Why Iran wants the Bomb

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2006-04-17 07:46pm

Linka

The frightening truth of why Iran wants a bomb
By Amir Taheri
(Filed: 16/04/2006)

Last Monday, just before he announced that Iran had gatecrashed "the nuclear club", President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad disappeared for several hours. He was having a khalvat (tête-à-tête) with the Hidden Imam, the 12th and last of the imams of Shiism who went into "grand occultation" in 941.

According to Shia lore, the Imam is a messianic figure who, although in hiding, remains the true Sovereign of the World. In every generation, the Imam chooses 36 men, (and, for obvious reasons, no women) naming them the owtad or "nails", whose presence, hammered into mankind's existence, prevents the universe from "falling off". Although the "nails" are not known to common mortals, it is, at times, possible to identify one thanks to his deeds. It is on that basis that some of Ahmad-inejad's more passionate admirers insist that he is a "nail", a claim he has not discouraged. For example, he has claimed that last September, as he addressed the United Nations' General Assembly in New York, the "Hidden Imam drenched the place in a sweet light".

Last year, it was after another khalvat that Ahmadinejad announced his intention to stand for president. Now, he boasts that the Imam gave him the presidency for a single task: provoking a "clash of civilisations" in which the Muslim world, led by Iran, takes on the "infidel" West, led by the United States, and defeats it in a slow but prolonged contest that, in military jargon, sounds like a low intensity, asymmetrical war.

In Ahmadinejad's analysis, the rising Islamic "superpower" has decisive advantages over the infidel. Islam has four times as many young men of fighting age as the West, with its ageing populations. Hundreds of millions of Muslim "ghazis" (holy raiders) are keen to become martyrs while the infidel youths, loving life and fearing death, hate to fight. Islam also has four-fifths of the world's oil reserves, and so controls the lifeblood of the infidel. More importantly, the US, the only infidel power still capable of fighting, is hated by most other nations.

According to this analysis, spelled out in commentaries by Ahmadinejad's strategic guru, Hassan Abassi, known as the "Dr Kissinger of Islam", President George W Bush is an aberration, an exception to a rule under which all American presidents since Truman, when faced with serious setbacks abroad, have "run away". Iran's current strategy, therefore, is to wait Bush out. And that, by "divine coincidence", corresponds to the time Iran needs to develop its nuclear arsenal, thus matching the only advantage that the infidel enjoys.

Moments after Ahmadinejad announced "the atomic miracle", the head of the Iranian nuclear project, Ghulamreza Aghazadeh, unveiled plans for manufacturing 54,000 centrifuges, to enrich enough uranium for hundreds of nuclear warheads. "We are going into mass production," he boasted.

The Iranian plan is simple: playing the diplomatic game for another two years until Bush becomes a "lame-duck", unable to take military action against the mullahs, while continuing to develop nuclear weapons.

Thus do not be surprised if, by the end of the 12 days still left of the United Nations' Security Council "deadline", Ahmadinejad announces a "temporary suspension" of uranium enrichment as a "confidence building measure". Also, don't be surprised if some time in June he agrees to ask the Majlis (the Islamic parliament) to consider signing the additional protocols of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Such manoeuvres would allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) director, Muhammad El-Baradei, and Britain's Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, to congratulate Iran for its "positive gestures" and denounce talk of sanctions, let alone military action. The confidence building measures would never amount to anything, but their announcement would be enough to prevent the G8 summit, hosted by Russia in July, from moving against Iran.

While waiting Bush out, the Islamic Republic is intent on doing all it can to consolidate its gains in the region. Regime changes in Kabul and Baghdad have altered the status quo in the Middle East. While Bush is determined to create a Middle East that is democratic and pro-Western, Ahmadinejad is equally determined that the region should remain Islamic but pro-Iranian. Iran is now the strongest presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, after the US. It has turned Syria and Lebanon into its outer defences, which means that, for the first time since the 7th century, Iran is militarily present on the coast of the Mediterranean. In a massive political jamboree in Teheran last week, Ahmadinejad also assumed control of the "Jerusalem Cause", which includes annihilating Israel "in one storm", while launching a take-over bid for the cash-starved Hamas government in the West Bank and Gaza.

