Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses the implications of Iranian bellicosity and the increasingly probable Western response:
Suppose you were an Iranian, an ethnic Persian and a Muslim, and were one of the thousands involved in the nuclear bomb project. And you were not a fanatical supporter of the Islamic Republic of Iran, but were rather disturbed by it. Yet you for some reason allowed your sense of national pride to take precedence, and liked the idea of Iran's refusing to abandon this project, even though you had plenty of evidence that not merely Ahmadinejad, but every Iranian leader in recent history, had made clear that such weapons, if acquired, would be used against Israel. Ahmadinejad does not say something new; he just says it more often and more directly, and with greater evident delight. And you have had your own experiences, or your relatives have, or your friends, with the sheer craziness of the people running Iran. But you wanted Iran to survive.Perhaps you would guess that the Americans, or the Israelis, or several NATO countries together, would never attempt to destroy the nuclear bomb project. You might think that the various places that contributed to the project were too spread out, and some too well hidden, for any potential attacker to be successful. But what if it were not one attack, but many, doing as much damage as could be done, eliminating certain key contributing establishments, and their personnel. And then, of course, even as remnants of what remained of the Iranian government (which could also be attacked) tried to utter brave words of defiance, another attack, and then a day or week or month or three months later, another one. When Israel bombed the Osirak Reactor in 1981, it was blandly predicted that the Iraqis would have the whole project up and running again with a decade. Twenty-five years later -- and no such project, or one likely to be.
So you are that Persian nationalist. You are working on this project for the greater glory of Iran, the Persian civilization that goes back to Cyrus and Darius, that once held much of present-day Iraq, and that today contains a kind of Persian Empire because within its domains, scarcely 50% of the population is Persian. The current Persian Empire is now known as Iran. More than one-third consists of Azeris, in the north -- that part of Iran that the Soviet Union seized for a while after World War II (until Western pressure made the Red Army retreat), a place whose population resents Persian domination and has more in common with the inhabitants of Azerbaijan. There are the Baluchis, who have similar resentments. There are the ethnic Arabs of Khuzistan, and its main city, Ahwaz, where so much of Iran's oil comes from, who have again and again demonstrated their resentment, even hatred, of their Persian masters. The forces of entropy and collapse are there, waiting to be stirred by a great outside force coming in to humiliate and reduce, and possibly end altogether, the power of the central Iranian state.If the Americans, or others, decide to attack because Iran refuses to stop its nuclear policy, or if the outside attempt to end that project altogether will require extensive collateral damage because the attackers have not been informed as to exactly where to attack, and have to attack, therefore, hither and yon, it is likely to be the kind of attack the consequences of which may end, forever, the state of Iran in its present borders. It will be a little like Turkey, reduced after World War I from its former imperial state to, essentially, Anatolia and a European sliver.
If Iranian nationalists do not work to help the Western powers stop this nuclear project, and help to sabotage it altogether in any way they can, then Iran may end up with the loss of Khuzistan, the Azeri lands, and the Baluchi lands. And let us not forget all the lands inhabited by ethnic Kurds so contemptuous of the Persians and so eager to emulate the Kurds now enjoying at least autonomy, and perhaps a good deal more, in northern Iraq -- then Iran may be no more. Greatly reduced in size, greatly reduced in population, deprived of its gas deposits in the north and the oil in Khuzistan, Iran would become much less important to the world, and the ethnic Persians would be left with little ability to sustain the state. They would be without that oil and gas wealth, and with hostile populations rising against the central state.
Is that nuclear project worth it?
Why?
Would any Iranian who wished to preserve Iran as a power really protect, rally around, support that nuclear project out of some misguided notion of nationalism?
One now lives, or dreams of returning, to the country now known as Iran.
It could well be the country formerly known as Iran. It all depends on what is done, inside Iran, to stave off the need for attack from outside Iran.
It's a choice for Iranians.
Let's see what they decide.
Great post. The Iranian blogosphere is quite active. Under these conditions it will be difficult for a regime to hide nuclear facilities in the suburbs, if a majority of the population are against it, as would seem to be the case. It must be quite stressful being a dictator these days.
The big problem now is, that it's a race against time.....How much debating will drag on in the UN, giving Iran the time to build its first weapon?
I think this one is going to plunge a lot more than the west into a period of great uncertainty.
The MSM is not reporting the events of the people
of Iran who are against the Mad Mullahs. With the right pressure that regime can be toppled.
Iranians show massive rejection of the Islamic regime at
the occasion of its 27th birthday
SMCCDI (Information Service)
February 11, 2006
Millions of Iranians inflicted another heavy slap to the
face of the shaky and unpopular Islamic regime by
boycotting its "27th anniversary revolution celebration" by
staying home, or far from the official gatherings.
