Iran’s Uranium Mullahs, Again
I was on a local radio show Wednesday morning discussing the column I wrote ten days ago on Iran’s nuclear quest. (See the concluding graf quoted at the end of this post).
What to do about Iranian nuclear brinkmanship?
Timothy Garton Ash blusters in the Guardian. He hits the cultural awareness and strategic threat issues, but fails to come to grips with how to foster internal regime change.
What a stunning example of leftish “process” fixation. Ash says we need to “share information” and reach a “common analysis.” Well, yeah. He does have the cast of charcters right, and I agree with his assessment of Iran’s internal power relationships. It’s a jigsaw of tyranny and terror.
Ash:
We need to share all this information and reach a common analysis. And before we take any step in the diplomatic dance, we need to ask ourselves two questions: how will this affect the Iranian regime, and how will it affect Iranian society? The regime is complex. Ahmadinejad is the president, but not the ultimate boss. The boss of this theocratic regime is the supreme leader, Ayatollah Khameini. Without his say-so, the nuclear seals would not have been broken. But he is constrained by strong interest groups, such as the Revolutionary Guards, and by other ayatollahs, such as the president’s fudamentalist guru, Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi.
Remember, nuclear weapons aren’t the real problem here. It’s the character, psychology, and aims of the men seeking them.
Daniel Pipes’ Jerusalem Post essay (via rcp) focuses attention on Tehran’s chief nut, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. At a high school basketball game not too long ago an Iranian-American friend of mine told me about an article he had read in the Iranian press where Ahmadinejad said he “glowed with a halo” after delivering his speech at the UN. “It’s in Farsi,” my friend said.
Well, it’s in English now (and has been for a couple of weeks). Here’s how it appears in Pipes’ article:
On returning to Iran from New York, Ahmadinejad recalled the effect of his UN 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.
The man is “mahdi” mad. Pipes explains:
Thanks to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, a new word has entered the political vocabulary: mahdaviat.
Not surprisingly, it’s a technical religious term. Mahdaviat derives from mahdi, Arabic for “rightly-guided one,” a major figure in Islamic eschatology. He is, explains the Encyclopedia of Islam, “the restorer of religion and justice who will rule before the end of the world.”
The concept originated in the earliest years of Islam and, over time, became particularly identified with the Shi’ite branch. Whereas “it never became an essential part of Sunni religious doctrine,” continues the encyclopedia, “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.
Mahdaviat means “belief in and efforts to prepare for the Mahdi.”…
Yes, he will soon have a bomb.
I’ll also call attention to an article by John Keegan appearing in today’s Daily Telegraph.
Keegan argues that Iran is a bigger nuclear threat than Saddam was (though we know this through hindsight):
Iran, moreover, does not seek such weapons for psychological reasons. It wants them for practical purposes, including, according to a statement by its new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a former revolutionary guard, to “wipe Israel from the map”. Islamic extremists are, of course, given to blood-curdling rhetoric. Nevertheless, Iran’s record must cause not only the West but all Iran’s neighbours to take the threat seriously.
But what do we do, Mr. Keegan? Keegan says:
the West cannot simply let things drift. Military action by whatever agency cannot be written out, but will be a last resort. In the meantime, all means short of military action, including economic and political ostracism and economic sanctions, must be tried, together with the building of alternative oil pipelines to bypass the current routes of oil supply down the Gulf. And, of course, the intensification of anti-terrorist measures.
For if the West is considering military action, so are the ayatollahs. They are the sponsors of much of the insurgency in Iraq and suppliers of the insurgents’ weapons. They also have intimate links with most of the world’s worst terrorist organisations, including al-Qa’eda and Hezbollah. Iranians may well be the missing link for which MI5 is searching behind the July 7 bombings in London.
I think the best strategic response is to play to the mullahs’ biggest fear– internal democratic revolt, fostered by concerted international overt, covert, economic, and political action. Iran is the place where the people can do it.
