Still Crazy After All These Years

April 17, 2006
      Boy, did the "fuck you" letters come flying in last week after I said that strategic planning to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities wasn't such a bad idea.

      So, what do you know -- Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke out again on Friday, saying Israel was a "constant threat" and predicted that it was on the verge of "being eliminated." Eliminated how? one is prompted to wonder. Well, President A-jad had been rather specific last year when he discussed "wiping Israel off the map." On Friday he referred to Israel as a "rotten, dried tree" that would collapse in "one storm." Interesting metaphor. Did he mean one atomic bomb? That would probably do the job to a nation about the size of Maryland, when you take into account the nuclear contamination, though a toxic smear could be carried downwind east as far as China, blowing back in Iran's face, so to speak.

     Anyway, Mr. A-jad's remarks came during the same week that he publicly announced, with great fanfare, his government's success at enriching uranium into fissile material. It wasn't hard to put two and two together: wiping Israel off the map + how to.

     The controversy over strategic planning of the harshest kind boiled over after Seymour Hersh's story "The Iran Plans" broke in the April 17th issue of The New Yorker. The agitated public and the news media (except for Terri Gross on NPR's "Fresh Air" show) generally overlooked remarks in the article made by Robert Baer, former CIA agent in the Middle East and author of See No Evil and Sleeping With the Devil, who, among other things, had investigated the Iran-sponsored Hezbollah group's links to the 1983 US Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut. Baer had followed President A-jad's career and connections for two decades, after Ahmadinejad had distinguished himself as a leader among the Revolutionary Guard "students" who captured the American Embassy in Teheran in 1979 and took 52 employees hostage.

      Hersh writes:
       "Baer told me. . . that Ahmadinejad and his Revolutionary Guard colleagues in the Iranian government 'are capable of making a bomb, hiding it, and launching it as Israel. They're apocalyptic Shiites. If you're sitting in Tel Aviv and you believe they've got nukes and missiles -- you've got to take them out. These guys are nuts, and there's no reason to back off.'"

     So it would appear that the practical question is not so much what America might do but what Israel might do first. And that question puts everybody in the West in an uncomfortable position -- since a strike by Israel could 1.) ignite a major regional conflagration leading to even wider war, and 2.) shut down Middle East oil production (or even permanently cripple it). Baer seems to think that this is exactly what President A-jad wants. I think so, too. Crazy as it might seem, it is not crazier than waging war by suicide bombers. It's just kicking it up a notch, in the immortal words of Emeril Lagasse. It's jihad x-treme. And the reward, in Mr. A-jad's thinking might be that a large part of the Islamic world would survive, while Israel would be ganged up on and eliminated -- and the Shiites would get credit for it! (not to mention first-class tickets to heaven and all those waiting virgins).

      Therefore one of the more remarkable elements of the story is Israel's restraint so far. By historical measure, the extremely belligerent remarks by Iran's president would have already invited an armed response by any sane nation. You wonder how many more times Mr. A-jad will spell it out before something has to happen.

Comments

[Joe]

This is not what I came here to see.

Lay off the politics.

And, while you are at it, find out who
Mossadegh was, and which countries
attacked whom in the Middle East over the
last sixty years and ... who fired first.

Israel, despite its tiny size, is an
immense military power. So - what you
just said - I don't buy any of it.

[Gary Ten Cents]

"after Ahmadinejad had distinguished himself as a leader among the Revolutionary Guard "students" who captured the American Embassy in Teheran in 1979 and took 52 employees hostage."

That is an urban myth based on a photoshopped picture spread to the press by god knows who...

Get your facts straight before making an idiot of yourself. Sucker.

[Bill Brasky]

Iran is BSing, I don't think the President is serious. That's probably just political rhetoric because he probably feels like everyone on earth wants to nuke his country.

If every leader of their nation made good on threatening comments like the ones quoted above, none of us would probably be around to talk about this.

[kd]

Jim,

So last week's thread continues...

"By historical measure, the extremely belligerent remarks by Iran's president would have already invited an armed response by any sane nation."

That's a doozy, as they say.

What "historical measure"? The one established by GWB with his "pre-crime" strike on Iraq?

So, a "sane nation" should respond to "belligerent remarks" with bombs, preferably nuclear?