The regime's desperate leadership was hoping to bring
millions in the streets by playing their nationalistic or
religious feelings. But in Tehran, which was supposed to
become a show room, the regime was unable to muster more
than 70 or 80 thousand professional demonstrators and
government employees and schools' students. Many of them,
such as most governmental employees, are known to be forced
to participate in official gatherings and others are
fanatics or paid demonstrators. Hundreds of buses had
transferred thousands of such demonstrators to the Capital.
For reference purposes, there are more than 12-million
inhabitants in Tehran, the capital of Iran.
The SMCCDI Coordinator, who was interviewed by the Persian
service of "Voice of America" (VOA) Satellite TV, slammed
the Islamic regime for its dark records and the threats
posed to the People of Iran and the world.
In part of the live interview from Washington DC, Aryo B.
Pirouznia, who was speaking at the occasion of the Islamic
revolution's anniversary, stated: "The dark event plunged
Iran in the situation which we're now and has more in its
package due to its fanatical and backwarded ideology...
Without doubt, millions of young Iranians are wondering how
this happened and why the elder generation facilitated the
take of power of a group which took from Iranians all their
social and economic liberties and plunged the country into
the barbarian age..."
"The younger generation of Iran, which is composed by
millions of individuals, has long turned its back to the
Islamic regime and it?s looking toward modernity,
secularity and nationalism... This claim can be easily
backed due to the lack of popular participation in the
today's official rallies, as well as, the refusal of
Iranians to participate in those anti-cartoons' violent
demos..." Pirouznia added.
On the question of the prospect of a unified Iranian
opposition, he stated:" You have more and more Iranians
that are breaking their silence and protesting openly
against the regime.. The problem till now has been the
negative influence exerted by some of those so-called
opposition leaders that are not even able to reach the
minds and souls of millions of young Iranians who are fed
up with the same usual slogans... A clear National and
Secular program, along with persistency and consistency is
needed and hoped by millions of Iranians.. They don't want
just talks or those looking simply to seize the power by
making controversial deals...The road should be open now
for active and trusted opponents as Iranians have clearly
shown the rejection of the same usual faces and their old
methods..."
http://daneshjoo.org/publishers/smccdinews/article_4512.shtml
Free Iran now.
Visit www.daneshjoo.org and give support to them!
Thx, Hugh.
Unfortunately, I don't think the people in Iran can do much against their ruthless regime. Military action from the outside is the only way to shake things loose. The West has an edge in missile tech and air power; maybe all those unhappy dissidents can rise up after we fry the infrastructure.
I have to say that I'm shocked at the vulgarity of Ahmadinejad. It just goes to show what happens when a bunch of yahoos strike oil. It's like watching an Iranian version of the Beverly Hillbillies, only Jed is a sadistic pervert and Eli Mae is wearing a chadoor.
Re: jewdog
I'm afraid the metaphor reflects the greater reality: "the yahoos" from Arkansas were wise, gentle, of strong character and a clear Biblical Worldview. The "fools" in the story were the so-called 'Hollywood sophisticates' racing about with their misguided, materialistic sense of self, trying to fix things for the better. IF the
'yahoos' ruled Iran, they would be looking for peaceful solutions and never looking for ways to destroy their neighbor to the west no matter how differently their view of God. The real yahoos are those who think they are superior and are determined to force their 'superiority' onto their neighbors even at the point of a nuclear missle. You offend Jed and Ellie Mae, they were far superior as they understood and incorporated into their lives the meaning of Peace.
I just have a couple of questions: The Iranians are within months of developing a nuclear weapon. Can they deliver it to Isreal? The West will continue to debate measures of stunning ineffectualness, but at what point does Isreal strike? A country the size of Isreal can scarcely afford a nuclear exchange.
Thank you.
R.Kyle
Another brave woman who is speaking out about Islam. Read here:
http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_12992.shtml
Johnathan,
Yes, this Iranian women is very courageous. But you probably should change your comment to "has spoken out about Islam."
For she reminds me of the Bhuddist monks of yesteryear who doused themselves in gasoline and struck a match. Her actions are of a similar nature, suicidal. May her last days on earth be filled with peace.
While most on this blog dislike Iran, and would love to see "the military option" succeed, the American establishment has been pro Iranian for 26 years. The American people aren't, but every president has done things to help the Iranian regime. It may seem incredible, but please keep it in mind as you read about Iran.
"Would any Iranian who wished to preserve Iran as a power really protect, rally around, support that nuclear project out of some misguided notion of nationalism?"
The short answer is "YES". I predict that we will not see this totalitarian police state toppled from within or without. This has been the empty dream of various Western analysts since Ayatollah K. first reared his bulbous wrinkled head. Echoes and vibrations have surfaced, lo, every 3rd and 4th year since the toppling of the Shah to this effect: That the state of the Islamic Republic is so precarious that it's about to fall -- it's only a matter of time....
