sure, like Chávez he heaped scorn on President Bush, not to mention the UN Security Council. But whereas Chávez cites Chomsky, Ahmadinejad has evidently been reading the works of convicted Holocaust denier David Irving, recently imprisoned in Austria.
How else to explain the Iranian leader's crazy comments in last week's Time magazine interview? "As to the Holocaust," he said, "I just raised a few questions… Why only 6 million? And if it had happened, then … why do they not allow independent research? … They put in prison those who try to do research … Where did it take place?" Great. We have a Holocaust denier as President of Iran, a country with 10 times the population of Israel, 11 per cent of proved global oil reserves and a thinly veiled programme to build nuclear weapons.
It gets worse. Not enough media attention was paid to the peroration of Ahmadinejad's UN speech, which reiterated his belief – also expressed at the UN last September – in the imminent return of the Hidden Twelfth Imam, a paragon of virtue who Shi'ite Muslims believe will cleanse the earth of evil shortly before the End of Days. Get this: "I emphatically declare that today's world … longs for the perfect righteous human being and the real saviour who has been promised to all peoples and who will establish justice, peace and brotherhood on the planet. O, Almighty God … bestow upon humanity … the perfect human being promised to all by You, and make us among his followers and among those who strive for his return and his cause."
Come back Chomsky, all is forgiven.
Decision Time on Iran
by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun
October 31, 2006
As the Iranian government announced last week a doubling of its uranium enrichment program, the United Nations Security Council bickered over a feeble European draft resolution. It would do no more than prohibit Iranian students from studying nuclear physics abroad, deny visas for Iranians working in the nuclear area, and end foreign assistance for Iran's nuclear program, oh, except from Russia.
Where, one wonders, will the desultory, perpetual efforts to avert a crisis with Iran end? With a dramatic calling of the vote at the Security Council in New York? Around-the-clock negotiations with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna? A special envoy from the European Union hammering out a compromise in Tehran?
None of the above, I predict, for all these scenarios presume that Tehran will ultimately forego its dream of nuclear weaponry. Recent evidence suggests otherwise:
* Hostile statements provoking the West. Perhaps the most notable of these was President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's warning to Europe not to support Israel: "We have advised the Europeans that … the [Muslim] nations are like an ocean that is welling up, and if a storm begins, the dimensions will not stay limited to Palestine, and you may get hurt." Yet more outrageously, the chief of the judiciary, Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi, threatened the United States that it stands "on the threshold of annihilation."
* A mood of messianism in the upper reaches of the government. In addition to the general enthusiasm for mahdaviat (belief in and efforts to prepare for the mahdi, a figure to appear in the End of Days), reliable sources report that Ahmadinejad believes he is in direct contact with the Hidden Imam, another key figure of Shi'ite eschatology.
* The urgent nuclear program. Bolstered by the economic windfall from oil and gas sales, the regime since mid-2005 has at almost every turn adopted the most aggressive steps to join the nuclear club, notably by beginning nuclear enrichment in February.
A focused, defiant, and determined Tehran contrasts with the muddled, feckless Russians, Arabs, Europeans, and Americans. A half year ago, a concerted external effort could still have prompted effective pressure from within Iranian society to halt the nuclear program, but that possibility now appears defunct. As the powers have mumbled, shuffled, and procrastinated, Iranians see their leadership effectively permitted to barrel ahead.
Nonetheless, new ideas keep being floated to finesse war with Iran. Los Angeles Times columnist Max Boot, for example, dismisses an American invasion of Iran as "out of the question" and proffers three alternatives: threatening an economic embargo, rewarding Tehran for suspending its nuclear program, or helping Iranian anti-regime militias invade the country.
Admittedly, these no-war, no-nukes scenarios are creative. But they no longer offer have a prospect of success, for the situation has become crude and binary: either the U.S. government deploys force to prevent Tehran from acquiring nukes, or Tehran acquires them.
This key decision – war or acquiescence – will take place in Washington, not in New York, Vienna, or Tehran. (Or Tel Aviv.) The critical moment will arrive when the president of the United States confronts the choice whether or not to permit the Islamic Republic of Iran to acquire the Bomb. The timetable of the Iranian nuclear program being murky, that might be either George W. Bush or his successor.
It will be a remarkable moment. The United States glories in the full flower of public opinion with regard to taxes, schools, and property zoning. Activists organize voluntary associations, citizens turn up at town hall meetings, associations lobby elected representatives. But when it comes to the fateful decision of going to war, the American apparatus of participation fades away, leaving the president on his own to make this difficult call, driven by his temperament, inspired by his vision, surrounded only by a close circle of advisors, insulated from the vicissitudes of politics. His decision will be so intensely personal, which way he will go depends mostly on his character and psychology.
Should he allow a malevolently mystical leadership to build a doomsday weapon that it might well deploy? Or should he take out Iran's nuclear infrastructure, despite the resulting economic, military, and diplomatic costs. Until the U.S. president decides, everything amounts to a mere re-arranging of deck chairs on the Titanic, acts of futility and of little relevance.
------------
Iran Launches New Missiles
CBS
Nov. 3, 2006
Iran has successfully test fired three new models of missiles in the Persian gulf, state TV reported Friday. Television showed footage of the elite Revolutionary Guards firing the missiles from mobile launching pads on the shore, and from warships.
...
The Revolutionary Guards began maneuvers on Thursday, shortly after a U.S.-led military exercise in the Gulf. Iran test-fired dozens of missiles, including the Shahab-3 that can reach Israel, in military maneuvers that it said were aimed at putting a stop to the role of world powers in the Gulf region.
...
A senior Russian diplomat said Friday that Moscow will not back the European draft resolution on Iran at the U.N. Security Council, the Interfax news agency reported. Russia “won't support it in the shape it is now,” Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak said, according to Interfax. The five veto-wielding permanent council members — the U.S., Russia, China, Britain and France — were expected to discuss the proposed resolution this week at the United Nations. Both Moscow and Beijing have signaled their opposition.
The resolution, drawn up by Britain, France and Germany, orders all countries to prevent the sale and supply of material and technology that could contribute to Tehran's nuclear and missile programs. It imposes a travel ban and freezes the assets of people involved in these programs — and also orders countries to freeze the assets of companies and organizations involved in Iran's nuclear and missile programs. While the U.S. indicated it considers the draft too weak, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov suggested it was too strong.
Very interesting article from Pipes. In my opinion he's right on two counts: 1)that the UN and EU's feeble efforts to stop Iran's Nuclear program are confused and will ultimately be ineffective and 2) that stopping Iran by military action will be incredibly difficult and very painful for the West both politically and economically.
Back in August The Times economics writer, Anatole Kaletsky wrote a piece outlining the consequences of a pre-emptive strike on Iran and concluded that there could be no question of a military strike.
But if sanctions are doomed to failure, what about military options? As a last resort, couldn’t America or Israel stop the nuclear programme by threatening to bomb Iran? Sadly or happily (depending on your worldview), the answer is a very clear “no”. Militarily, America and Israel have now shot their bolts in Iraq and Lebanon respectively. They have neither the firepower nor the willpower to do anything to stop Iran’s nuclear programme — and even if they did have the capacity to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, they could not afford the risk of destabilising their other Middle Eastern interests even further by taking military action. Moreover, both America and Israel now understand that a bombing campaign that could not be backed by an infantry invasion would only reinforce the existing regime’s grip on power.
The last argument against a military strike, but by no means the least one, brings us back to the oil issue. If the US or Israel were to bomb Iran’s nuclear installations, Iran would have the strongest possible pretext to ramp up the oil price to $150 a barrel or higher by closing or restricting traffic in the Strait of Hormuz. Thus a military attack on Iran, just like economic sanctions, would increase the Government’s capacity to finance global terrorism and curry favour with the Iranian public. It would also cause potentially catastrophic disruption to the world economy when the American public is already turning against the Iraq adventure and Republicans face a potentially disastrous electoral defeat.