[Alfred]

A few weeks back, I sent you a private message congratulating on your interesting, and almost certainly correct, perspective on life in the US as oil gets prohibitively expensive. At the same time, I explained as gently as I could that you have little idea about the history of the Middle East and that you should play to your strengths rather than to your weaknesses. Clearly, you were not listening - you are repeating the codswallop that the US administration is using to 'justify' a putative attack on Iran. In case you have noticed, it is all about access to other peoples' oil.

[rob]

Don't forget that a half dozen orthodox rabbis flew from Israel to Tehran a week after Mr A's first "eliminate Israel" speech last March. They (www.nkusa.org) want the same thing, the elimination of Israel (the racist state, that is). Of course this doesn't get wide publicity since it doesn't fit the "wipe Israel off map equals atomic war" script.

My brother-in-law also believes that Iran will fire a nuclear weapon at another atomic power (Israel) which of course makes absolutely no sense. My brother-in-laws argument boils down to "at the end of the day, it's those crazy mullahs". I think I'll get that put on a T-shirt and present it to him next week.

[Eligere]

You don't need to drop atomic bombs on a helpless population to get rid of one madman, or even many. You don't need atomic weapons to get rid of a nuclear installation. Why even go there?

[Joe Marsiglia]

The ponzi scheme, known as our fiat currency system, is about to implode. The Powers That Be know this. They need an excuse and the Iran fiasco will do nicely. The breakdown of the oil system will be certain as will US economic meltdown. Look for a 5000 DOW and rioting in the streets this summer here in the USA.

[grok]

Ever heard of MAD? NO, not the mothers against drunk driving but Mutually Assured Destruction. Lets role play this, Jim (you are Iran's leadership). You deliver one nuke to Israel. I, playing Israel, takes out every significant Iranian cultural, military, political target. Yes Israel suffers serious damage, but survives as a state, however Iran would not. It is madness. Is the Iranian religious-political classes and leadership that insane? Before you answer, please compare them to the glorious leader of North Korea, he has nukes and hasn't aggressively attacked any of our allies.
The current leader of Iran is unpopular and like all demogogues wants to unite his people against a foreign enemy to deflect the failure of his domestic program. Yes, he would like to do it(as the U.S. would have liked to nuke the USSR) but we weren't MAD enough to do it. Yes Jim, authoritarian leaders would like to do all kinds of things, however, bloviating about such things and actually doing them is a different matter.
grok out

[Cynical]

The confluence of recent events is intriguing: global warming, species depletion, peak oil, the war on the Easter Bunny...

[Barry]

Riffing off the 'bit' about nuclear fallout 'blowback' being a problem for Iran, if they were to
'wipe Israel off the map,' . . .
The kind of rhetoric coming from Tehran and Washington both echo an insane proposition - nuclear strike - it's become increasingly apparent to most people that their governments are in business for their benefit, their ideology, and not for the good of the citizen. When heads of state start 'mouthing off' with this sort of crap, it's just a further indication of how small a bit of their balance sheets they consider the 'ultimate consumer.'
While force, bluster, and hard-core negotiation has always been a part of international diplomacy, in it's place, we currently see governments around the world playing to a 'middling mentality' that more behooves the mindset of a recent business graduate from one of many 'diploma mills.' Where the hell are any cogent thoughts to be found - the obviously aloof and clueless public falls, almost without question, for the 'horseshit patriotism' being waved around the halls of power, interrupting their consumption of 'cheese doodles' and NASCAR only long enough to mouth something similar to "Screw them towelheads - nuke 'em all" and returns to the all-too-well entrenched routine we know as the 'non-negotiable way of life' - acchhh.

[grok]

Is the easter bunny MAD enough to inform christains that he is a pagan symbol?
grok out

[Dave]

We must resist any calls to violence from whatever the source. At this transitional moment in human history national identities must be supplanted with an allegiance to our common humanity and shared suffering as the Pope so aptly said this past Good Friday.
This sounds ridiculously simplistic but simplicity, reverence for the lives of the innocent, and a common acknowlegment of our ignorance in the face of the overwhelming complexity of our time thus a need for caution lest we misstep in a horrible and life changing way for the whole of the planet is what is now needed.
How to respond to these times and the nature of the challenges faced by our society is what I most value about this blog and JHK's postings. When he ventures into the realm of what is commonly considered "real politik" is when I lose sight of what makes his work so valuable and the sense of danger faced by all so real and pressing. If minds cultivated and humane can contemplate theviability of "pre-emptive" nuclear strikes what of those minds immersed in the thinking the "real" world of power politics ?

