Scary Countries
| 15:12 UK time, Monday, 24 April 2006
Big debate in academic as well as blog circles about the real danger posed by Iran's nuclear programme.
Some analysts, like , are speculating on the way Iran might strike back if attacked by Israel or the US.
Of course, there is no evidence of such a plan, beyond the speculation of retired generals and intelligence officers - and the most strident so far.
But with the 25th anniversary of the Israeli attack on the Iraqi Osirak reactor coming soon, it's no surprise some people are thinking that way.
Even the US condemned the Israeli attack in 1981. Ronald Reagan halted delivery of military aeroplanes Israel had already paid for (for a time, they were delivered eventually).
But now it's hard to find a voice in Washington to say that attack on Saddam Hussein's nuclear programme was wrong.
The scary soundtrack to the Iranian nuclear story is the atmosphere of the Apocalypse set by stories about the history of the new president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. According to in The National Review, he was once a recruiter for the Basiji so it's said - they were the fanatical would-be martyrs who according to reports at the time of the Iran Iraq war in the 1980s sent teenagers to march across minefields to open the way for better trained Iranian forces to attack the Iraqis.
The principle was established by the Ayatollah Khomeini that there was no glory in staying alive in a world where your enemies were victorious. A martyr's death was preferable.
True or not, that doesn't mean today's Iranian government thinks victory in this world is pointless and so would launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike to prove the point.
Nor does it mean that Iranian policy includes nuking Israel, despite some of the rhetoric.
It's hard to see how irradiating Jerusalem so no one could ever again visit the Dome of the Rock would serve any cause in this world or the next.
These are not predictions, of course. Anything can happen in relations between countries that escalate the rhetoric of hated, and sometimes does.
But the only analysis we can offer is based on reasonable assumptions.
And those can only be based on facts, not speculation about or interpretations of the End Times.
Which is why in the near future we are starting a series of reports about the people, politics and faith of Iran.
On the other programme I am lucky enough to present, Reporting Religion, we will be trying to explain the power and passion of Iranian Shi'ism.
I hope we all learn something.
Comments
Scary countries: Yes there are a few around and Iran is one. But our present wartime situation is not between countries, it is between western world civilization and radical Islam. Half of the Iranians are pro west, but they are not in power. And I think they all feel true to their religion.
Right now Iran supplies terrorists worldwide with money and weapons. And they will supply nuclear weapons when and if.
Solid economic sanctions could cripple their ability to do business worldwide and punish their people at home. And it is probably worth doing - now.
In the end if they still want martyrdom they can have more than they ever barganed for. Any place at all. Starting with the destruction of all of their nuclear facilities. They will get Slim Pickens, Vera Lynn and the 'white cliffs of dover' and a beautiful end.
They say that war is diplomacy conducted by other means. I say war is a failure of diplomacy. Here in the US we live in a generation that seems to weary quickly of working things out by talking. We construct high barriers to communication. An example is in our characterization of Al Qaeda’s goals as wanting to "destroy our way of life". I thought their goals were very concrete and had to do with US presence and influence in the Middle East. The first characterization presents an insurmountable obstacle to fruitful discussion, the second could at least be talked over, were we willing to sit at the same table with Al Qaeda’s representatives. But of course we don't negotiate with terrorists. We create scary countries by portraying them in the most extreme terms when we should be adjusting to a new world alignment by learning to bargain. Our positions are untenable, our terms unrealistic and our jargon embarrassing in the extreme. Would it not be the ultimate irony were the mighty US to be driven mad and destroyed like the elephant, by a gnat in our ear.