| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Every effort should be made to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but failing that, the world could live with a nuclear-armed regime in Tehran, a recently retired commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East said Monday.John Abizaid, the retired Army general who headed Central Command for nearly four years, said he was confident that if Iran gained nuclear arms, the United States could deter it from using them.
"Iran is not a suicide nation," he said. "I mean, they may have some people in charge that don't appear to be rational, but I doubt that the Iranians intend to attack us with a nuclear weapon." -- from this news article
No, the world -- that is, the rational world of Infidels -- cannot "live with a nuclear-armed regime in Tehran." It is not true that such a regime can be counted on to be a rational actor akin to the Soviet government.
Why not?
Because of what Islam promises. Because of what Islam teaches. Because of what Muslims believe. It makes sense to wipe out Israel, in order to remove that horrible Infidel presence in the midst of dar al-Islam, even if millions of Iranians die in a counter-strike. It will justify man's ways -- the ways of the Islamic Republic of Iran -- to God. It is only in Christianity that one has to justify God's ways to man. In Islam, you take whatever Allah chooses to dish out; the Muslim's lot is never to reason why, the Muslim's lot is but to do -- follow fi sabil Allah -- and, quite often, die.
I used to think Abizaid was sensible. I see that I was wrong.
A few considerations:
John Abizaid is not a Muslim but a Christian (Maronite, I think) of Lebanese descent. He is keenly aware that something is not quite right, and that something is very wrong, with Islam.
It is unclear that he did anything wrong in Iraq. What would constitute doing something "wrong" once the initial invasion as over? Not trying to fulfill the mission? Trying to fulfill it? Trying to fulfill it while coming to the conclusion that it did not make sense?
What his statement about Iran reveals is that he does not realize how irrational, by our standards, Ahmadinajad and others in Iran and elsewhere in Dar al-Islam are. They are simply calculating casualties. And if they can eliminate Israel, which is very small, completely, and only suffer a few million casualties themselves, then some think to themselves that it is worth it. And besides, any Iranians or other Muslims who die will have died in a glorious cause, and Paradise will surely not be denied them. Those who rule Iran really believe this.
It is we who have trouble suspending our own disbelief, and recognizing what to us would be fanatical belief, in others. This Abizaid has not apparently been able to do. Of course, in his everyday activities in Iraq, he met Iraqis -- Iraqis who seemed perfectly rational. But what kind of Iraqis would he have met? The holdover household servants of Saddam Hussein, the tasters and drivers and wait-staff who were mostly Christians. Saddam knew he did not have to fear any violence from Christians, who after the invasion served in the same way for the American generals and high-ranking civilians.
And the Muslim Iraqis Abizaid would have met with most frequently would have been plausible fellows, often the secularists of the Allawi party, or of the Chalabi party, or others. They were real Believers, but were still eager to curry favor with an American general who could be a source of aid and reconstruction projects, if one treated him in the oleaginous way that all too many Middle Eastern Muslims think is the only way to curry favor with the Infidels ("at your feet or at your throat").
He still doesn't see the risk, because his own experience with Islam, which might at first glance seem extensive, turns out to have been skewed -- skewed for him, skewed for all the high-rankers, civilian or military.
Don't attribute anything to Abizaid "because he is an Arab-American." That's silly. But you can attack his remarkable statement for what it reveals about his understanding of minds on Islam. He hasn't yet grasped it. Perhaps someday he will.
Posted by Hugh at September 23, 2007 6:11 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
"Iran is not a suicide nation," - John Abizaid
But what about the apocalyptic nature of Shia Islam, the long wait for the Hidden Imam, and the hope that terrible chaos will bring about his return ?
We cannot know what Ahmadinajad really believes. He may just be a cynical manipulator, who uses Israel as a spoon to stir the pot, or it may even be, as some have suggested, that he believes himself to be the Hidden Imam.
If Ahmadinajad's plans do actually involve the the Hidden Imam, then he does not need to be able to attack Israel with sufficient force to destroy it swifly, nor does he need to be able to seriously harm the USA. All he needs to be able to do is attack in such a way that terrible chaos will ensue, during which the Hidden Imam will reveal himself.