[uptown ruler]

agreed....i agree with 99% of what you write, kunstler, but arguing for nuclear war just seems crazy to me.

[Douglass]

1) The Israelis do NOT have long-range bombers, which reduces them to bluffing in this situation.

2) Ahmadinejad believes in the coming of the 12th Imam (a messianic figure), who Ahmadinejad predicts will come within 2-3 years, UNLIKE the clerics. The clerics are saying that Ahmadinejad is batshit crazy to predict the rise of the 12th Imam.

So, Ayatollah Kohemeni’s clerics are saying this guy is crazy AND the Israeli Jews say this guy is crazy.

They finally agree on something.

[WelshDog]

>>1.) ignite a major regional conflagration leading to even wider war, and 2.) shut down Middle East oil production (or even permanently cripple it). Baer seems to think that this is exactly what President A-jad wants. I think so, too. Crazy as it might seem, it is not crazier than waging war by suicide bombers.>>

Oddly, this makes sense. Why get involved in the expensive and complex building of a terror network? The living standards of Iranians won't change that much if the petro-economy collapses. They already have it pretty bad, but the enormous pain and suffering that would be inflicted on the rest of the world, particularly the U.S. would be delicious to Mr. Ahmadinejad and his equally nutty cohorts. They don't need suicide bombers when they can destroy our economy by cutting off the oil flow from the entire Middle East by nuking Israel. Or maybe provoking Israel to nuke Iran.

It seems the Middle East is getting pretty close to going completely fucko bazoo.

[Barry]

They have a great Western 'model' to work from. :-)

[EastCoastShock]

JHK's post is riddled with factual errors.

First of all, Ahmadinejad was not the involved with the hostage taking, as some have speculated based on a faded old photograph from 1979. He has denied this, but more importantly, figures within the outgoing government have denied this, and even most of the hostages themselves say he was not involved.

Even the CIA thinks he is not a hostage taker.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/12/cia.iranpresident/

Secondly, Iran does not have the capability to make a nuclear bomb, so Israel is hardly showing any restraint by not nuking Iran. As Juan Cole wrote in his blog last week, 80% enrichment is required to be able to build a bomb.

http://www.juancole.com/2006/04/iran-can-now-make-glowing-mickey-mouse.html

Thirdly, Ahmadinejad does NOT control the military. The military is controlled by one Ayatollah Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran. It has always been controlled by Khamenei since his ascent to that post, and before that, it was controlled by Khomenei.

So I fail to see any apocalyptic dreams of nuclear war come to fruition, unless the real agressor in the region, Israel, ignites it. But, the good news is that the Likudniks are out of power in Israel. Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail.

[Parallel Universe]

From what I've read, Iran has just produced enough uranium to make some lovely luminescent watch faces. How that translates to the imminent destruction of Israel, I confess I don't understand.

Does JHK not remember that in 2002, the US explicitly threatened to militarily attack Iran in the future? And did he somehow not notice that this threat became urgently real with the follow-through on the accompanying threat to invade Iraq?

Any Iranian leader would have to respond in some way to an open and very real threat to attack his country. Insanity would consist of NOT responding.

[michael janket]

I seriously doubt Iran would nuke Israel. It appears the Iranian brain trust is trying to win wider support from their brethren by standing up to the western Satan. They figure they can play their Shiite roots into Middle Eastern hegemony. I don't believe Ahmad is apocalypic. He's merely a front man for dem mullahs who's been given free rein with hyperbole. Exaggeration is the mother of all virt ues over there. MoneyWeb says oil will sink to 35-40 later this year. Who's zoomin' who? Daniel Yergin says there's more oil than reserves state. Like, who owns the truth here? In summary, I don't expect Iran to nuke anybody. They are too busy screwing the Iranian man in the street over there. Virtually all Muslim nations have dictators and cruel fellows who "rule" them. It won't change and the chorus is gaining in saying that we should have left Saddam in charge. I say we move Saddam up to 5 star level and let him take over again. Crazy? No crazier than Ahmad saying he's nuke happy. We lived with the Russkies during the atomic cold war days and we can live with this guy. Bad childhoods tend to make for bad dictators. It's all gonna work out as the Donald and Ted Turner are working on it as we speak.