At least David Irving couldn't make it.
Iran defends Holocaust conference
BBC
Monday, 11 December 2006
From the Scotsman:
"A conference of the world's most prominent Holocaust deniers opened in Iran yesterday amid international condemnation and protests by dozens of Iranian students, who burned pictures of president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and chanted "death to the dictator".
Never has the hardline leader, who was giving a speech at a university in Tehran yesterday, faced such open hostility at home.
One student said the crowd was protesting against the "shameful" Holocaust conference - which was organised after Mr Ahmadinejad described the murder of six million Jews by Nazis a "myth" invented to justify the occupation of Palestinian land - and the "fact that many activists with student movements have not been allowed to attend university".
The conference "has brought to our country Nazis and racists from around the world", the activist added."
"Six Arab States Join Rush To Go Nuclear"
Daniel Pipes' Weblog
November 4, 2006
Those six states are Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. In all six cases, they are talking only of developing civilian nuclear energy programs, as international law permits that. But no one doubts that this sudden interest in nuclear power has military implications.
Mark Fitzpatrick of the International Institute for Strategic Studies assumes these states want a "security hedge" vis-à-vis Tehran. "If Iran was not on the path to a nuclear weapons capability you would probably not see this sudden rush." It also marks an abrupt reversal among states which until very recently had called for a nuclear-free Middle East, and for Israel to disarm.
Comment: One can't help but get a certain grim satisfaction from this development. It suggests that however much the Arabic-speaking leaders inveigh against Israel and its nuclear weapons, they know at base that not it but Iran threatens them. Or why, all these decades, would they not have responded in like fashion to Israel's well-known nuclear capability?
BBC Radio 4
Today Program
25/01/07
0750 Benjamin Netanyahu is calling for Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to face trial for incitement to genocide.
Listen | Permalink
Pithy video and a petition to sign:
Stand up to Ahmadinejad
An analysis by Whitney Raas and Austin Long of MIT into whether a hypothetical Israeli airstrike on Iranian nuclear facilities would be effective. Interesting conclusion.
Israeli Jets vs. Iranian Nukes
by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun
June 12, 2007
Original report:
Osirak Redux? Assessing Israeli Capabilities to Destroy Iranian Nuclear Facilities
JSL found this article and made this comment (why he couldn't have posted it himself is beyond me)
A letter from Iran: Don't preempt
By Mohammed Alireza
JPost.com » Opinion
Nov 5, 2007
Not a new argument, but its refreshing to see the ‘other side’ of Iran given some airtime in the western press. Through my work I speak to a few Iranian immigrants (although they claim they are Iranian through and through) on a weekly basis and this is very much the tone they adopt. Like everyone, they just want to make some cash and have a good time. Not at all interested in the bullshit they see on TV.
I agree with JSL that it's good to see this other side, and that most Iranians don't like their own regime much. But as I blogged in this very thread (Iran's Final Solution Plan, Daniel Pipes) the apocalyptic rhetoric from Iran did *not* begin with Ahmedinejad, and when your political opponents believe in the imminent return of their messiah (to the extent of widening roads in Teheran for his comeback parade) it's not wise to rely on MAD to get you out of a pickle.
The Unthinkable Consequences of an Iran-Israel Nuclear Exchange
Daniel Pipes' Weblog
November 21, 2007
Anthony Cordesman, a strategist at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, has estimated the consequences if Tehran gets the bomb and a nuclear exchange with Israel ensues. He expects, writes Martin Walker of United Press International,
some 16 million to 28 million Iranians dead within 21 days, and between 200,000 and 800,000 Israelis dead within the same time frame. The total of deaths beyond 21 days could rise very much higher, depending on civil defense and public health facilities, where Israel has a major advantage.
It is theoretically possible that the Israeli state, economy and organized society might just survive such an almost-mortal blow. Iran would not survive as an organized society. "Iranian recovery is not possible in the normal sense of the term," Cordesman notes. The difference in the death tolls is largely because Israel is believed to have more nuclear weapons of very much higher yield (some of 1 megaton), and Israel is deploying the Arrow advanced anti-missile system in addition to its Patriot batteries. Fewer Iranian weapons would get through.
Why such disparities in numbers? Because of differences in yield.
The biggest bomb that Iran is expected to have is 100 kilotons, which can inflict third-degree burns on exposed flesh at 8 miles; Israel's 1-megaton bombs can inflict third-degree burns at 24 miles. Moreover, the radiation fallout from an airburst of such a 1-megaton bomb can kill unsheltered people at up to 80 miles within 18 hours as the radiation plume drifts. (Jordan, by the way, would suffer severe radiation damage from an Iranian strike on Tel Aviv.)
Cordesman assumes that Iran, with less than 30 nuclear warheads in the period after 2010, would aim for the main population centers of Tel Aviv and Haifa, while Israel would have more than 200 warheads and far better delivery systems, including cruise missiles launched from its 3 Dolphin-class submarines.
The assumption is that Israel would be going for Iran's nuclear development centers in Tehran, Natanz, Ardekan, Saghand, Gashin, Bushehr, Aral, Isfahan and Lashkar A'bad. Israel would also likely target the main population centers of Tehran, Tabriz, Qazvin, Isfahan, Shiraz, Yazd, Kerman, Qom, Ahwaz and Kermanshah. Cordesman points out that the city of Tehran, with a population of 15 million in its metropolitan area, is "a topographic basin with mountain reflector. Nearly ideal nuclear killing ground."
Further, Cordesman expects that Israel would need to keep a "reserve strike capability to ensure no other power can capitalize on Iranian strike" and might target "key Arab neighbors"— Syria, Egypt, and the Persian Gulf states in particular.
Israel would have various options, including a limited nuclear strike on the region mainly inhabited by the Alawite minority from which come the ruling Assad dynasty. A full-scale Israeli attack on Syria would kill up to 18 million people within 21 days; Syrian recovery would not be possible. A Syrian attack with all its reputed chemical and biological warfare assets could kill up to 800,000 Israelis, but Israeli society would recover.
An Israeli attack on Egypt would likely strike at the main population centers of Cairo, Alexandria, Damietta, Port Said, Suez, Luxor and Aswan. Cordesman does not give a death toll here, but it would certainly be in the tens of millions. It would also destroy the Suez Canal and almost certainly destroy the Aswan dam, sending monstrous floods down the Nile to sweep away the glowing rubble. It would mean the end of Egypt as a functioning society.
Cordesman also lists the oil wells, refineries and ports along the Gulf that could also be targets in the event of a mass nuclear response by an Israel convinced that it was being dealt a potentially mortal blow. Being contained within the region, such a nuclear exchange might not be Armageddon for the human race; it would certainly be Armageddon for the global economy.
Walker concludes that Cordesman's analysis spells out "the end of Persian civilization, quite probably the end of Egyptian civilization, and the end of the Oil Age. This would also mean the end of globalization and the extraordinary accretions in world trade and growth and prosperity that are hauling hundreds of millions of Chinese and Indians and others out of poverty."
Comments: (1) Cordesman's projections continue the work of private individuals making available to the public what usually is the exclusive domain of intelligence services For another example pertaining to the Iranian nuclear program see the work of Whitney Raas and Austin Long, as summarized by me in "Israeli Jets vs. Iranian Nukes."
(2) If Cordesman's projections are at all accurate, they directly contradict the blithe assumptions of Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former Iranian president, who asserted in December 2001, concerning an exchange of nuclear weapons with Israel:
If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce minor damages in the Muslim world.