Ahmadinejad has also reactivated Iran's network of Shia organisations in Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Yemen, while resuming contact with Sunni fundamentalist groups in Turkey, Egypt, Algeria and Morocco. From childhood, Shia boys are told to cultivate two qualities. The first is entezar, the capacity patiently to wait for the Imam to return. The second is taajil, the actions needed to hasten the return. For the Imam's return will coincide with an apocalyptic battle between the forces of evil and righteousness, with evil ultimately routed. If the infidel loses its nuclear advantage, it could be worn down in a long, low-intensity war at the end of which surrender to Islam would appear the least bad of options. And that could be a signal for the Imam to reappear.

At the same time, not to forget the task of hastening the Mahdi's second coming, Ahamdinejad will pursue his provocations. On Monday, he was as candid as ever: "To those who are angry with us, we have one thing to say: be angry until you die of anger!"

His adviser, Hassan Abassi, is rather more eloquent. "The Americans are impatient," he says, "at the first sight of a setback, they run away. We, however, know how to be patient. We have been weaving carpets for thousands of years."

• Amir Taheri is a former Executive Editor of Kayhan, Iran's largest daily newspaper, but now lives in Europe

Dark Primus · Post by **Dark Primus** » 2006-04-17 08:44pm

I don't know what to say about this. It does scare me. But they are assuming everyone will fight for them that easily? Yeah right.

Cao Cao · Post by **Cao Cao** » 2006-04-17 09:10pm

I smell the distinct scent of scaremongering..

Jadeite · Post by **Jadeite** » 2006-04-17 10:02pm

Cao Cao wrote:I smell the distinct scent of scaremongering..

After reading the rampant asstardery on IranDefense, it doesn't suprise me.

Tatterdemalion · Post by **Tatterdemalion** » 2006-04-17 10:17pm

Cao Cao wrote:I smell the distinct scent of scaremongering..

Yeah, maybe it's just my lefty bias talking but it reeks of somebody pushing an agenda.

I did a quick google turns out the author's a member of a neo-con thinktank called the Benador Associates which, judging by what they put out, has been more or less a mouthpiece for the Bush administration since the War on Terror. Have a flick through the articles Amir Taheri's written for these guys, particularly pre and post Iraq, he comes across as a typical Bush lackey. Obviously it's not a refutation of this article by any means, but it's got my bullshit sense tingling.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2006-04-17 10:22pm

Of course, instead of all this, we could simply examine the very clear example of Bush invading a country with no WMD deterrent, and avoiding one with(Iraq and NK, respectively), and conclude that Iran is simply acting to protect itself.

But this doesn't let the bedwetting twits spew their nonsense.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2006-04-17 11:11pm

Of course, instead of all this, we could simply examine the very clear example of Bush invading a country with no WMD deterrent, and avoiding one with(Iraq and NK, respectively), and conclude that Iran is simply acting to protect itself.

Doesn't Iran's nuclear program predate the Bush administration? I've seen a satellite photo of the Natanz facility under construction in 2000, and the Esfahan facility is even older.

LaCroix · Post by **LaCroix** » 2006-04-18 07:54am

Does it predate the Us-sponsored Iraq/Iran war? That's when Iran had to start considering a protection from the US...

Don't like them to have the bomb, but I can surely understand why they think they need it...

mingo · Post by **mingo** » 2006-04-18 08:06am

It's getting harder and harder to keep this 60 year old technology in a bottle. Pretty much any country that wants to bad enough, has gooten the bomb. I don't think there's much that CAN be done to prevent it.

Post by **Vympel** » 2006-04-18 08:20am

Indeed, and all this blather about using nuclear bunker busters makes it all the more idiotic. They're not going to stop Iran's program through the use of military force, and it's futile to try.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-04-18 09:33am

Vympel wrote:Indeed, and all this blather about using nuclear bunker busters makes it all the more idiotic. They're not going to stop Iran's program through the use of military force, and it's futile to try.

