The Necessity of Destroying Iran

jtgagnon's picture
Submitted by jtgagnon on Thu, 2006-04-13 03:27

Whatever one's views on the use of anticipatory self-defense against Iran, it is becoming increasingly clear (but apparently not to all) that action MUST be taken. President Bush once referred to Ahmadinejad as an "odd guy." That is an understatement on every level. Ensconced on the throne of Islam's shining star, Ahmadinejad's rhetoric is not merely inflammatory - he's backing it up with actions. He is, simply put, a fanatacist - a member of an obscure Shi'ite sect that eagerly awaits Armageddon and the appearance of the 12th Imam. Fueled by such irrational beliefs, this "odd guy" will employ whatever methods necessary to legitimize his utterly absurd beliefs. Nuclear weapons in the control of such a figure is precisely what the world has long feared. And now that such a man has the raw material, the know-how, and the support of the Middle East, we continue to watch and wait and, in the words of Kofi Annan, "cool down." While academic discussion is a pleasantry - and one which I am particularly inclined to engage in - the ground reality is that actions must now replace words. If we fail to act, we may very well see Armageddon raining down upon us. To avert disaster we must neutralize this threat. And if that means employing shock and awe and the killing of civilians (who are not so innocent, by my calculations), we most definitely should...and sooner rather than later, please.


( categories: )

Not a clue...

jtgagnon's picture

Move it to whatever forum you think it should be in. Posting correctly continues to mystify me...lol.

I've just realised that this

Duncan Bayne's picture

I've just realised that this post is in the Test forum. Please let me know what category you intended this post to be in, and I'll move it there ASAP.

Kenny, if you were to apply

Duncan Bayne's picture

Kenny, if you were to apply that approach to NAZI Germany, we should have waited until after Hitler had re-armed Germany and threatened Poland to invade, not clobbered him as soon as he started down the path he took. Of course, we did wait, and look where it got us.

Iran is not a threat??

Sandi's picture

"Iran does not have nuclear weapons and is making idle threats."

So do we.....turn the other cheek? Ignore them and they go away?
Events like 9/11 were a one-off only?

"The Iraq war has reduced the ability of the West to deal with an aggressive Iran."

So, you believe that having allied bases in a country which is in Iran's backyard, is not a good thing?

Could you please expand on your reasoning Kenny?

Kenny,

jtgagnon's picture

I would hardly classify Iran's threats as "idle." Rather, they are backing up their threats with action. You simply must consider the following, clearly showing Ahmadinejad is both delusional...and dead serious, from Amir Tehri:

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.

Iraq

Kenny's picture

Nor did Saddam, Sandi. Iran does not have nuclear weapons and is making idle threats. If does obtain or manufactures them, I will support military action. The Iraq war has reduced the ability of the West to deal with an aggressive Iran.

Why does US/Nato not remove

Sandi's picture

Why does US/Nato not remove dictators in China, former Soviet Republics, North Korea, Burma, Zimbabwe etc?

Because these countries do not threaten to "wipe" other countries "off the map", with nuclear weapons.

We will have to disagree

Kenny's picture

I deplored the carpet bombing of beautiful cities of Dresden. It had no military value. We will have to agree to disagree.

Our action in WW2 was justified because it was clear that Hitler had imperialist ambitions. Saddam was forced back after his invasion of Kuwait (which was unable to defend itself). Saddam did not present a threat when Bush and Blair invaded.

I am no Saddamite, just an anti-imperialist. If the justification for military action is based on individual or human rights, why does US/Nato not remove dictators in China, former Soviet Republics, North Korea, Burma, Zimbabwe etc? The difference is that China and Russia can stand up to Bush and the smaller countries do not have assets of value to the US.

I have not seen the ARI call for such action to remove dictators outside the Middle East. I read that Yaron Brook served in the Israeli army. Could it be that the ARI is proposing slaughtering innocent Muslims to defend Israel rather than promoting the Objectivist principles of individual rights for all and national self-defence?