In other words, Rafsanjani was saying, an exchange would wipe out Israel's smaller population but leave Iran functioning. But Cordesman draws precisely the opposite conclusion. One hopes he is being heard by non-apocalyptic leaders in Tehran.
(3) Again, assuming his analysis is sound, the stakes in an Iran-Israel nuclear exchange are both far higher and of far more universal import (China, India, the global economy?) than usually imagined.
(4) Anyone still in favor of permitting the Iranians, who do have an apocalyptic leadership, to get nuclear weapons? (November 21, 2007)
Muslim Tories: 'Iran has right to nuclear arms'
Telegraph
20/10/2007
A body set up by David Cameron to advise the Conservatives on Muslim issues has criticised the Government's relationship with Israel and concluded that Iran has "legitimate" reasons for wanting nuclear weapons.
The Conservative Muslim Forum also wants the compulsory history curriculum in schools changed to give "full recognition to the massive contribution that Islam has made to the development of Western civilisation".
It also argues that preachers who advocate a rejection of democracy and its institutions should not be denied entry into Britain.
---------
Pithy comments on this from Melanie Phillips:
Britain’s terrible problem
October 19, 2007
Israelis 'rehearse Iran attack'
BBC News
20 June 2008
Israel has carried out an exercise that appears to have been a rehearsal for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, US officials have told the New York Times. More than 100 Israeli fighter jets took part in manoeuvres over the eastern Mediterranean and over Greece in the first week of June, US officials said.
more
Mediterranean Flyover: Telegraphing an Israeli Punch?
Stratfor Geopolitical Intelligence Report
June 23, 2008
By George Friedman
On June 20, The New York Times published a report saying that more than 100 Israeli aircraft carried out an exercise in early June over the eastern Mediterranean Sea and Greece. The article pointed out that the distances covered were roughly the distances from Israel to Iranian nuclear sites and that the exercise was a trial run for a large-scale air strike against Iran. On June 21, the British newspaper The Times quoted Israeli military sources as saying that the exercise was a dress rehearsal for an attack on Iran. The Jerusalem Post, in covering these events, pointedly referred to an article it had published in May saying that Israeli intelligence had changed its forecast for Iran passing a nuclear threshold — whether this was simply the ability to cause an explosion under controlled conditions or the ability to produce an actual weapon was unclear — to 2008 rather than 2009.
The New York Times article, positioned on the front page, captured the attention of everyone from oil traders to Iran, which claimed that this was entirely psychological warfare on the part of the Israelis and that Israel could not carry out such an attack. It was not clear why the Iranians thought an attack was impossible, but they were surely right in saying that the exercise was psychological warfare. The Israelis did everything they could to publicize the exercise, and American officials, who obviously knew about the exercise but had not publicized it, backed them up. What is important to note is that the fact that this was psychological warfare — and fairly effective, given the Iranian response — does not mean that Israel is not going to attack. One has nothing to do with the other. So the question of whether there is going to be an attack must be analyzed carefully.
The first issue, of course, is what might be called the “red line.” It has always been expected that once the Iranians came close to a line at which they would become a capable nuclear power, the Americans or the Israelis would act to stop them, neither being prepared to tolerate a nuclear Iran. What has never been clear is what constitutes that red line. It could simply be having produced sufficient fissionable material to build a bomb, having achieved a nuclear explosion under test conditions in Iran or having approached the point of producing a deliverable nuclear weapon.
Early this month, reports circulated that A.Q. Khan, the former head of Pakistan’s nuclear program who is accused of selling nuclear technology to such countries as Libya, North Korea and Iran, had also possessed detailed design specifications and blueprints for constructing a nuclear weapon small enough to be mounted on missiles available to North Korea and Iran. The blueprints were found on a computer owned by a Swiss businessman, but the reports pointedly said that it was not known whether these documents had been transferred to Iran or any other country. It was interesting that the existence of the blueprints in Switzerland was known to the United States — and, we assume, Israel — in 2006 but that, at this point, there was no claim that they had been transferred.
Clearly, the existence of these documents — if Iran had a copy of them — would have helped the Iranians clear some hurdles. However, as we have pointed out, there is a huge gap between having enriched uranium and having a deliverable weapon, the creation of which requires technologies totally unrelated to each other. Ruggedizing and miniaturizing a nuclear device requires specializations from materials science to advanced electronics. Therefore, having enriched uranium or even triggering an underground nuclear device still leaves you a long way from having a weapon.
That’s why the leak on the nuclear blueprints is so important. From the Israeli and American point of view, those blueprints give the Iranians the knowledge of precisely how to ruggedize and miniaturize a nuclear device. But there are two problems here. First, if we were given blueprints for building a bridge, they would bring us no closer to building one. We would need experts in multiple disciplines just to understand the blueprints and thousands of trained engineers and workers to actually build the bridge. Second, the Israelis and Americans have known about the blueprints for two years. Even if they were certain that they had gotten to the Iranians — which the Israelis or Americans would certainly have announced in order to show the increased pressure at least one of them would be under to justify an attack — it is unclear how much help the blueprints would have been to the Iranians. The Jerusalem Post story implied that the Iranians were supposed to be crossing an undefined line in 2009. It is hard to imagine that they were speeded up to 2008 by a document delivered in 2006, and that the Israelis only just noticed.
In the end, the Israelis may have intelligence indicating that the blueprints did speed things up, and that the Iranians might acquire nuclear weapons in 2008. We doubt that. But given the statements Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made over the years, the Israelis have to be planning based on worst-case scenarios. What the sum total of their leaks adds up to is an attempt to communicate widely that there is an increased urgency in dealing with Iran, based on intelligence that the Iranian program is farther along than previously thought.
The problem is the fact that the Israelis are communicating. In fact, they are going out of their way to communicate. That is extremely odd. If the Israelis were intending to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, they would want to be absolutely certain that as much of the equipment in the facilities was destroyed as possible. But the hard truth is that the heart of Iran’s capability, such as it is, does not reside in its facilities but in its scientists, engineers and technicians who collectively constitute the knowledge base of Iran’s nuclear program. Facilities can be replaced. It would take at least a generation to replace what we already regard as an insufficient cadre of expertise.
Therefore, if Israel wanted not simply to take out current facilities but to take Iran out of the nuclear game for a very long time, killing these people would have to be a major strategic goal. The Israelis would want to strike in the middle of the workday, without any warning whatever. If they strike Iran, they will be condemned widely for their actions. The additional criticism that would come from killing the workforce would not be a large price to pay for really destroying the Iranian capabilities. Unlike the Iraqi reactor strike in 1981, when the Israelis struck at night to minimize casualties, this strike against a more sophisticated program could not afford to be squeamish.
There are obviously parts of Iran’s nuclear capability that cannot be moved. There is other equipment that can be, with enough warning and with more or less difficulty, moved to unknown locations. But nothing would be easier to disperse than the heart of the program — the people. They could be moved out of harm’s way with only an hour’s notice. Therefore, providing warning that an attack was coming makes very little sense. It runs counter to basic principles of warfare. The Israelis struck the Osirak reactor in Iraq in 1981 with not the slightest hint of the attack’s imminence. That was one of the reasons it was successful. Telegraphing your punch is not very smart in these circumstances.
The Israelis have done more than raise the possibility that an attack might be launched in 2008. They have publicized how they plan to do it. Based on the number and type of aircraft involved in the exercise — more than 100 F-15 and F-16 fighter jets — one Israeli attack scenario could involve a third of Israel’s inventory of fourth-generation strike aircraft, including most of its latest-model F-15I Ra’am and F-16I Sufa fighter bombers. If Greece were the target in this exercise, then the equivalent distance would mean that the Israelis are planning to cross Jordanian airspace, transit through Iraq and strike Iran from that direction. A strike through Turkey — and there is no indication that the Turks would permit it — would take much longer.