I’ll stick with the concluding graf from my column:
The real solution is regime change in Tehran. The EU and the United States have talked about supporting the mullahs’ political opponents, but they have not walked that walk with sufficient financial aid, political support, media support and — yes, it may be necessary — weapons. Iran’s tyrants believe they can finesse diplomatic discourse and ride out a military strike. They fear they cannot quell a popular, pro-democracy rebellion.
UPDATE: Berlin, Paris, and London say the EU-Iran talks have reached a “dead end.”
The Evil Mullah Regime (EMG) has got to go, whether through revolution or evolution. And evolution certainly seems to be taking it’s sweet time about it. BTW, it’s National De-Lurkers Week: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2006/01/national-de-lurkers-week.html
Comment by Consul-At-Arms — 1/12/2006 @ 9:55 am
Iran’s Uranium Mullahs, Again HT Col Austin Bay AMEN BROTHER BAY! ***** I was on a local radio show Wednesday morning discussing the column I wrote ten days ago on Iran’s nuclear quest. (See the concluding graf quoted at the end of th…
Trackback by Rocket's Brain Trust — 1/12/2006 @ 10:06 am
The people of Iran certainly deserve to be free of the mad mullahs - however, the population seems as determined as the rulers to be a nuclear power. Perhaps democratically elected leadership would be less belligerent toward Israel, but I wouldn’t count on it. Israel and Jew-bashing appears to be the most popular hobby in much of the Middle East. Even if a miracle were to occur, and Iran and Israel became friends, a ‘Shia bomb’ in Iran will probably spark a nuclear arms-race w/in the region; the Saudis will want to have the first Sunni bomb.
Comment by Jean — 1/12/2006 @ 10:12 am
What To Do About Iran? Austin Bay has a thorough post, which concludes with a paragraph from an earlier column:
Trackback by Myopic Thoughts — 1/12/2006 @ 10:13 am
It’s funny how there’s never a “no nukes” demonstration around when you might actually need one.
Comment by Ian — 1/12/2006 @ 10:29 am
Stop Or I’ll Say Stop Again And now finally the foreign ministers of Germany, France and Britain, hopefully one out of the three awake, will meet in Berlin to discuss the crisis caused by Iran’s move to reactivate a nuclear fuel program ‘mothballed’ under a November 2004 deal …
Trackback by All Things Beautiful — 1/12/2006 @ 11:07 am
President Bush has made the military doctrine of pre-emptive strike the central tenet of his war on terror. And clearly, the autocratic regime in Iran is a worthy candidate for this doctrine given the ranting and raving of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And historically a pre-emptive strike has been demonstrated as an effective military option in the Middle East as when Israel bombed the construction site of a nuclear facility in Osirik in Iraq. Iran is clearly not going to break down under economic sanctions. It has a windfall of 36 billion dollars in oil profits when the price of crude oil skyrocketed from the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Even Ali Sistani, the spiritual leader of the Shiites in southern Iraq, has repeatedly wared the Iranians not to interfere in the internal politics of the newly elected government in Iraq. And Iran has complained to the UN about the clandestine operation of unmannered US drones repeatedly violating Iranian air space. America is employing the drone to get real-time grids of potential targets with Iraq. Clearly we are approaching the edge of the abyss in this drama between America and Iran. Europe has been neutralized as an honest broker between America and Iran, because its political leaders know only appeasement rather than honest and necessary confrontation. Here I am alluding to President Putin’s pre-emptive economic strike against the democracy of the Ukraine in which he cut off gas to the Ukraine and distributed its flow to other European nations. Clearly Putin was using the gas pipeline as a blunt instrument of economic war against the Ukrainians. The European laeaders response was harsh language of condemnation and the usual hand-wringing. But Putin exercised his emerging nationalism after having consolidating power around him in Russia with quasi-dictatorial powers. And given President Bush’s stubborn nature and despite all the criticism at home surrounding the invasion and occupation of Iraq, I think that a bombing campaign is being prepared as America’s fallback position when the Security Council offers little more than harsh language and ineffective economic samctions against Iran. And the Bush administration is still chargined at the UN refusing to authorize the subsequent invasion of Iraq. And Iran knows that the American forces are bogged down in Iraq. And it has repeatedly warned the United States that an invasion of Iran would be “strategic blunder.” So an air campaign, using cruise missles and followed up by a mop-up operation of air sorties with jet fighters, seems to be a real option for the Bush administration, given its doctrine of pre-emptive strikes. So air strikes, “Shock and Awe Lite,” seems a realistic alternative. Of course, no one really knows where all this would end. Perhaps, contrary to most observations and commentaries on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we are historically in a time frame of these regional wars spinning further out of control and coming closer to what could be termed a larger, global war. Then all bets are off, and as Peter Seller’s character, Dr. Strangelove said, “My Furher, I can valk!” Ladies and Gentlemen follow the bouncing ball on the screen and sing along to the lyrics: We’ll met again/don’t know where/don’t know when.”