Not at all...

jtgagnon's picture

No, Kenny, I am not a genocidal maniac. Rather, I consider the facts before us, compare those facts with history, and realize the need for action. You may deplore my methods. But, let us not forget, that if we were to have used your approach in WWII, we'd all currently be living in Naziland. Thank goodness for men like Winston Churchill, who ordered the carpet-bombing of german cities, inflicting hundreds of thousands of civilian (and very complicit Nazi) casualties, thus breaking the morale of the Germans and leading to surrender. You may think you're right, but history and logic prove you to be wrong.

Mr Gagnon

Kenny's picture

You talk like a genocidal maniac.

Kenny

jtgagnon's picture

Perhaps you, sir, should spend a bit more time reading Yaron Brook's well-considered writings...as well as the news. You strike me as being particularly uninformed about the matters at hand - which are pressing indeed.

And as far as those "innocent" muslims who you take sides with...I do not need to know them to judge them; their lack of innocence is proven by their commitment to an irrational dogma which calls for the use of force against truly innocent people. That must not only be defended against, but aggressively fought in whatever manner is necessary for vicotry and the preservation of our freedoms and way of life.

Nasty

Kenny's picture

"And if that means employing shock and awe and the killing of civilians (who are not so innocent, by my calculations), we most definitely should...and sooner rather than later, please."

This is the most nasty piece in Mr Gagnon's articles. Who are you to judge whether they are innocent. You do not know them.

All human beings have individual rights, even Iranian Muslims. Their are lives are ends in themselves - not sacrificial fodder for crazed Zionists or prejudiced bigots. Your genocidal rantings are incompatible with Objectivism. You appear to have spent to much time reading Yaron Brooks's bullshit.

Israel

Kenny's picture

Israel should take action to defend itself and not expect other countries to fight its battles. It can take action now before Iran builds nuclear weapons. Why should, as a Briton, I be taxed to protect Irael and/or liberate Iraqis and Iranians? I oppose altruism in all its forms.

Kenny:

jtgagnon's picture

Obviously, Israel's nuclear weapons are not a deterrent to Iran. Just read the news for crying out loud. Are you that isolated? Do you live in a bubble? Well, if so, here's today's news:

Source: ALI AKBAR DAREINI, the Associated Press.

The president of Iran again lashed out at Israel on Friday and said it was "heading toward annihilation," just days after Tehran raised fears about its nuclear activities by saying it successfully enriched uranium for the first time.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Israel a "permanent threat" to the Middle East that will "soon" be liberated. He also appeared to again question whether the Holocaust really happened.

Deterrent

Kenny's picture

Using Phil's logic , the nuclear weapons of are no deterrent to Iran's aggressive intentions. I disagree. Israel , however, can attack Iran in self-defence if acquires evidence that Iran has acquired a nuclear weapon manufacturing capability.

I don't care -how- we

Rick Giles's picture

I don't care -how- we prevent them from becoming a nuclear power, as long as we realize we have to do so.

You don't mean what you say do you? Reductio ad absurdum will rip you into ribbons.

Blockade?

PhilipC's picture

>" I would advocate that which the Soviet Union fears above all else: economic boycott. I would advocate a blockade of Cuba and an economic boycott of Soviet Russia; and you would see both those regimes collapse without the loss of a single American life." [Rand, quoted by Kenny]

Not all cases are identical. Hard to do today in the case of Iran, when it is sitting on a mountain of oil that is desperately needed by the Europeans, Chinese etc. who are not seeeming likely to honor a U.S.-led blockade.

I don't care -how- we prevent them from becoming a nuclear power, as long as we realize we have to do so. I'm not an expert on what combination of economic pressure, fostering and arming internal unrest or regime change or subversion, or sabotage, or military measures will work...and neither I suspect is anyone else on this list.

No worries mate

Rick Giles's picture

Happy to confirm that Joe. Any other historical trivia you want cleared up, don't hesitate to ask away.

Whatever Rick. The Germans

JoeM's picture

Whatever Rick. The Germans chose to follow Hitler.

No, that's it.

Rick Giles's picture

No, that's it.

"Brainwashing or thought

JoeM's picture

"Brainwashing or thought reform is the application of coercive techniques to change the beliefs or behavior of one or more people for political purposes. Whether any techniques at all exist that will actually work to change thought and behavior to the degree that the term "brainwashing" connotes is a controversial and at times hotly debated question."

You seem to be using the term more broadly.