The most complex part of the operation’s logistics would be the refueling of aircraft. They would have to be orbiting in Iraqi airspace. One of the points discussed about the Mediterranean exercise was the role of Israeli helicopters in rescuing downed flyers. Rescue helicopters would be involved, but we doubt very much they would be entering Iranian airspace from Israel. They are a lot slower than the jets, and they would have to be moving hours ahead of time. The Iranians might not spot them but the Russians would, and there is no guarantee that they wouldn’t pass it on to the Iranians. That means that the Israeli helicopters would have to move quietly into Iraq and be based there.
And that means that this would have to be a joint American-Israeli operation. The United States controls Iraqi airspace, meaning that the Americans would have to permit Israeli tankers to orbit in Iraqi airspace. The search-and-rescue helicopters would have to be based there. And we strongly suspect that rescued pilots would not be ferried back to Israel by helicopter but would either be sent to U.S. hospitals in Iraq or transferred to Israeli aircraft in Iraq.
The point here is that, given the exercise the Israelis carried out and the distances involved, there is no way Israel could do this without the direct cooperation of the United States. From a political standpoint in the region, it is actually easier for the United States to take out Iran’s facilities than for it to help the Israelis do so. There are many Sunni states that might formally protest but be quite pleased to see the United States do the job. But if the Israelis were to do it, Sunni states would have to be much more serious in their protestations. In having the United States play the role of handmaiden in the Israeli operation, it would appear that the basic charge against the United States — that it is the handmaiden of the Israelis — is quite true. If the Americans are going to be involved in a strike against Iran’s nuclear program, they are far better off doing it themselves than playing a supporting role to Israel.
There is something not quite right in this whole story. The sudden urgency — replete with tales of complete blueprints that might be in Iranian hands — doesn’t make sense. We may be wrong, but we have no indication that Iran is that close to producing nuclear weapons. Second, the extreme publicity given the exercise in the Mediterranean, coming from both Israel and the United States, runs counter to the logic of the mission. Third, an attack on Iran through Iraqi airspace would create a political nightmare for the United States. If this is the Israeli attack plan, the Americans would appear to be far better off doing it themselves.
There are a number of possible explanations. On the question of urgency, the Israelis might have two things in mind. One is the rumored transfer of S-300 surface-to-air missiles from Russia to Iran. This transfer has been rumored for quite a while, but by all accounts has yet to happen. The S-300 is a very capable system, depending on the variety (and it is unclear which variety is being transferred), and it would increase the cost and complexity of any airstrike against Iran. Israel may have heard that the Russians are planning to begin transferring the missiles sometime in 2008.
Second, there is obviously the U.S. presidential election. George W. Bush will be out of office in early 2009, and it is possible that Barack Obama will be replacing him. The Israelis have made no secret of their discomfort with an Obama presidency. Obviously, Israel cannot attack Iran without U.S. cooperation. The Israelis’ timetable may be moved up because they are not certain that Obama will permit an attack later on.
There are also explanations for the extreme publicity surrounding the exercise. The first might be that the Israelis have absolutely no intention of trying to stage long-range attacks but are planning some other type of attack altogether. The possibilities range from commando raids to cruise missiles fired from Israeli submarines in the Arabian Sea — or something else entirely. The Mediterranean exercise might have been designed to divert attention.
Alternatively, the Israelis could be engaged in exhausting Iranian defenders. During the first Gulf War, U.S. aircraft rushed toward the Iraqi border night after night for weeks, pulling away and landing each time. The purpose was to get the Iraqis to see these feints as routine and slow down their reactions when U.S. aircraft finally attacked. The Israelis could be engaged in a version of this, tiring out the Iranians with a series of “emergencies” so they are less responsive in the event of a real strike.
Finally, the Israelis and Americans might not be intending an attack at all. Rather, they are — as the Iranians have said — engaged in psychological warfare for political reasons. The Iranians appear to be split now between those who think that Ahmadinejad has led Iran into an extremely dangerous situation and those who think Ahmadinejad has done a fine job. The prospect of an imminent and massive attack on Iran could give his opponents ammunition against him. This would explain the Iranian government response to the reports of a possible attack — which was that such an attack was just psychological warfare and could not happen. That clearly was directed more for internal consumption than it was for the Israelis or Americans.
We tend toward this latter theory. Frankly, the Bush administration has been talking about an attack on Iran for years. It is hard for us to see that the situation has changed materially over the past months. But if it has, then either Israel or the United States would have attacked — and not with front-page spreads in The New York Times before the attack was launched. In the end, we tend toward the view that this is psychological warfare for the simple reason that you don’t launch a surprise attack of the kind necessary to take out Iran’s nuclear program with a media blitz beforehand. It just doesn’t work that way.
Iran missile test 'provocative'
BBC
9/7/08
The US and Israel have condemned Iran after it test-fired a long range missile capable of reaching Tel Aviv.
After 30 years, US to send diplomats to Iran
The Guardian 16 July 2008
The US is planning to establish a diplomatic presence in Tehran for the first time in 30 years, a remarkable turnaround in policy by president George Bush who has pursued a hawkish approach to Iran throughout his time in office.
The Guardian has learned that an announcement will be made in the next month to establish a US interests section in Tehran, a halfway house to setting up a full embassy. The move will see US diplomats stationed in the country.
The news comes at a critical time in US-Iranian relations. After weeks that have seen tensions rise with Israel conducting war games aimed at Iran and Tehran carrying out long-range missile tests, a thaw appears to be under way.
The White House announced today that William Burns, a senior state department official, is to be sent to Switzerland on Saturday to hear Tehran's response to a European offer aimed at resolving the nuclear standoff.
Burns is to sit down at the table with Iranian officials in spite of Bush repeatedly ruling out direct talks on the nuclear issue until Iran suspended its uranium enrichment progamme, a possible first step on the way to building a nuclear weapon capability.
A frequent complaint of the Iranians is that they want to deal direct with the Americans instead of its surrogates, Britain, France and Germany.
Bush has taken a hard line with Iran throughout the last seven years but, in the dying days of his administration, it is believed he is keen to have a positive legacy that he can point to.
The return of US diplomats to Iran is dependent on agreement by Tehran. But president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad indicated earlier this week that he is not against the opening of a US mission, saying Iran will consider favourably any request aimed at boosting relations between the two countries.
Obama Wins, Muslims Divided
by Daniel Pipes
Philadelphia Bulletin
November 12, 2008
Ali ibn Abi-Talib, the seventh-century figure central to Shiite Islam, is said to have predicted when the world will end, columnist Amir Taheri points out. A "tall black man" commanding "the strongest army on earth" will take power "in the west." He will carry "a clear sign" from the third imam, Hussein. Ali says of the tall black man: "Shiites should have no doubt that he is with us."
Barack Hussein in Arabic means "the blessing of Hussein." In Persian, Obama translates as "He [is] with us." Thus does the name of the presumptive American president-elect, when combined with his physical attributes and geography, suggest that the End of Times is nigh – precisely what Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been predicting.
full post published in the Obama thread
When I read this story I had to double check April Fools Day hadn't been moved to 25th December, but it alas it looks like it's true - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will deliver channel 4's alternative Christmas message.
"Channel 4 has opted to end the year on a controversial note by inviting the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to give the broadcaster's alternative Christmas message tomorrow.
But the channel has shied away from scheduling the president's address against the Queen's Christmas speech at 3pm. Unlike most years, it is not airing its alternative Christmas message at the same time as the Queen, but is instead scheduling Ahmadinejad's message at 7.15pm.