Comment by George Hoffman — 1/12/2006 @ 11:20 am
All Things Beautiful TrackBack Stop Or I’ll Say Stop Again
Comment by Alexandra — 1/12/2006 @ 11:23 am
Pakistan already has the first Sunni bomb. Iran is only a tiny bit more arab than Pakistan.
Comment by nittypig — 1/12/2006 @ 11:26 am
More than that is required. Iran’s regime will not hesitate to crush rebellion. We’ve learned from Iraq and Cuba and N Korea that sanctions and internal dissent will not bring down a strong regime determined to hold on to power. We’ve also learned in Kosovo (though sadly, did not apply the lesson in Rwanda) that the world will support military action to stop a regime from mass-murdering civilians. And we learned from the Taliban’s refusal to turn over Osama that pragmatic self-preservation generally takes second place to religious zealotry when you’re dealing with theocrats. When revolution happens, the U.S. will need to step in on behalf of the revolutionaries, with or without international support at the outset. Otherwise, we’ll just see a repeat of Saddam’s 1991 slaughter of the Shia uprising. Once the revolution is over, there will be ample evidence at hand to demonstrate the rightness of having done so.
Comment by TallDave — 1/12/2006 @ 11:47 am
I’m not sure Iran’s current disregard for international admonitions qualifies as “Traditional” Nuclear Brinksmanship. Do not be mistaken by unwitting appeasers, Iran’s nuclear program is a form of State Sponsored Terrorism. I for one am terrified by the prospect of Ayatollah A-Bomb’s and Iranian ICBM’s destined for Israel and other Infidels…aren’t you??? Indeed I believe the situations surrounding Tehran’s current effort at unilateral diplomatic Rejectionism through State Sponsored WMD Terrorism is vastly more dangerous than any previous nuclear brinksmanship because it lacks both balance and perspective a potentially deadly combination especially as time progresses. First, we possess no effective counter-weight to temper their aggression short of a Multi-lateral concerted pre-emptive war aimed at regime change. Iran is already diplomatically, economically and militarily isolated. Iran has already lived under the umbrella of International sanctions for over 25 years and has not once been dissuaded from the ruthless pursuit of its campaign of terror against Israel and the west. The Iranian Nuclear Program may be too large, too disperse, too well dug-in and too heavily defended to be sufficiently susceptible to strategic air strikes. Furthermore, we lack a relevant historical paradigm to formulate our response since the Islamist Mullahs differ dramatically from Soviet Apparatchiks. Tehran’s desired end state, and their world view both differ radically from our own as well as from those of all our previous adversaries save one, Osama Bin Ladden. During the Cold War (WWIII) Nuclear Brinksmanship operated as a strategic impetus for both the Free World and Communist Block as each side related to the other through shifting paradigms of détente and realpolitik to achieve their respective objectives. However, throughout this 50 year struggle neither side fundamentally believed in an apocalyptic world view or necessarily premised their continued survival on the total elimination of their opponent. Indeed throughout the entire history of our Nation’s armed conflicts the same could be said for the Nazis and Imperial Japan, or the Hohenzollerians and Hapsburgs, or the Spanish, or the CSA or the British or the French. Iran has nothing to lose by pursuing its nuclear ambitions and thumbing its nose at the Illustrious International Community with its feigned opprobrium. After all Iran has most of the west targeted for extermination because our annihilation is fundamentally necessary for them to establish their Islamist Caliphate. It is in these ways that the Iranian State Sponsored WMD Terrorism isn’t the same as Nuclear Brinksmanship. Words and half way measures are no longer sufficient to subdue this beast now brazenly emboldened by a mix of our weakness and their apocalyptic delusions of grandeur.
