quote:

---

There is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other governments with nuclear weapons. This difference is expressed in what can only be described as the apocalyptic worldview of Iran's present rulers. This worldview and expectation, vividly expressed in speeches, articles and even schoolbooks, clearly shape the perception and therefore the policies of Ahmadinejad and his disciples.

---

I'd like to see some evidence of this apocalyptic worldview. No doubt there are the usual blatherings about martyrdom, etc, which are a part of the religion, but I've never seen anything that indicates that the leadership of Iran believes the world is ending soon. But even if it did, we all know that there is substantial support for this same view in the Bush administration and in significant populations all throughout the United States, yet nobody in the mainstream media ever suggests that this makes them more likely to use their nukes. Why does one apocalyptic crowd threaten the existence of life on earth (while not actually having any nukes yet), but another apocalyptic crowd pose no threat at all (despite having hundreds of nuclear weapons ready to go off at a moments notice that can reach anywhere on the globe)? Can there be anything other than simple prejudice that creates such a broad distinction in the authors head?

quote:

---

Even in the past it was clear that terrorists claiming to act in the name of Islam had no compunction in slaughtering large numbers of fellow Muslims.

---

It is equally obvious that people running the US government had no compunction in slaughtering fellow Christians, as they did during decades of interference in Central and South America, funding death squads, etc. The truth is that powerful people don't generally have any compunction about slaughtering innocents of any stripe or creed, and the Iranian goverment (who the author is disingenuously conflating with extremist terrorist cells) has not shown one tenth of the tendency towards indicriminate violence that the US has. This may be a case of simple opportunity, and I would never be caught saying that it proves that Iranians are better people, but given this, you can hardly make a case that they're worse.

quote:

---

The second deterrent--the threat of direct retaliation on Iran--is, as noted, already weakened by the suicide or martyrdom complex that plagues parts of the Islamic world today, without parallel in other religions, or for that matter in the Islamic past. This complex has become even more important at the present day, because of this new apocalyptic vision.

---

If this is true, why are they waiting for nukes at all? For a country that cares nothing for its own personal safety and is just waiting for the chance to go up in a firey ball, it is surprisingly passive. Iran has a powerful and well trained military, but still has attacked precisely none of its neighbours. Strange behaviour from people with a martyr complex. The fact is, they have shown no behaviour that justifies this outlandish accusation. They are cautious in their movements and have refused to be goaded into conflict despite repeated attempts by the current US leadership to paint them as monsters and create an adversarial relationship. If they bore any resemblence to the stereotype promoted by this article their history would one of constant aggression. Instead it is a history of constant defense, resisting invasions and insurrections, mostly instigated from Washington. The facts don't fit the author's fantasy.

quote:

---

It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind.

---

No, it would be preposterous to bear the possibility in mind. Iran is still trying to enrich unranium but this guy figures they'll have a missile ready to wipe out the state of Israel by the end of the month. If they were anywhere near such a feat, they would have had a bomb test already, and the whole world would know it. This is hysterical ranting.

quote:

---

In this context, mutual assured destruction, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, would have no meaning. At the end of time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter will be the final destination of the dead--hell for the infidels, and heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint; it is an inducement.

---

People have made these exact same arguments regarding the current US leadership, but their actual behaviour, while violent and foolish and criminal, belies such grand pronouncements. Bushco is looking to the future in their own demented way, and it's clear they don't think the world is ending or they'd just say damn the torpedoes already. The behaviour of the Iranian leadership shows even less reason to be concerned. They already have significant destructive capability and have done nothing at all with it. It is the height of lunacy to suggest that as soon as they get nuclear weapons that they'll suddenly turn into the national eqivalent of a suicide bomber. I don't want them to have the bomb, but if they do I don't expect them to use it any differently than the weapons they already have, which is to say not at all.

TimeCNN poll - 59 percent of Americans say they believe that events predicted in the Book of Revelation will come to pass.

"Left Behind" series of apocalyptic Christian novels sell over 62 million copies.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)gives commencement address at Rev. Jerry Falwell's Liberty University May-2006.

to give some context, here is what Dick Cheney has to say about Bernard Lewis: "...in this new century, his wisdom is sought daily by policymakers, diplomats, fellow academics, and the news media." Lewis is the individual who coined the 'clash of civilizations' phrase later popularised by Samuel Huntington, and is a zionist who propounds the view that the Arab states must look to Israel and Turkey as democratic examples (military coups, human rights violations wrt the treatment of minorities such as Armenians, Kurds, Palestinians, and violations of international law notwithstanding i suppose - i had the opportunity to hear Lewis lecture once, and found his perspectives quite repugnant myself.)

i've added a link to an interesting piece on Lewis from Counterpunch: http://www.counterpunch.org/alam06282003.html

[ 09 August 2006: Message edited by: zizou ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
The Iranian president's role during the Iran-Iraq war was as head of the suicide brigades.

---

Suicide bombings are an expression of nationalism & the desire for national survival, not the desire for national destruction.

~~

They're an example of the individual putting the survival of the nation ahead of their own personal survival.

~~

If you mean to assert from this factoid that the president of Iran would use a nuclear weapon to attempt a mammoth "suicide of the nation", you could not be more wrong. That's the opposite conclusion to take.

~~