It is hard to see what kind of containment will be effective once Ahmadinajad has his bomb, since even retaliatory nuclear strikes would not be deterrents as much as parts of the divine plan.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 23, 2007 9:53 AM
What the good General doesn't understand is that is very much a "suicide state" , to the tune of some 50,000 willing would-be shaheeds who have signed signed on the line as is well known and documented here. Check out the scanned forms signed by each of the shaheeds , and the commentary by one of the General's Iranian counterparts, Hassan Abbasi, director of one of Iran's Revolutionary Guards' think tanks, in address celebrating the anniversary of the famous fatwa against Salman Rushdie:
He analyzed a U.S. publication from 2004 that, according to Abbasi, "depicts the prophet of Islam as the prophet of blood and violence." Rhetorically, he asked, "Will the Western man be able to understand martyrdom with such prejudice? [Can he] interpret Islam as anything but terrorism?" The West sees suicide bombings as terrorism but, to Abbasi, they are a noble expression of Islam.
Wake up general! What part of "suicide bomber" don't you understand?
Ahmedinijiad understands very well that nuking Washington or Tel Aviv would be suicide, but that is no deterrent -- quite the opposite: he regards an atomic weapon in Iranian hands as THE MOTHER OF ALL SUICIDE BOMBS, and himself as the mother of all shaheeds.
Posted by: Archimedes2 at September 23, 2007 9:09 PM
And if they can eliminate Israel, which is very small, completely, and only suffer a few million casualties themselves, then some think to themselves that it is worth it.
................................
Many observers have refered to the risk Iran would be taking if they lobbed a nuclear bomb at Israel or the West. The focus has been, rightly, on whether Iran can be said to be rational. A nation led by a true believer in a messaniac death cult probably does not fall into the "rational" catagory, as has been noted.
I believe that there is another extremely important factor here--oddly, I have never heard it addressed. Many people--very intelligent people, such as Hugh--focus only on the actions of Iran. But what about the likely reactions of the West? It is treated as almost axiomatic that the response to a nuclear attack would be a devestation counter-attack. But is this the case? I believe that even as little as twenty-five years ago, this would have been the case.
If the Soviet Union had attacked Europe, there would have been a counter-strike against Moscow or Stalingrad. Many Westerners would have felt badly for the civilian population who would die or suffer in the strikes, but would have placed the blame firmly on the Soviet leadership.
I am not so sure that this would be the case today. There are those in the West who seem to believe that Hiroshima or the firebombing of Dresden were not merely regrettable but neccesary, but were gratuitous war crimes.
Even if poor Israel were vaporized in an entirely unprovoked attack, I fear there would be a large part of the suicidal West who would consider a counter-strike aimed at Tehran to be the "real" war crime.
Posted by: gravenimage
at September 24, 2007 12:28 AM
Good and true points, gravenimage
I think that your thread points to a real danger with Islamic nuclear proliferation. Let's assume a nuclear attack on U.S. soil without warning carves out the downtown of one of our large cities. No nation claims responsibility. How do we respond?
Enormous pressure will be brought on the government to respond. The world's largest military must respond to such an attack or it will be rendered impotent.
But if there are no follow up attacks the crazies will demonstrate. "How can you say it was Iran? Couldn't it have been Pakistan? How about Egypt, it just got the bomb last year! We know Turkey and Malaysia could have clandestine programs: perhaps a rouge element in one of them attacked us. Could it be someone else trying to make it look Islamic?" [I'd bet Israel would be blamed above all]
"The U.S. government says it has isotope 'fingerprints' that tell who made it. Ha! Why should we believe any evidence presented by them! They're just furthering their agendas!
"And what about the millions of poor people in the suspect country. Should they be harmed for what a few leaders did?"
And on and on.
When the media begins to validate their "talking truth to power" it will all unravel. No response would be made.
Posted by: Tom Davis at September 24, 2007 1:23 PM
General A. should review the Iran-Iraq war before he says what kind of nation Iran is.
(And, it isn't "suicide" to them, it is deliverance.)
Maybe the word "kamikazi" is unfamiliar to the General, also?
Rationality is a rare commodity in the world.
But I guess that doesn't fit any of his sensible War College models.
Maybe the next wave of officers will have more skepticism about what religious fanatics would do with the power of the Apocalypse.
(Another book General A. might want to read, along with the Koran.)
We need Pattton, we get patent leather.
Posted by: profitsbeard at September 25, 2007 12:26 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)