"Liberating" Iraq probably got the same mockery at one point (pre-2003), now I wouldn't go underestimating the idiocy of the powerful leaders today in the West. I doubt anything will come of Iran, but I've been wrong before.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2006-04-18 10:38am

Ma Deuce wrote:
Of course, instead of all this, we could simply examine the very clear example of Bush invading a country with no WMD deterrent, and avoiding one with(Iraq and NK, respectively), and conclude that Iran is simply acting to protect itself.
Doesn't Iran's nuclear program predate the Bush administration? I've seen a satellite photo of the Natanz facility under construction in 2000, and the Esfahan facility is even older.

Iran has wanted nuclear power and weapons since at least the early 1970s and probably earlier than that. The difference is, back then Iran was friendly to the US and wanted them for an independent deterrent against Russia. They also wanted nuclear power to free up more oil for export, as well as giving them something to fall back on if for some reason they couldn't export oil. So that was OK.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2006-04-18 10:58pm

Iran has wanted nuclear power and weapons since at least the early 1970s and probably earlier than that. The difference is, back then Iran was friendly to the US and wanted them for an independent deterrent against Russia. They also wanted nuclear power to free up more oil for export, as well as giving them something to fall back on if for some reason they couldn't export oil. So that was OK.

I find it difficult to accept those kinds of arguments with a straight face.

Let's take another example: South Africa. Even during the height of the anti-apartheid sanctions, it had access to nuclear technology. Yet there was never any attempt to use that as an alternative to oil. In fact, they turned to coal (a technically exhaustible resource) before nuclear power. Why? Presumably, it was far more economical.

Of course, instead of all this, we could simply examine the very clear example of Bush invading a country with no WMD deterrent, and avoiding one with(Iraq and NK, respectively), and conclude that Iran is simply acting to protect itself.

Are you implying that we should not worry ourselves with Iran for this reason?

As has already been pointed out, both Iran and North Korea were already pursuing nuclear weapons long before the invasion of Iraq. Kim Jong-Il pursued them even after negotiations.

Furthermore, I fail to see where the United States is bound to patronize Iranian security concerns. Tehran certainly has few such compunctions when it comes to other states in the region.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2006-04-19 01:20am

Axis Kast wrote:I find it difficult to accept those kinds of arguments with a straight face.

Let's take another example: South Africa. Even during the height of the anti-apartheid sanctions, it had access to nuclear technology. Yet there was never any attempt to use that as an alternative to oil. In fact, they turned to coal (a technically exhaustible resource) before nuclear power. Why? Presumably, it was far more economical.

Possibly, but South Africa was trying to court world opinion back then. Iran gives less than half a shit what anyone else thinks. Coal might be cheaper, but it doesn't produce leftovers that can be used to make weapons that might deter dickheads from attacking them.

Of course, instead of all this, we could simply examine the very clear example of Bush invading a country with no WMD deterrent, and avoiding one with(Iraq and NK, respectively), and conclude that Iran is simply acting to protect itself.
Are you implying that we should not worry ourselves with Iran for this reason?

Yep. If by "worry ourselves with Iran" you mean invasion and/ or bombing, I certainly think so.

As has already been pointed out, both Iran and North Korea were already pursuing nuclear weapons long before the invasion of Iraq. Kim Jong-Il pursued them even after negotiations.

And they were never threatened by the US before the invasion of Iraq. Riiiiiight.

Furthermore, I fail to see where the United States is bound to patronize Iranian security concerns. Tehran certainly has few such compunctions when it comes to other states in the region.

And of course the "everyone does it" defense.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2006-04-19 05:09am

Was that a parody?

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2006-04-20 10:21pm

Possibly, but South Africa was trying to court world opinion back then.

South Africa was generating nuclear power in 1984. It was capable of building a nuclear weapon by the end of that same decade. And yet it did not choose expansion of its nuclear power grid and instead continued to utilize coal.

It is also difficult to see how South Africa would have gained any substantial acclaim for choosing coal over nuclear energy when it was already a pariah. That’s not in any way a worthwhile bargaining chip.

Iran gives less than half a shit what anyone else thinks. Coal might be cheaper, but it doesn't produce leftovers that can be used to make weapons that might deter dickheads from attacking them.