Comment by TheMarine — 1/12/2006 @ 11:50 am
I agree with the airstrikes scenario. Although somehow, I don’t think we’re planning to occupy Iran.
Comment by azlibertarian — 1/12/2006 @ 11:53 am
I agree with the airstrikes scenario. But somehow, I’ve got the feeling that we’re not planning to occupy Iran.
Comment by azlibertarian — 1/12/2006 @ 11:56 am
What are the Saudis going to do about this? Do you think they are in intense negotiations with Pakistan or NK right now?
Comment by ElamBend — 1/12/2006 @ 11:59 am
Wonders Never Cease? Lots of stuff going on today in regards to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. A quick rundown: In light of US demands for a vote by the IAEA to send Iran to the Security Council for its nuclear cheating, Russia has made
Trackback by Weapons of Mass Destruction — 1/12/2006 @ 12:09 pm
Dear God. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a madman.
Comment by HaroldHutchison — 1/12/2006 @ 12:32 pm
I’m not sure an extensive occupation is necessary. Iran has a functioning civil society, unlike pre-invasion Iraq. We’d just need to deal with the unelected mullahs, the secret police, and the loyalist army factions. 20,000 troops with air support could accomplish that. Really, we’d just be moving them from faux democracy to real democracy.
Comment by TallDave — 1/12/2006 @ 12:44 pm
This site seems to have some insiders - I got a bunch of hard info before I could find it on Google - saw the IAEA statement, the State Department statement, and the EU-3 statement that FINALLY Iran is going to the Security Council! Just something to complement with everything floating around here.
Comment by Amy — 1/12/2006 @ 12:44 pm
[…] Politics, Middle East/Terrorism at 11:00 am by Terresa Monroe-Hamilton Courtesy of Austin Bay: I was on a local radio show Wednesday morning discussing the column I wrote ten days ago on Iran’ […]
Pingback by NoisyRoom.net » Iran’s Uranium Mullahs, Again — 1/12/2006 @ 1:00 pm
I expect increasing sabre-rattling from the US and from Israel, with the intent of drumming up support amongst the Iranian people for a democratic coup. If the people have a choice: support the coup and live free, or support the hated mullahs and die oppressed, a coup’s chances will be that much better. Also, given the track record from the initial invasion of Iraq, it appears that Special Ops are very good indeed at identifying and co-opting local commanders. If they can do that again - and I do hope they’re working on it - a coup could reach a favorable tipping point a lot quicker than we think.
Comment by ras — 1/12/2006 @ 1:26 pm
All the blathering about helping the oppressed Iranians ignores the fact that Ahmad-the- wacko was installed in an election at least as legitimate as one finds in China(actually, more), Russia, Iraq(and, of course, they have to leech off the American taxpayer and our 21st century Hessians to pull off anything resembling same), Western Europe(’We’ll keep voting on that EU ‘constitution’ until you rabble get it right’)and some jurisdictions in the US(Cook Co. Il, Manhatten, etc.). Mo-the-nut-case(and he is-but that in itself doesn’t make it the US’s business) is where he is because of the ‘Iranian people’ and it’s solely up to them and their own resources to deal with him until he actually attacks the interests of another country(and it’s got to be an attack against the US’s interests-and no other country at all-that justifies any involvment by the US). If they can get rid him on their own merits, then they may well be the first Moslem society worthy of respect, instead of contempt, disgust and being laughed at.Don’t hold your breath on that. Finally, anyone who wasn’t deluded by the fevers of permanent revolution(’Ledeen’s plague’)knew that Iran was a far more realistic developer of nuclear technology-they’ve only got the single handi- cap(huge as it is) of being Muslim, while Iraq is Muslim AND Arab, aka the consise defi- nition of ‘the failure of the human race’.