Channel 4 has said that the Muslim president, who has a hostile relationship with many western countries, will deliver a spiritual address that will feature a message of seasonal goodwill."
full report here
Liddle puts it well, as he often does:
Free speech for a tyrant – how very Channel 4
Rod Liddle
The Sunday Times
December 28, 2008
What a privilege it was to settle down with a glass of port after a traditional Christmas dinner, the logs crackling and spitting in the hearth, and enjoy President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s message to the nation on Channel 4. Christmas isn’t really Christmas for me unless I hear the unedited, unchallenged views of a despot, psychopath, maniac or bigot. It makes me feel slightly better about myself.
All the better, too, if it is someone with the brass neck of old Mahmoud. The subtext of his uplifting message (which he delivered, Boris Johnson fashion, tieless) was: Jesus Christ, were he alive today, would smite the Jews good and proper and also kick the expansionist Yankees.
It takes a certain nerve and chutzpah to invoke the messiah approvingly when Christ’s followers are relentlessly persecuted at home in Iran by, er, Mahmoud himself. Christians who have been unable to get the hell out of Ahmadinejad’s Islamist hellhole are routinely arrested, have their property confiscated and their churches closed; at least one evangelical preacher faces the death penalty for “proselytising” and “apostasy”. Ahmadinejad didn’t disclose what he thought Christ would have to say about that. Maybe he thinks he wouldn’t mind too much, all things considered.
Channel 4 presumably thought this was provocative and cutting-edge television – “edgy”, I believe, is the adjective they strive for these days. Pointing the camera at a random madman and letting him rant is thus “edgy”, although it requires nothing in the way of wit or thought on the part of the broadcaster. It is instead broadcasting of the most unchallenging nature.
I suppose that if this were 1937, Channel 4 would hand over the Christmas Day airwaves to Hitler for a burst of free propaganda (“If Christ were alive today he’d annex the Sudetenland, round up the Jews and invade Czechoslovakia. Happy Christmas.”). And when the outraged complaints flooded in, a Channel 4 executive would then defend it thus: “Hitler is the leader of a very large and politically significant nation, and it is important that the British people hear his views.” Absurd, you might think – but this is almost precisely how Dorothy Byrne, Channel 4’s head of news and current affairs, defended their Only Fools and Jihadis Christmas Special. Yes, Dot, love, it is important to hear what deranged tyrants like Mahmoud have to say – but it would be nice to ask him a question here or there, wouldn’t it?
Can you imagine, for even the briefest glimmering of a nanosecond, Channel 4 issuing a similar invitation to President George W Bush? It is unthinkable; it would not remotely occur to the executives. That said, it wouldn’t surprise me if the entire Channel 4 schedule next Christmas were handed over to President Barack Obama for a 24-hour love-in, with cameo appearances from Jesse Jackson, the relatives of Rosa Parks and so on.
Channel 4 still delivers the goods, more often than not, especially in its news and current affairs – which is why the Ahmadinejad stuff is so disappointing; a cheap shock that reveals nothing other than a dearth of imagination, an obvious political bias and a certain contempt for the viewer. The broadcaster’s bosses – Luke Johnson, who made his name flogging overpriced pizzas to the middle classes, and Andy Duncan, who made his name marketing margarine – have been pleading for more money from the public purse. But is it of value to the public? Channel 4 is indeed a peculiar and uncomfortable hybrid of the public and the private and, much like the BBC, seems utterly unsure of what a public service remit should require it to do. Too often it wishes to stretch boundaries simply for the sake of it – such as encouraging the appalling Gillian McKeith to poke around in people’s stools in You Are What You Eat. And then travelling even further around the U-bend with old Mahmoud. Edgy, huh?
Tehran launches its custard pie strikeFrom The Sunday Times
April 26, 2009
Dominic Lawson
If you attend a circus, you should expect to see a clown – and if you get into the ring with him, you shouldn’t be surprised if he throws custard pies at you. You look even more ridiculous than the clown, however, if you then adopt an expression of injured dignity and complain about the mess on your jacket.
Unfortunately, that is the position of Peter Gooderham, our ambassador to the United Nations, who (in the company of a number of other apparently affronted emissaries) walked out during the Iranian president’s address to last week’s UN summit on “anti-racism”. Even the ringmaster himself – the UN secretary-general – affected to be shocked by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s remarks that “following the second world war [the West] resorted to military aggression to make an entire nation homeless on the pretext of Jewish sufferings and sent migrants from Europe, the United States and other parts of the world in order to establish a totally racist state in occupied Palestine . . . They have committed themselves to defend those racist perpetrators of genocide”.
Ban Ki-moon, while sitting po-faced next to the Iranian president during the speech, later released a statement deploring Ahmadinejad’s “use of this platform to accuse, divide and even incite . . . At my earlier meeting with him I reminded the president that the UN General Assembly had adopted resolutions to revoke the equation of Zionism with racism and to reaffirm the historical facts of the Holocaust”.
Ban’s statement was as contrived as the walkout by our ambassador. The UN secretary-general had specifically invited the Iranian president to make the keynote address to the conference in Geneva. Given that a number of nations – the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Holland, Germany, Poland, Italy and Israel – had boycotted the event, in part because they had a pretty good idea of what the keynote speaker would make of his opportunity, Ban’s expressions of injured surprise were unconvincing.
Naturally the secretary-general’s bleating objections were not reported by IRNA, the official Iranian news agency; instead it published a back-up “historical” piece, which claimed that “the word ‘holocaust’ ... was originally coined to refer to a criminal incident in ancient Yemen committed by Jews who burnt alive a large group of chained and handcuffed men, women and children for their adherence to the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH). However, the bitter historical irony is that the word was later exploited by Zionists to establish a regime by building on the false claim that more than 6m Jews had been killed in Auschwitz ovens, thus triggering the sympathy of the western people”.
As far as Israel is concerned, the true irony is that Ahmadinejad’s speech was on the eve of its own Holocaust memorial day and also the 120th anniversary of the birth of Adolf Hitler. This concatenation of circumstances was encapsulated poignantly by the presence in Geneva of Elie Wiesel, the Auschwitz survivor and Nobel peace prize winner. In a corridor outside the conference centre this frail old man looked bewildered as he was confronted by members of the Iranian delegation repeatedly yelling at him: “Zio-Nazi! Zio-Nazi!”
One of the tragic aspects of all this is that a number of Iranians helped to save Jews during the Holocaust and Iran remains home to the largest Jewish community in the Middle East, outside Israel itself. After the failure of the Arab armies in their attempt to destroy Israel at birth in 1948, hundreds of thousands of Jews fled from riots and retribution in countries such as Egypt, Iraq and Syria; the people of Iran had never been involved in this conflict and did not seek to become so.
The government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, however, has observed how its Arab neighbours have long deflected internal anger at corrupt and incompetent administrations by blaming Israel – or “the Zionists” – for all the troubles that afflict them. That is why the anti-semitic forgery known as the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” (which purports to reveal the Jewish plot to rule the world) has had such wide currency throughout the Middle East; and in the text of Ahmadinejad’s Geneva speech you can see it almost quoted verbatim.
The cause of the Palestinians has been adopted by the Iranian government with equal cynicism: it cares nothing for their particular plight but understands that if it wants to challenge the Sunni regime of Saudi Arabia for leadership in the Middle East, then to appear as the vanguard of the struggle against “the Zionists” is a sure way of appealing to what we might call the Muslim street.
This was observed with great clarity by Victor Kattan, a Palestinian academic based in Britain, who reported in his blog from Geneva: “There was a clear attempt by the Iranian delegation at the UN to hijack the Palestinian event I was attending. They brought their own literature and leaflets with them in which they equated the Star of David with the Nazi swastika. Their literature was promptly removed by one of the Palestinian organisers . . . It was clear the Iranians had little if any interest in Palestine or its people . . . and they made little attempt to inquire about the situation in the occupied territories.”