Mike

[kd]

JHK has posted some immanently sane pieces in the past, many that I've greatly admired. But these last two are not only short on facts & reason, but so overtly hawkish that I wonder what the source of his paranoia really is. Can anyone guess?

*

While Jim goes off in this grotesque direction, perhaps it's time to enjoy something really far out:

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2006/04/george-w-bush-barbara-bush-and.html

!!!

[Semanticleo]

Mayhaps we should send some Sunni
bombheads into the Supreme Iranian
Council and cut the head off the
braintrust. We risk alienating
the young pro-west Iranian population with a ham-handed nuke
strike. Precision could unleash that force for change.

[snuffy]

I think I agree with the poster {joe}that mentioned a scapegoat is needed for the finantial fireworks headed this way....with a new,untested fed chair,and the old mistakes comeing home,It seems likely the way they will use to distract the joe and mama sixpac crowd is a nice hot "little" war.That will result in TEOTWAWKI.

[ross]

Amazing! JHK has fallen for the oldest and by now dog eared tactic known to power hungry statists. Scare the minions into pre-emptive violence by threatening imminent danger from one's putative adversary. This is how the U.S. justified the invasion of Iraq. "Those WMDs are there and we are their ultimate target."

Now here we are again with the same apparaent casus belli except this time it's a variation on the earlier theme. Now the enemy will have WMDs and we know, because of all their threatening rhetoric, who they intend to strike.

Personally, wouldn't it make far more sense to hope that Iran does not follow up on their leader's saber rattling rhetoric, knowing that should Iran attack Israel that as their ally the U.S. would massively counterattack with complete and overwhelming force. Our justification for doing so would then be unassailable and probably achieve the big prize in the M.E. through perfectly legitimate means.

[ellie]

Douglas sez:

>>1) The Israelis do NOT have long-range bombers, which reduces them to bluffing in this situation.

Until you show me proof that this is true, I don't see why the hell the US wouldn't give them too Isreal, along with all the other military tec we've given them ...

along with grok's great MAD analisys, I would have to say all the other holders of nuclear weapons in the world seem to be pretty rational actors and have the same vested intrest in the nukes not flying. If Iran does try to nuke Isreal, even if Isreal doesn't nuke them back to the stone age first, I could see all the surounding powers (Russia, China etc) droping bombs on Iran to set an example that you *don't* rock *this* boat(the tenuous world ballence of nukes). If the nuclear powers of the world let Iran get off scott free with nuking Isreal, then suddenly other nuclear powers (say North Korea, India & Pakistan etc) will probably feel much less restrained about nuking whomever they don't like. I don't think the big 8 are going to allow that.

I am pretty disgusted at this post by Kunstler, because it plays exactly into the rhetoric of the run up to the Iraq war. He's talking as if the Iranians could nuke Isreal *tomorrow* if they wanted to. Most reports I have read say the Iranians are atleast 5-10 years away from having a working bomb. Enriching uranium is just a first step in a loong process. A lot can happen in 5 years. Just like Bush failed to make the case in the runup to the Iraq war, JHK fails to make the case that we need to attack Iran NOW. The region is unstaible enough as it is. Bombing Iran would seem to be jumping into the fire head first.

Anyway, since we all agree that this post is a recycling of last weeks crap that JHK shouldn't write about, why don't we talk about what we're really here to talk about. The thing that really worries me right now is not the trash talking from Iran, but the increasing cries from around the nations of "Boo hoo! I don't understand why gas prices are so high!!! They're SUPOSED to come down!!! It's interfearing with my 100 mile commute!! I don't understaaaaaand! It's not FAAAAAAIIIR!"
http://www.tribune-chronicle.com/News/articles.asp?articleID=2671

Ah yes, the American people and their conviction that they have a RIGHT to low gas prices ... what are these people going to do when the price of gas in fact keeps going up instead of down- up and up forever ... We will have a ton of people who will be chosing medicine (or food) versus filling up the gas tank for their commute to work. I don't think that's going to fall out nicely ...