So you’re admitting it: Iran’s chief rationale for turning to nuclear power is not that it is somehow more “economical.” Instead, it wants atomic bombs.

Yep. If by "worry ourselves with Iran" you mean invasion and/ or bombing, I certainly think so.

I do not advocate an invasion or bombing (which I project would be unsuccessful). I advocate trying our best to maintain sanctions. Of course, this will fail. Iran will become a nuclear power. That does not, however, mean that we should be happy about it in any way, shape, or form.

And they were never threatened by the US before the invasion of Iraq. Riiiiiight.

Because the United States is really very interested in invading North Korea.

Kim was taking the U.S. for all it was worth even as we were promising that we wouldn’t upset the status-quo. We were keeping his regime afloat, moron. This is one situation in which you can’t blame Bush for pushing a dictator into doing something clearly aggressive.

And of course the "everyone does it" defense.

No. A fucking realistic defense.

Iran is a threat to its neighbors. It is clearly a threat to a sovereign Iraq. It would continue to remain so even if our mission were completely successful tomorrow, resulting in an entirely self-sufficient nation reconciled to a democratic future.

Iran funds terrorists. And since it’s in the United States’ best interests to solve the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and Tehran is trying to keep that simmering, it’s also a problem in that regard. We have every reason to be concerned. Of course, you will now shit your pants about how that doesn’t mean we should invade or bomb them, which you’ll imply is what I meant. Well, let me assure you: I didn’t say that. I don’t even think that’s a good answer to the problem of Iran right now. It doesn’t seem to me that one of those tacks is very plausible. Neither is very likely to work. But we should be concerned. We should watch. We should try to contain as best we can. We should not be pleased just to sit back and note that Bush is a bad leader.

Post by **Vympel** » 2006-04-21 12:55am

Iran is a threat to its neighbors.

Bullshit. Since 1979, how many times has Iran attacked one of its neighbors? Oh, that's right, never.

It is clearly a threat to a sovereign Iraq. It would continue to remain so even if our mission were completely successful tomorrow, resulting in an entirely self-sufficient nation reconciled to a democratic future.

Nonsense. There will be no great Iranian invasion of Iraq, no great Iranian hegemony exerting its will over Iraq by political influence, or any other similar fantasy. Nor, even if this were so, is this any reason for America or any other Western country to continue to interfere in the Middle East. I'm tired of this automatic presumption by all too many (and that includes some opponents of the current idiot in the White House) that it is appropriate and good that the US has appropriated for itself the right to interfere in any country's affairs on a whim. The US has no legitimate right on any level, whatseover, to be in Iraq. Similarly, it has no legitimate right, on any level, to dictate terms to Iran and make Iran's affairs an issue in which it has a say whatsoever.

And since it’s in the United States’ best interests to solve the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and Tehran is trying to keep that simmering, it’s also a problem in that regard.

The best thing the US could do to solve the Israel-Palestine conflict is to stop fucking coddling Israel and treatign them like the 51st state. Withdrawing their billions of dollars per year in aid is a start. Ideally, Israel/ Palestine should mean precisely jack and shit to the US, but hey, the entire fuckup was created by Western interference in the first place.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2006-04-21 01:08am

The best thing the US could do to solve the Israel-Palestine conflict is to stop fucking coddling Israel and treatign them like the 51st state. Withdrawing their billions of dollars of string-free aid for year is a start. Ideally, Israel should mean precisely jack and shit to the US.

The U.S. is signatory to peace accords that require yearly aid to be granted to both Israel and Egypt. We should make an exception to the whole "follow through on treaties that you signed" rule and pull back the aid just because it's Israel and not some turd country taking the hit?

Cutting off aid from the Israelis would likely make things worse for the Palestinians, in any case. They'd have no incentive to behave and unleash their full might on the West Bank.

Post by **Vympel** » 2006-04-21 01:19am

Joe wrote: The U.S. is signatory to peace accords that require yearly aid to be granted to both Israel and Egypt. We should make an exception to the whole "follow through on treaties that you signed" rule and pull back the aid just because it's Israel and not some turd country taking the hit?