My logic

Rick Giles's picture

Deceived is not the same as brainwashed, Rick

It was back there and then, Joe, as it is in North Korea today.

Anyway, by your logic, one could say the same about the Iranian people being "brainwashed by religions."

I thought my logic was that the Germans were systematically V-For-Vendettarised whereas the Iranians were, like Cromwell's England, siezed by extremist religious moonbats. What'd you think I meant?

Deceived is not the same as

JoeM's picture

Deceived is not the same as brainwashed, Rick. They were free to consider the matters for themselves, as many conscientious Germans did. Anyway, by your logic, one could say the same about the Iranian people being "brainwashed by religions."

Not so much, no

Rick Giles's picture

The German people were deeply deceived, brainwahsed. I'm depending on you to alert me to any controversy about that fact Joe.

Are you suggesting that free

JoeM's picture

Are you suggesting that free will was removed?

Pervasive

Rick Giles's picture

Nazi Rallies combined with oratorio and music may have been overwhelming, but brainwashed?

Yep. I don't think that's too strong'a term.

Rick, are you suggesting

JoeM's picture

Rick, are you suggesting that the German people who supported people were all coerced into supporting him? Nazi Rallies combined with oratorio and music may have been overwhelming, but brainwashed? What is the basis of your comment?

Cromwell, not Hitler

Rick Giles's picture

Well said Kenny.

Hitler had his Germans screwed down tight, truely brainwashed. But I think the same cannot be said for the population of Iran, especially the new generation. I've met some of them where I work (I know from seeing their Iranian drivers licences) and this has been my impression.

The Islamic Republic has been in power 26 years, Lord Protector Cromwell had only 5. As in Iran, Cromwell's subjects were not eager consumers of his Puritanism either and were made to suffer for it while it lasted.

Imagine Cromwell with WMDs! Or Mary I. These are better analogies. The Necessity of Destroying Britain proved to be less important than ousting the religious nutters ruling it. That's one thing that has not changed with the ages.

Individual rights

Kenny's picture

Destroy Iran? What about the individual rights of oppressed Iranians?

We did not need to use weapons to destry Soviet Communism. This what Rand said in her Playboy Interview

"PLAYBOY: What about force in foreign policy? You have said that any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany during World War II . . .

RAND: Certainly.

PLAYBOY: . . . And that any free nation today has the moral right -- though not the duty -- to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba, or any other "slave pen." Correct?

RAND: Correct. A dictatorship -- a country that violates the rights of its own citizens -- is an outlaw and can claim no rights.

PLAYBOY: Would you actively advocate that the United States invade Cuba or the Soviet Union?

RAND: Not at present. I don't think it's necessary. I would advocate that which the Soviet Union fears above all else: economic boycott. I would advocate a blockade of Cuba and an economic boycott of Soviet Russia; and you would see both those regimes collapse without the loss of a single American life."

Rand's approach contrasts with the trigger happy militarism of many so-called Objectivists (notably at the Ayn Rand Institute and some posters on this site). She saw military action and invasion as a last resort.

Well said - Phillip

Sandi's picture

"The Clinton Administration was almost criminally irresponsible in letting Iran get to the point of being the deadly, Nazi level danger they are now."

I absolutely agree with you.

It is where a politician should stop being a politician and be a patriot.

Philip

Mark Dow's picture

So, this anticipatory self-defense you advocate has no consequences, no costs, you just dismiss outright any fidelity to principle, and write off anyone who disagrees with you, as uninformed?

Ahmadinejad does not have

Jason Quintana's picture

Ahmadinejad does not have enough power in Iran for him to be compared with a dictator like Hitler. He is getting stronger and he's popular, but he is isn't high enough on the pecking order at this point. In fact there are -- officially at least -- two levels in the government above him.

The leader of Iran is its Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. So if you want to direct such comparisons at him that might be more logical since he is the one who calls the shots in that country.

- Jason

Either way we are in for a bumpy ride!

Mark Dow's picture

Even if your remedy produces a few addition years of safety, I think forgoing the principle of sovereignty pushes us that must closer to your "Armageddon." But there is a side of me that agrees with you!