If the Iranian government were entirely cynical, then Israel would have less cause to feel existentially threatened by Tehran’s clear intention to develop nuclear weapons. Given that Israel has scores of nuclear warheads, is Ahmadinejad actually crazy enough to invite the destruction of his own people by attempting a first strike against Tel Aviv?
Meir Javedanfar, author of The Nuclear Sphinx of Tehran: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the State of Iran, is possibly the right person to ask: he was born and brought up in Iran through the period of the Islamic revolution but now lives in Tel Aviv. Javedanfar tells me that he personally does not believe Iran would use nuclear weapons against Israel, but he adds that the very fact that Israelis have such a fear would have profoundly damaging consequences for national morale and the economy – many families would urge their children to emigrate, rather than live under the shadow of an Iranian nuclear capability. In other words: the Israeli government will not let it happen.
It is, after all, the case that Ahmadinejad has called for what he calls “the Zionist entity” to be “wiped from the pages of history” and that Iran supplies the openly anti-semitic Hezbollah with its missiles. It’s easy for us in Britain to say this is mere posturing: we’re not the ones who stand to be annihilated if it turns out to be more than that.
At the least it would have been good to see the British ambassador to the UN take to the platform to reject Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust-denying tirade face to face – as the Norwegian ambassador managed to do. Better still, we should have played no part at all in a farcical endeavour in which a conference sponsored by a UN human rights council boasting Saudi Arabia, China and Cuba as members takes over every five-star hotel in Geneva to pass 143 non-binding resolutions in favour of greater tolerance for diversity.
Such declarations have all the force of the 1936 Soviet constitution, promulgated by Comrade Stalin, whose article 125 guaranteed: “a) freedom of speech; b) freedom of the press; c) freedom of assembly, including mass meetings; d) freedom of street processions and demonstrations”.
Even if Ahmadinejad had not been invited to make the keynote speech in Geneva on his favourite topic, like so much of the UN’s activities this whole state-sponsored “anti-racism” process is a circus in which we pay to have custard pies pushed in our faces. It might even be funny – if it weren’t so tragic.
Rooting for Ahmadinejad
by Daniel Pipes
June 12, 2009
...
[T]he [Iranian] Spiritual Leader or rahbar, Ayatollah Khomeini until 1989 and since then Ali Hoseyni Khamene'i ... controls key institutions (foreign policy, the military, law enforcement, the justice system) of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In contrast, the president primarily concerns himself with the softer domains such as economics and education.
...
This means that whoever is elected president, whether Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or his main opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, will have limited impact on the issue that most concerns the outside world – Iran's drive to build nuclear weapons, which Khamene'i will presumably continue apace, as he has in prior decades.
Therefore, while my heart goes out to the many Iranians who desperately want the vile Ahmadinejad out of power, my head tells me it's best that he remain in office. When Mohammed Khatami was president, his sweet words lulled many people into complacency, even as the nuclear weapons program developed on his watch. If the patterns remain unchanged, better to have a bellicose, apocalyptic, in-your-face Ahmadinejad who scares the world than a sweet-talking Mousavi who again lulls it to sleep, even as thousands of centrifuges whir away.
And so, despite myself, I am rooting for Ahmadinejad.
Fascinating. Statistical analysis of the Iranian election "results" tells us there's a 199/200 chance that they've been manipulated.
The Devil Is in the Digits
Washington Post
Saturday, June 20, 2009
The Real Struggle in Iran and Implications for U.S. Dialogue
Strafor Geopolitical Intelligence Reports
June 29, 2009
By George Friedman
...
The key to understanding the situation in Iran is realizing that the past weeks have seen not an uprising against the regime, but a struggle within the regime. Ahmadinejad is not part of the establishment, but rather has been struggling against it, accusing it of having betrayed the principles of the Islamic Revolution. The post-election unrest in Iran therefore was not a matter of a repressive regime suppressing liberals (as in Prague in 1989), but a struggle between two Islamist factions that are each committed to the regime, but opposed to each other.
more...
Really interesting.
Hypothesizing on the Iran-Russia-U.S. Triangle
Stratfor Geopolitical Intelligence Report
August 10, 2009
By George Friedman
...
THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ: IRAN’S REAL NUCLEAR OPTION
The real nuclear option for Iran does not involve nuclear weapons. It would involve mining the Strait of Hormuz and the narrow navigational channels that make up the Persian Gulf. During the 1980s, when Iran and Iraq were at war, both sides attacked oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. This raised havoc on oil prices and insurance rates.
If the Iranians were to successfully mine these waters, the disruption to 40 percent of the world’s oil flow would be immediate and dramatic. The nastiest part of the equation would be that in mine warfare, it is very hard to know when all the mines have been cleared. It is the risk, not the explosions, which causes insurance companies to withdraw insurance on vastly expensive tankers and their loads. It is insurance that allows the oil to flow.
Just how many mines Iran might lay before being detected and bringing an American military response could vary by a great deal, but there is certainly the chance that Iran could lay a significant number of mines, including more modern influence mines that can take longer to clear. The estimates and calculations of minesweepers — much less of the insurers — would depend on a number of factors not available to us here. But there is the possibility that the strait could be effectively closed to supertankers for a considerable period. The effect on oil prices would be severe; it is not difficult to imagine this aborting the global recovery.
Iran would not want this outcome. Tehran, too, would be greatly affected by the economic fallout (while Iran is a net exporter of crude, it is a net importer of gasoline), and the mining would drive the Europeans and Americans together. The economic and military consequences of this would be severe. But it is this threat that has given pause to American and Israeli military planners gaming out scenarios to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. There are thousands of small watercraft along Iran’s coast, and Iran’s response to such raids might well be to use these vessels to strew mines in the Persian Gulf — or for swarming and perhaps even suicide attacks.
Notably, any decision to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities would have to be preceded by (among other things) an attempt to neutralize Iran’s mine-laying capability — along with its many anti-ship missile batteries — in the Persian Gulf. The sequence is fixed, since the moment the nuclear sites are bombed, it would have to be assumed that the minelayers would go to work, and they would work as quickly as they could. Were anything else attacked first, taking out the Iranian mine capability would be difficult, as Iran’s naval assets would scatter and lay mines wherever and however they could — including by swarms of speedboats capable of carrying a mine or two apiece and almost impossible to engage with airpower. This, incidentally, is a leading reason why Israel cannot unilaterally attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. They would be held responsible for a potentially disastrous oil shortage. Only the Americans have the resources to even consider dealing with the potential Iranian response, because only the Americans have the possibility of keeping Persian Gulf shipping open once the shooting starts. It also indicates that an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be much more complex than a sudden strike completed in one day.
...
Ticking Time Bomb
Standpoint September 2009
Emanuele Ottolenghi
How soon will Iran get a nuclear bomb? And what should the West do to prevent this scenario?
Before the US National Intelligence Agency published, in December 2007, its findings on Tehran's nuclear programme (NIE), few doubted that the Bush administration would eventually attack Iran's facilities. After all, several senior officials in the administration had explicitly repeated that "no option was off the table". Although they were sceptical of the diplomatic effort led by France, Germany and Britain to negotiate a deal with Tehran, they had given their support to a set of measures offered to Iran in June 2006 by the international community in exchange for a deal, only to see it rebuffed. An International Atomic Energy Agency report published in late November 2007 was extremely negative, so it was safe to assume that a showdown with the US was looming.
The American report was a game changer. It declared that Tehran had "halted its nuclear weapons programme" in autumn 2003. It suggested that Iran had suspended its military programme "primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran's previously undeclared nuclear work."