Comment by shutupneocon — 1/12/2006 @ 1:38 pm
Pieces of Paper Neville Chamberlain returned from Munich waving a piece of paper, saying it represented “peace in our time”. That statement was born of wishful thinking, but orphaned by reality. The only power a seal has is in the will of the UN to enforce it. Paper…
Trackback by Peace Like A River — 1/12/2006 @ 1:44 pm
Iran’s “Let’s Roll” Beginning? From a comment at Roger L. Simon Strategic and tactical chess moves in play Roger, You may have missed my earlier tong…
Trackback by Rocket's Brain Trust — 1/12/2006 @ 2:07 pm
A very interesting read is All the Shah’s Men. It details previous efforts to steer the Iranian government. It is a bit disjointed, but supports the prospect. As someone who may be facing Iranian Shahab IRBM’s should this go pie shaped, I think a little covert investment is worth the flashback.
Comment by Citizen Deux — 1/12/2006 @ 2:30 pm
I do wish that somebody would ask Ayatollah Sistani whether the Mahdi could possibly arise from inside a government founded by the principles of Khomeinism. He has previously stated that these principles are heretical, a deviation from true Shia thought. It is quite obvious that a condemnation from one of the great living scholars of Shia could reset the power board of Iran in a manner that is quite inexpensive for the West and a way that would possibly save a great number of Shia lives from dying senselessly following a new false Mahdi. Shia Islam has an internal conflict. Khomeni introduced innovation and that innovation has not been accepted by Sistani or the Iraqi scholars that surround him. For the US, Khomeinism is forever the hostage crisis and weapons deals but for Shia it is corrupt clerics bringing islam into disrepute by enriching themselves through their use of direct political power. For their own reasons, the Shia have to rid themselves of this system or morally poison themselves, dooming Shia Islam over the long haul. The West can benefit from this cleansing by asking questions and bringing the moral degradation of khomeinism into sharp focus. The world should know how many of these “holy men” have the morals of Chicago aldermen on a bad day. That publicity can save lives and it should not be controversial. Sadly, I think the effort will be attacked by all the usual suspects.
Comment by TM Lutas — 1/12/2006 @ 2:34 pm
If I was them, I’d want nukes in order to become a most lethal nut to crack, and then under my nuke umbrella I’d subvert, overthrow, acquire control over, the mid-east oil fields. Then I’d sit back and watch the Great Satan grind to a halt. Who needs their money? I can sell the oil to China. No need to ever set off my pretty boom-booms. Would that be COOL or what?
Comment by chickenhawklittle — 1/12/2006 @ 3:10 pm
Even if the majority of Iranians wanted a new government (which I have my doubts about), history has generally shown that revolutions like that only work when the ruling government is weak or doesn’t want to hurt its own people. Neither is the case here.
Comment by JeremyR — 1/12/2006 @ 3:38 pm
The question is simple: does America act pre-emptively or wait for Iran to a) get a bomb, and b) use it? It should be pretty obvious that letting them get a bomb and THEN attacking them, after they have it but before they misuse it — that has to be so stupid as to be ruled out in advance. I doubt, but I hope, that the plane crash was a part of Special Ops. Irrespective, some CIA spooks should be hinting that it was … (in a suitably deniable fashion, naturally)
Comment by Tom Grey - Liberty Dad — 1/12/2006 @ 6:13 pm
I’m reading “A History of the 20th Century, Vol 2″ by Sir Martin Gilbert. Should be required reading in the Pentagon and State Departments and high school history classes. Hitler’s sense of manifest destiny and Aryan superiority provided the same kind of ideological rocketfuel that fundamentalist Islam gives Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It is easy to dismiss him as a goofball, but it is clear that he knows what he wants, and is willing to die for it (or kill others, for it). I periodically ask my more liberal friends what they are willing to die for. They hem and haw and often have trouble responding. That, my friends, is the growing problem with Western democracies. What are we willing to die for?