The Comparison with Hitler...

jtgagnon's picture

The comparison with Hitler is dead on. As I've noted before, Hitler wrote his book, Mein Kampf, saying exactly what he was gonna do...and no one took him seriously. Ahmadinejad has said exactly what he plans to do...and we should take him at his word...and act to stop the evil little bastard.

MARK: re: your comment on sovereignty. You obviously didn't read what I wrote. I said international jurists say this and that I expressly disagree with it. If you're going to argue, at least read what I wrote.

HItler ... with Nukes

PhilipC's picture

I'm just amazed and horrified when libertarians or Objectivists have not done enough reading or kept up with current events and foreign affairs and the nature of certain regimes enough to grasp the exact parallel between Ahmadinejad with Nukes and Hitler with Nukes.

Unless you believe that Hitler with Nukes would have been no threat, would not have used them, would not have used them to demand the surrender of half the world upon whose resources our economy depends? Maybe he only wanted Czechoslovakia?

The Clinton Administration was almost criminally irresponsible in letting Iran get to the point of being the deadly, Nazi level danger they are now.

I'm not even going to debate this: Go do some reading.

Yes...

jtgagnon's picture

Mark, your point here is well-taken. The problem is not military action per se, but how such action is implemented. Iraq and Vietnam are testaments to how military action can go terribly awry because of silly - and ultimately deadly - policy. One would hope that we'd learn from the past. I advocate military action in Iran because of the threat - and because I do believe that military action CAN be implemented properly. But, in this regard, you're probably right - it won't be done how it should be and the results will be costly.

Our only difference here, I think, is academic. While we both see the situation as it is, we also both see the potential for success or disaster. The outcome is entirely dependent - like most things - on implementation. In the end, however, I'd rather act vigorously and preemptively than sit back and wait to get my head lopped off.

RE: anticipatory self-defense. Your point, while appreciated, is incorrect. I qualified my statement by including "a serious threat," that necessarily means identifying its existence, determining its scope and potential for deployment. There are a whole list of things that can go into determining whether there is a serious threat, too many for me to list here at this particular moment.

And

Mark Dow's picture

Using your logic regarding “anticipatory self-defense”
any nation could justify any action, and rationalize that action.

Sovereignty is dead

Mark Dow's picture

“The notion of sovereignty is dead...according to most international jurists. You deny this and assert that sovereignty counts for something.”

And when most "national jurists” declare that liberty is dead, your response will be?

Undecided

Mark Dow's picture

As you can see I withdrew part of my post, because I wasn’t comfortable arguing the point about sovereignty. However after living through Viet Nam and now Iraq, something in my gut tells me the cost to your actions will be greater than any benefit you might accrue, and yes you are right about “irregardless” (old habits die hard).

No...

jtgagnon's picture

The notion of sovereignty is dead...according to most international jurists. You deny this and assert that sovereignty counts for something.

I, for one, agree. And this is precisely why we SHOULD act preemptively. Sovereign nations have a right to self-defense. On this, no one can argue. The US, Europe, and Israel all accept the notion of anticipatory self-defense; that is, eliminating a serious threat before being attacked. This is accepted morally - and legally, I might add - because a nation should not have to wait to have bombs raning down upon it (especially nuclear ones)before it can act.

In the case of Iran - and its expressed desire to use of nuclear weapons - anticipatory self-defense is necessary precisely because of the nature of the threat (fanaticism combined with weapons of incredible destruction).

PS - "irregardless" is not a word.

Armageddon?

Mark Dow's picture

“If we fail to act, we may very well see Armageddon raining down upon us”

Why? Why do you assume Armageddon?

I think you'll get your

Pete L's picture

I think you'll get your wish. The war strategists in the Bush administration are of the same mindset. I think they realize that it's very possible that the Republicans might lose power (and even the presidency) in future elections, and that the window of opportunity is now. The pressure to do it now is not only political, but also militarilly. Most estimates that I've read have five years or so as the earliest that Iran would be able produce a nuclear weapon - early enough that if a dove were in the White House at that time, it could be too late.

I would bet my money that an Iran strike will take place before Bush's term is up. I've expressed my reservations about this undertaking in another thread. However, if and when they do it, I merely hope they are successful, and that the intelligence and targeting is sound. It would be a shame if they were to have successfully hidden their operations and emerged with a bomb a few years after the fact.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.