...
Last March, a German intelligence report was submitted to Germany's Constitutional Court to back the conviction of a German-Iranian businessman accused of supplying Iran with technology for its nuclear programme. The defence had cited the NIE to suggest that the transaction, which occurred in 2007, could not have been used to supply Iran's military programme, given that the latter had been halted four years before. The court upheld the conviction based on the intelligence, which contradicted the NIE — the weapons programme, the German spies said, had never been suspended. A more recent report, published in July in The Times, cited Western intelligence sources as suggesting that Iran had indeed halted its weapons programme in 2003 but only because by then it had been successfully completed.
If the report is accurate, it answers the question the NIE did not address. Iran stopped its nuclear weaponisation programme in 2003 because its strides had far outpaced the enrichment programme. The decision to suspend had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq or with the much-vaunted secret negotiations between the US and Iran that were ongoing in Paris at the time. It mattered little that IAEA inspectors had started snooping around the recently exposed nuclear installations. Rather, Iran had finished the weaponisation part of the programme before it had completed perfecting a delivery system and mastering the enrichment process.
Iran's decisions have never been influenced by offers and incentives. The only thing that has ever mattered to Tehran was time. The only reason Iran might still be willing to negotiate is again time: if it still needs time to complete its goal of nuclear weapons capability. US engagement will not change this. Iran can build a bomb, has been busy building one and has never even considered changing its mind.
...
Stratfor's analysis of the likelihood of military action against Iran has just taken a very dramatic turn.
----------------
Two Leaks and the Deepening Iran Crisis
Stratfor Geopolitical Intelligence Reports
October 5, 2009
By George Friedman
Two major leaks occurred this weekend over the Iran matter.
In the first, The New York Times published an article reporting that staff at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N. nuclear oversight group, had produced an unreleased report saying that Iran was much more advanced in its nuclear program than the IAEA had thought previously. According to the report, Iran now has all the data needed to design a nuclear weapon. The New York Times article added that U.S. intelligence was re-examining the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of 2007, which had stated that Iran was not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon.
The second leak occurred in the British paper The Sunday Times, which reported that the purpose of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s highly publicized secret visit to Moscow on Sept. 7 was to provide the Russians with a list of Russian scientists and engineers working on Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
...
Sanctions or war remain the two options, and which one is chosen depends on Moscow’s actions. The leaks this weekend have made clear that the United States and Israel have positioned themselves such that not much time remains. We have now moved from a view of Iran as a long-term threat to Iran as a much more immediate threat thanks to the Russians.
The least that can be said about this is that the Obama administration and Israel are trying to reshape the negotiations with the Iranians and Russians. The most that can be said is that the Americans and Israelis are preparing the public for war. Polls now indicate that more than 60 percent of the U.S. public now favors military action against Iran. From a political point of view, it has become easier for U.S. President Barack Obama to act than to not act. This, too, is being transmitted to the Iranians and Russians.
It is not clear to us that the Russians or Iranians are getting the message yet. They have convinced themselves that Obama is unlikely to act because he is weak at home and already has too many issues to juggle. This is a case where a reputation for being conciliatory actually increases the chances for war. But the leaks this weekend have strikingly limited the options and timelines of the United States and Israel. They also have put the spotlight on Obama at a time when he already is struggling with health care and Afghanistan. History is rarely considerate of presidential plans, and in this case, the leaks have started to force Obama’s hand.
JP I get the impression you're impatient for military action. Having some family connections to Iran I'm less thrilled by the prospect.
Don't relish the prospect, but in the absence of co-operation from Russia and China (and given the usual supine Europe) it looks like a straight choice between military action and acquiescence in a nuclear Iran (which will probably lead to a mass nuclear arming of the Middle East, the Arabs are terrified of a new Persian empire).
Only bad options are available it seems. Wonder what St. Obama's gonna do...?
I'll just give the intro and conclusion here. The middle bit is all about why sanctions almost never work, the conclusion explains why, despite this fact, so many are in favour of them in the case of Iran.
---------
Sanctions and Strategy
Stratfor Geopolitical Intelligence Report
November 23, 2009
By George Friedman
The Iranian government has rejected, at least for the moment, a proposal from the P-5+1 to ship the majority of its low-enriched uranium abroad for further enrichment. The group is now considering the next step in the roadmap that it laid out last April. The next step was a new round of sanctions, this time meant to be crippling. The only crippling sanction available is to cut off the supply of gasoline, since Iran imports 35 percent of its refined gasoline products. That would theoretically cripple the Iranian economy and compel the Iranians to comply with U.S. demands over the nuclear issue.
We have written extensively on the ability of sanctions to work in Iran. There is, however, a broader question, which is the general utility of sanctions in international affairs. The Iranian government said last week that sanctions don’t concern it because, historically, sanctions have not succeeded. This partly explains Iranian intransigence: The Iranians don’t feel they have anything to fear from sanctions. The question is whether the Iranian view is correct and why they would believe it — and if they are correct, why the P-5+1 would even consider imposing sanctions.
...
But sanctions have one virtue: They delay or block military action. So long as sanctions are being considered or being imposed, the argument can be made to those who want military action that it is necessary to give the sanctions time to work. Therefore, in this case, sanctions allow the United States to block any potential military actions by Israel against Iran while appearing domestically to be taking action. Should the United States wish to act, the sanctions route gives the Europeans the option of arguing that military action is premature. Furthermore, if military action took place without Russian approval while Russia was cooperating in a sanctions regime, it would have increased room to maneuver against U.S. interests in the Middle East, portraying the United States as trigger-happy.
The ultimate virtue of sanctions is that they provide a platform between acquiescence and war. The effectiveness of that platform is not nearly as important as the fact that it provides a buffer against charges of inaction and demands for further action. In Sudan, for example, no one expects sanctions to work, but their presence allows business to go on as usual while deflecting demands for more significant action.
The P-5+1 is now shaping its response to Iran. They are not even committed to the idea of sanctions. But they will move to sanctions if it appears that Israel or the United States is prepared to move aggressively. Sanctions satisfy the need to appear to be acting while avoiding the risks of action.
The Iranian Incursion in Context
Stratfor Geopolitical Intelligence Report
December 21, 2009
By George Friedman
A small number of Iranian troops entered Iraq, where they took control of an oil well and raised the Iranian flag Dec. 18.
…
Multiple sources have reported that Tehran ordered the incident. The Iranian government is aware that Washington has said the end of 2009 was to be the deadline for taking action against Iran over its nuclear program - and that according to a White House source, the United States could extend that deadline to Jan. 15, 2010.
That postponement makes an important point. The United States has treated the Iran crisis as something that will be handled on an American timeline. The way that the Obama administration handled the Afghanistan strategy review suggests it assumes that Washington controls the tempo of events sufficiently that it can make decisions carefully, deliberately and with due reflection. …
For Iran, just to accept that premise puts it at an obvious disadvantage. First, Tehran would have to demonstrate that the tempo of events is not simply in American or Israeli hands. Second, Tehran would have to remind the United States and Israel that Iran has options that it might use regardless of whether the United States chooses sanctions or war. Most important, Iran must show that whatever these options are, they can occur before the United States acts - that Iran has axes of its own, and may not wait for the U.S. axe to fall.
The incursion was shaped to make this point without forcing the United States into precipitous action. … [For] a while Washington was clearly at a loss, driving home the fact that the United States doesn't always respond quickly and efficiently to surprises initiated by the other side.
...
From the Iranian standpoint, Tehran faces a "use-it-or-lose-it" scenario. It cannot wait until the United States initiates hostilities. The worst-case scenario for Iran is waiting for Washington to initiate the conflict.