Say what? Do you expect me to believe that Egypt receives the same amount of cash in various forms as Israel, or that every cent Israel gets from the US is guaranteed by ratified treaty?

EDIT: and what the hell does Egypt need money from the US for, while we're at it? If it's for fucking arms, yes, cut them off as well.

Cutting off aid from the Israelis would likely make things worse for the Palestinians, in any case. They'd have no incentive to behave and unleash their full might on the West Bank.

Their "full might" would be precisely jack shit once the US veto power and money is no longer shielding them from international sanction.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2006-04-21 01:32am

Say what? Do you expect me to believe that Egypt receives the same amount of cash in various forms as Israel,

It doesn't, but those were never the terms of the deal.

or that every cent Israel gets from the US is guaranteed by ratified treaty?

You'd still be left with a few billion a year if you stripped all non-guaranteed aid. Not chump change.

EDIT: and what the hell does Egypt need money from the US for, while we're at it? If it's for fucking arms, yes, cut them off as well.

So they won't go to fucking war with Israel? Bribing Israel and Egypt to pretend not to hate each other is hardly the ideal situation but it beats the alternative.

Post by **Vympel** » 2006-04-21 01:37am

Joe wrote: It doesn't, but those were never the terms of the deal.

What are the terms of the deal?

You'd still be left with a few billion a year if you stripped all non-guaranteed aid. Not chump change.

Show me the terms of this deal. The amount of aid Israel currently gets in all its forms is a US taxpayer funded subsidy to the tune of something like 14,000USD to each Israeli, per year. And this is for an advanced first world fucking country. They don't deserve a single solitary cent.

So they won't go to fucking war with Israel? Bribing Israel and Egypt to pretend not to hate each other is hardly the ideal situation but it beats the alternative.

So, in other words, it's yet another sickening form of coddling Israel by bribing both of them not to attack each other. In that case, yes, throw the treaty in the bin. The only people who'll care are the pricks not getting their bullshit subsidy.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2006-04-21 01:38am

Just so we're clear; you believe it's right for the U.S. to go back on treaties when Israel is involved?

Post by **Vympel** » 2006-04-21 01:50am

Joe wrote:Just so we're clear; you believe it's right for the U.S. to go back on treaties when Israel is involved?

When it's a clearly bullshit treaty where the US has to subsidise the only two parties with an actual stake in the outcome to come to a favoralbe conclusion? Duh. Whether it's Israel or not is irrelevant.

Of course, I just googled it myself, and whoever told you that this peace accord somehow involved America being required by treaty to dole out billions to Israel is full of fucking shit. America isn't even a party to the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt

Read it

I'm not surprised you deflected the question as to what the terms of this peace treaty were with a rhetorical statement about how awful it would about America going back on a clearly absurd (and non-existent) treaty.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2006-04-21 01:53am

What are the terms of the deal?

I believe it was around 2.2 billion a year for Egypt, slightly more for Israel. I don't believe the numbers were meant to be set in stone, so they may have grown in some areas and diminished in others. We're contractually obligated to provide billions to both countries at the very least.

Show me the terms of this deal. The amount of aid Israel currently gets in all its forms is a US taxpayer funded subsidy to the tune of something like 14,000USD to each Israeli, per year. And this is for an advanced first world fucking country. They don't deserve a single solitary cent.

14,000 USD x 6,276,883 = 87,876,362,000

Israel does NOT receive EIGHTY-SEVEN BILLION DOLLARS a year from the United States. You get an F at arithmetic. Seriously, you should have caught that one.

So, in other words, it's yet another sickening form of coddling Israel by bribing both of them not to attack each other. In that case, yes, throw the treaty in the bin.

Are you seriously suggesting that a war between Israel and Egypt will be beneficial for anyone?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2006-04-21 01:55am

Of course, I just googled it myself, and whoever told you that this peace accord somehow involved America being required by treaty to dole out billions to Israel is full of fucking shit. America isn't even a party to the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt

That's the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty, not the Camp David Accords. Two separate events, though the former was set up by the latter. It was in the latter that the aid commitments were made.