Comment by Michael Wenberg — 1/12/2006 @ 6:48 pm
Being that the U.S. has significant military forces in Iraq to the west of Iran and in Afghanistan to the east, isn’t it likely that the U.S. will do the dirty work in Iran rather than risk general war in the Levant between Israel and everyone else? Being that this presidential term ends on January 20, 2009, isn’t it likely that this administration, which has gambled in the Levant already and will be judged in history by its success or failure there, will launch military action against Iran, specifically targeting nuclear weapons facilities?
Comment by Frank Sarsfield — 1/12/2006 @ 8:56 pm
While many hope Israel will pre-empt, the dispersed Iranian facilities and distance to Iran make it quite unfeasible for the West to let Israel do it. The Israeli Air Force is almost entirely fighters; Israel has no inflight refueling capability. If done it will have to be by the USA. Personally, I expect our contingency plans include major nuclear retaliation simultaneously against NK and Iran in the event of nuclear terrorism. A nuclear attack on Israel will be answered by a US nuke of Teheran. Iranians will not successfully rise up-that is a vain hope.
Comment by TomTom — 1/12/2006 @ 11:47 pm
Ahmadhinejad’s pseudo-mystical excesses are precisely what mark him as a dangerous lunatic. Adolf Hitler also heard the Valkyries in the wind and was a megalomaniac who imagined every event to be intertwined with his (read Germany’s) destiny. When narcissistic super-egos like this are allowed to run states you can be sure mayhem will be part of the scenario to follow. They don’t cooperate, they don’t bend because they are in league with “higher powers”. There is no doubt that this guy is a serious pathological case, and he is driving an agenda in Iran that is now showing a face of open defiance. The approach of liberal apparatchiks to the Iranian challenge is frustrating. A bit like Chamberlain in his dealings with Herr Hitler latching on any tiny sign of progress as evidence of movement in the right direction. European liberals continually delude themselves about so many things, it’s hardly surprising they bring the same myopia to into play in their dealings with Iran. I think Amhadinejad is pushing for confrontation. With the Mahdhi waiting in the wings, he doubtless believes that the things of this world will shortly be part of a former dispensation anyway, so why not help speed the process along. I read the lead article on Daniel Pipes site and it really reveals the strange pathology that drives this man. I think it’s just a matter of time …
Comment by Aidan Maconachy — 1/13/2006 @ 2:42 am
The Mahdi? Ahmadinejad IS paving the way to become the Mahdi! http://cmarlow.blogspot.com/2006/01/ahmadinejad-will-pass-himself-as-mahdi.html
Comment by Captain Marlow — 1/13/2006 @ 9:00 am
Yes indeed Captain Marlow - by no means a stretch.
Comment by Aidan Maconachy — 1/13/2006 @ 4:32 pm
Good post, Mr. Bay. Thanks, especially, for the pointer to Garton Ash’s column. His position, put in plain language, is ‘Hope for a miracle to keep nukes out of Iranian hands; let them acquire them if the miracle doesn’t occur.’ I wouldn’t be surprised to see people say that out loud. I can see arguments for letting Tehran get a-bombs, and then relying on deterrence. But it was a shock to see that Garton Ash couldn’t bring himself to say out loud what policy he favors. A shock, but enlightening. I hadn’t realized European cowardice ran that deep. The House of Saud Must Be Destroyed!
Comment by Stephen M. St. Onge — 1/13/2006 @ 4:39 pm
Unrealistic to expect an effective or useful opposition in a tyranny like Iran… Having written that, i must add that the Kurds in western Iran and many of the sunni arabs in the south would fight for independence from Iran, but would need a great deal of help from outside. Independence from Iran for the two groups would also suggest an Iraq without the Kurds, and likely other changes. I do not see a peaceful resolution to the Iran of today; America may have to play the heavy. Playing for time works for a while, sometimes; eventually we will need to move, militarily.
Comment by stevens — 1/15/2006 @ 1:51 am
[…] e Holy Bible …. (markshea.blog) World War IV — The New Crusade…. GLOW IN THE DARK– Iran’s Uranium Mullahs, Again; Austin Bay offers link-rich commentary. Iran threatens […]
Pingback by CaNN :: We started it. — 1/17/2006 @ 6:42 am