At the same time, the very complexity of an Iranian attack makes the United States want to think long and hard before attacking Iran. The opportunities for failure are substantial, no matter how well the attack is planned. And the United States can't allow Israel to start a conflict with Iran alone because Israel lacks the resources to deal with a subsequent Iranian naval interdiction and disruptions in Iraq.
...
IRANIAN PRE-EMPTION
The Iranians signaled last week that they might not choose to be passive if effective sanctions were put in place. Sanctions on gasoline would in fact cripple Iran, so like Japan prior to Pearl Harbor, the option of capitulating to sanctions might be viewed as more risky than a pre-emptive strike.
...
[W]hether the diplomatic or military route is followed, each side has two options. First, the Americans can accept Iran as a nuclear power, or Iran can accept that it must give up its nuclear ambitions. Second, assuming that neither side accepts the first option, each side must take military action before the other side does. The Americans must neutralize counters before the Iranians deploy them. The Iranians must deploy their counters before they are destroyed.
...
And so each waits, hoping the other side will back down. The events of the past week were designed to show the Americans that Iran is not prepared to back down. More important, they were designed to show that the Iranians also have a redline, that it is as fuzzy as the American redline and that the Americans should be very careful in how far they press, as they might suddenly wake up one morning with their hands full.
The Iranian move is deliberately designed to rattle U.S. President Barack Obama. He has shown a decision-making style that assumes that he is not under time pressure to make decisions. It is not clear to anyone what his decision-making style in a crisis will look like.
Some Common Sense in Egypt and Saudi Arabia
by Daniel Pipes
Jerusalem Post
December 23, 2009
Invited recently by the newly formed Pechter Middle East Polls to ask three questions of 1,000 representative Egyptians and 1,000 urban Saudis, the Middle East Forum focused on Iran and Israel, the countries that most polarize the region. The results are illuminating. Some Egyptians and Saudis support the idea of an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.
(Technical note: Respondents were interviewed face to face in Arabic, in their own homes using a structured questionnaire during November by a credible, private, local commercial company with a solid track record. The margin of error is ±3 percent.)
Iran: In today's Middle Eastern cold war, the Islamic Republic of Iran heads the revolutionary bloc, while the governments of Saudi Arabia and Egypt head the opposing status-quo bloc. How anxious are the Saudi and Egyptian populations of the Iranian nuclear weapons buildup? Pechter Polls asked two questions for MEF: "Assuming the Iranian government continues its nuclear enrichment program, would you support an Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear facilities?" and "How about an American strike against the Iranian nuclear facilities?"
In Egypt, 17 percent support an Israeli strike and 25 percent an American one. In Saudi Arabia, the figures, respectively, are 25 and 35 percent.
...
Israel: The Forum asked, "Islam defines the state of Egypt/Saudi Arabia; under the right circumstances, would you accept a Jewish State of Israel?" In this case, 26 percent of Egyptians and 9 percent of Saudi subjects answered in the affirmative.
more
Pipes calls on Obama to bomb Iran.
Sweet justice!
Google Earth reveals Star of David on roof of Iran Air HQ
JPost
11/30/2010
Building was constructed by Israeli engineers prior to Islamic Revolution; Iranian officials incensed, call for Jewish symbol's removal.
Parody this.
Iran claims London 2012 Olympics logo spells the word 'Zion'
Guardian
28/02/2011
Almost four years after the logo's launch, Tehran threatens to boycott the Games unless the design is changed
The latest:
Ahmadinejad allies charged with sorcery
Guardian
5 May 2011
Close allies of Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have been accused of using supernatural powers to further his policies amid an increasingly bitter power struggle between him and the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Several people said to be close to the president and his chief of staff, Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, have been arrested in recent days and charged with being "magicians" and invoking djinns (spirits). Ayandeh, an Iranian news website, described one of the arrested men, Abbas Ghaffari, as "a man with special skills in metaphysics and connections with the unknown worlds
...
---------
Some background:
Ahmadinejad’s Apocalyptic Faith
FrontPageMagazine
August 17, 2006
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has clearly indicated that he is a true believer in this faith. It has been reported that he has told confidants that he anticipates the immanent return of the Mahdi. When he previously served as Mayor of Tehran, he advocated for widening the roads to accommodate the Mahdi’s triumphal entry into the city. One of his first acts of office as President was to dedicate approximately $20 million to the restoration and improvement of the mosque at Jamkaran, where the Mahdi is claimed to dwell.
This personal belief directs his official policies as President. He has publicly said, “Our revolution’s main mission is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi. We should define our economic, cultural and political policies on the policy of the Imam Mahdi’s return.”
However, Ahmadinejad’s messianism doesn’t stop with the Mahdi. In fact, he has made it clear that he believes he has personally received a divine appointment to herald the imminent arrival of the Mahdi, tacitly acknowledging his own role in setting aright the problems of the world.
His belief in a personal divine appointment was best confirmed after his speech to the United Nations last September, which was laden with references to the Mahdi. Upon his return to Iran, he met with Ayatollah Javadi-Amoli, where the two discussed an alleged paranormal occurrence while Ahmadinejad spoke wherein he related to the cleric:
"On the last day when I was speaking, one of our group told me that when I started to say 'Bismillah Muhammad,' he saw a green light come from around me, and I was placed inside this aura. I felt it myself. I felt that the atmosphere suddenly changed, and for those 27 or 28 minutes, all the leaders of the world did not blink. When I say they didn't move an eyelid, I'm not exaggerating. They were looking as if a hand was holding them there, and had just opened their eyes – Alhamdulillah!"
Just watching a very irritating debate on Question Time about the stance the UK ought to take on Iran's search for a nuclear bomb. The questioner asked why a nuclear Iran should bother us, when a nuclear Israel does not.
What many in the QT audience don't seem able to grasp, but Arab neighbours in the region clearly do, is that Israel would only use nuclear weapons for defence, whereas the Iran is an aggressive and expansionist threat. The clearest evidence for this is that, although Israel has been nuclear armed for decades, the Arab world is only *now* rushing to similarly arm themselves - it's an Iranian Bomb that bothers them, not a Zionist one.
----------
Iran Has Started a Mideast Arms Race
23/3/2009
By Amir Taheri
Wall Street Journal
...
Make no mistake: The Middle East may be on the verge of a nuclear arms race triggered by the inability of the West to stop Iran's quest for a bomb. Since Tehran's nuclear ambitions hit the headlines five years ago, 25 countries -- 10 of them in the greater Middle East -- have announced plans to build nuclear power plants for the first time.
The six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates [UAE] and Oman) set up a nuclear exploratory commission in 2007 to prepare a "strategic report" for submission to the alliance's summit later this year. But Saudi Arabia is not waiting for the report. It opened negotiations with the U.S. in 2008 to obtain "a nuclear capacity," ostensibly for "peaceful purposes."
Egypt also signed a nuclear cooperation agreement, with France, last year. Egyptian leaders make no secret of the fact that the decision to invest in a costly nuclear industry was prompted by fears of Iran. "A nuclear armed Iran with hegemonic ambitions is the greatest threat to Arab nations today," President Hosni Mubarak told the Arab summit in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia two weeks ago.
Last November, France concluded a similar nuclear cooperation accord with the UAE, promising to offer these oil-rich lands "a complete nuclear industry." According to the foreign ministry in Paris, the French are building a military base close to Abu Dhabi ostensibly to protect the nuclear installations against "hostile action," including the possibility of "sensitive material" being stolen by terrorist groups or smuggled to Iran.
...
Very good summary. This is not the Cold War, MAD does not apply.
Eight Reasons Why Containment Is Not an Option Against a Nuclear Iran
Gatestone Institute
by Yaakov Lappin
September 4, 2012
Post a Comment