I hope I am wrong in this prediction... But I've heard this all before. The slaves of Islam appear incapable of toppling these heinous and powerful totalitarian Islamic states -- their Muslim slave mastersalways have the upper hand -- they ruthlessly wield the weapons of foment and Jihad to rally their "faithful" minions... and the trajectory of Muslim cultures always seems to follow that of falling debris near a black hole -- always reaching further and further down -- relentlessly towards the center Islam's black maw...
The fantasy espoused above is grand -- but I have heard it many times before... Maybe the nuclear issue makes it different this time -- somehow... But I think this nuclear issure is a strong rallying point of national pride, and it probably inures the regime to internal and external assaults far more than weakens it...
Any antipathy for the Mullahs among the Iranian populace will vanish the moment a bomb falls on the Iranian nuclear project... and the forces of darkness know well how to subsume those of light...
"The fantasy espoused above is grand..."
-- from a posting above
You misunderstood the point of the piece. There was no fantasy. It is because I am aware that the tug of nationalism is so strong, and that makes many Iranians, who do not like the regime, and some of whom not only dislike the Islamic but some of whom are also coming close to being "Muslims-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslims, but out of misplaced nationalism, nonetheless defend the right of Iran to have nuclear weapons, and are urging that the Americans put their faith once more in that "regime change" that means nothing as long as a country remains largely Muslim. This regime might change and be followed by one relatively benign, like that of the Shah, but such a regime could also, like that of the Shah, be followed by one akin to something more Islamic. The Infidels must therefore beg to part ways with all those nice Iranian nationalists -- sorry, here we part company, here we must insist that Iran not acquire such weaponry, and preventing it from such acquisition takes precedence over attempting to strengthen the position of dissidents or reformers, much less over the unlikely possibility of overturning the regime.
If you read the article above again, you will see that it is because I do not believe that the current regime has much chance of being overthrown, and that those who are disaffected are often not against Islam, but merely against the corruption of the ruling mullahs who have made out like gangbusters, when they are the gang that needs to be busted.
The appeal was to those who may, inside or outside Iran, consider themselves Iranian patriots and may wish to consider what could happen to Iran if the nuclear project is not sabotaged, or if the Western powers are not given enough information to pinpoint their attacks, or if useful information fails to be supplied by Iranian patriots of the far-seeing kind, the kind who understand that given the large number of primitive believers in Iran (their numbers will always be larger than that of the advanced, and there are many more who think like Khatami or even Ahmadinejad than think like Kierostami or the best-selling Mrs. Nafisi).
That was it: not a prediction of a change in regime, and not a fantasy. But a point being made, and directed not to Infidels but to Iranians, of the "I'm just a cultural Muslim" variety, who wish to think clearly about the future of Iran. They, too, have a stake in derailing this nuclear project, because the likely, or actual acquisition, of such weaponry would, at the very least, expose Iran to large-scale destruction from which the country might never recover, and even if the regime collapses, the Azeris, Arabs, Baluchis and Kurds might take the occasion to reduce Iran to a size that would finally put an end to all dreams of glory, whether those of the Shah ("Iran will be the second industrial power of Asia") or of Ahmadinejad.
jsla-
The Muslim masses have been inculcated with a need for a "strongman", the model being Mohammad. Iranians seem to be stuck with that same Islamo-fixation. And no outside force will satisfy their psychological desire for the "big, tough guy" to force them in some direction.
But no nukes can be allowed to fall into the hands of such eschatologically-inclined (Here comes the Mahdi!), fatalistic nutjobs.
So, whatever might happen within a post-strike Iran, the Iranian people will have to sift their own sh*t.
Let them hate us, as long as they can't deliver on it.
RE: sorry, here we part company, here we must insist that Iran not acquire such weaponry, and preventing it from such acquisition takes precedence over attempting to strengthen the position of dissidents or reformers, much less over the unlikely possibility of overturning the regime.
I am in absolute agreement with the above statement as the immediate dangers are paramount.
Point that I was trying make, it the dissidents
are real and the MSM does nothing to report
the PUBLIC HANGINGS of which there were 5 last week.
It wouldn't take a nuclear holocaust to reduce
Iran's nuke objectives. We have the technical
means, but it would be easier to "toast" Ahmadinejad first. Cut the head off the snake, and the next one, and the next one.
Ironically, more innocent lives would be spared by this but the "wisdom" of our past leaders made it illegal to assassinate leaders of foreign countries. Yet, those same leaders had no problem
with Kennedy trying to eliminate Castro many times.
Assassination seems immoral but then thousands of innocents get killed by morality. Boy, is the world screwed up or what?