I’ve recently come across several stories about this, and it appears to be gathering steam in the media . . . apparently there are increasing worries about Iran’s promise to give their Regis-like “final answer” on the nuke issue on August 22. The fear is that they will not simply take the opportunity to flip the bird to the international community and announce the continuation of their nuke program – as everyone expects – but that they will demonstrate they already have nuclear weapons (some sources say North Korean in origin) by detonating one in Israel, thereby intentionally starting World War III.
Why the hell would they do something so obviously suicidal and completely nuts? Apparently because Iranian President Ahmadinejad IS completely nuts. It seems August 22 coincides with a Muslim holy day commemorating Muhammed’s ascension to Heaven from the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, and Ahmadinejad wants to celebrate in a particularly horrifying fashion: by nuking Israel, an action he believes will bring about the coming of the “12th Imam” (sort of the Muslim version of the Second Coming of Christ, from what I can tell).
I know, I know . . . it sounds nutty, but the more I read about Ahmadinejad, the more convinced I am that he might just be crazy enough to believe this, and to risk the desruction of his entire country based on some elaborate apocalyptic fantasy.
In case you think I’m getting all my info on this from the Tinfoil Hat Society, here’s an article about it from a source generally considered to be not loony:
So . . . whaddya think? Anyone else been reading about this? Is there any credibility to it? Would Ahmadinejad really do it, if he did indeed have the weaponry?
I will readily agree that Lewis is not a “loony”, but his reasoning here is somewhat weak. His main claim is that mutually assured destruction doesn’t apply to the USA vs. Iran conflict because the current leaders are apocalypse nuts who are ready to die at a moment’s notice owing to their belief in the afterlife. He says:
The leaders of Iran are not insane. They are pursuing a strategy that involves two things: appealing to right-wing elements in Iran and intimidating the West. In short, in order to get some respect via the implicit threat of violence, you have to make it seem like there’s a possibility that the violence will actually happen. A threat is worth nothing if there’s no possibility of it being backed up.
We should remember that an apolayptic worldview is not a sign of insanity. Many millions of people managed to live apparently normal lives will claiming to think that Armageddon was imminent; it’s been going on for centuries. And the basic idea that we’re living in the run-up to the final battle between good and evil with paradise waiting for the good guys is shared by many influential people here in America.
“The fear” from who? I didn’t think anyone believed Iran has nukes. Every report I have seen speculates that they are several years away from having them. Nevermind the suicidal nature of this course - since Israel has plenty of nukes - Iran doesn’t have the goods. If people thought they already had nuclear weapons, these negotiations would be different.
Ahmadinejad is a figure head (the article doesn’t even mention this). I sincerely doubt he could order a nuclear detonation on his own even if he really wanted to. And cite for him being crazy. Calling for the end of Israel isn’t very nice, but it isn’t crazy.
Seriously, if you’re going to speculate about a major nuclear strike on a specific date in another country in a major newspaper, you better damn well have some better evidence then a). they make non-specific threats against non-muslims, b). they’re muslium, hence crazy bastards I wouldn’t trust with a pea-shooter, c). they celebrate a holiday on the samedate as a scheduled press conference. This is the least responsible opinion piece I think I’ve ever read. It belongs on the comments page of some obscure conspiracy blog, where other credulous nutbags can ridicule it for being stupid.
I will throw down my life saving on hundred to one odds no nuclear devices are detonated in Israel by Iran on the week of the 22nd.
Iran is not ready for a conflict. Israel ,I guess, has nukes. We have them. Would Bush do it? I dont know but he matches crazy rhetoric with Irans prez. We have stretched our military budget and soldiers very far. We cant cut and run them from Iraq into Iran. Someone has to figure out bombing does’t work and ground troops will be needed. Leaving the Nuke option open.
Just leaving the nuke option on the table scares me. If you want to see the economy drop into the depths shut down the Persian Gulf.
The middle east is full of paper tigers. Great threats and small backup. I hiope we don’t fall into this hole.
Why would he need to. I imagine Israel has adequate plans to see that it’s nuclear arsenal survives a first strike and will retaliate against the agressor.
So far as I know the US would have no treaty obligations to retaliate either.
I think the moral is that being a professor at Princeton does not mean you are not part of the tin-foil hat brigrade
I particularly liked this quote:
Glass houses, throwing stones, anyone ? I don’t think you can get any more apocaliptic than our current American leaders fundamentalist Christain world view (it was, after all, modern fundamentalist Christians that invented the modern concept of the Apocalypse).
But seriously Iran has, for decades, access to chemcial and biological weapons that could match the descructive power of a nuke, and (via Hezzbolla) the ability to deliver them. Yet they have not shown the sucidal impulse to attack israel regardless of the cost, why should they suddenly decide to do so now ?
Iran does not want nukes because they are crazy fundamentalist nut-jobs. They want nukes for the same reason every other country on the planet wants them (whether they admit to it or not). Countries that have nukes do not get attacked, this is the lesson of the last few decades (look at Kosovo vs Chechnya, Iraq vs N. Korea, etc.). The reason Iran wants them more than, say, Brazil is that its is much easier to imagine an attack on Iran by the “powers that be” (currently the US but in few decades time, who knows?) , than it is an attack on Brazil.
You make a good point, and I probably should have been clearer in the OP. What really makes me regard the Iranian Prez as a nutcase is not so much what he believes as what he may be willing to do based on those beliefs. Certainly many people have and still do hold apocalyptic beliefs, but the vast majority of them do not feel compelled to “play God” and take things into their own hands in order to bring prophetic events to pass. Most believers are content to live their lives and let God worry about things like that in His own time. Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, seems to think Allah needs his help. (Some people do put George Bush in practically the same category, which I think is a bit of a stretch . . . but that’s another thread.)
And yes, Malodorous, I do think that calling for nothing less than the complete obliteration of an entire nation is enough to merit the label “crazy.” How is that not insane?
Searching Google, I think I may have found where this story started . . . this short column predates the WSJ opinion piece and is even more specific, saying Jerusalem itself will be the target:
I admit I don’t get why Islamists would want to bomb the very city they desire to recapture for Allah, especially when it contains the third holiest shrine in Islam. (Although it would coincide, oddly enough, with some Christian apocalypse theories.)
Because however nasty it may be, it’s not divorced from reality ? I mean, Israel does exist and it can be destroyed; it’s not like calling for the destruction of Latvaria.
As a general rule of thumb, leaders of sovereign nations are not crazy enough to be suicidal. People like this tend to be extremely charismatic and somewhat idealistic… or very pragmatic and knowledgeable about power politics.
From what I’ve seen, the Middle East is not run by idealists.
My main concern would be that if Iran developed the bomb, how long could they come up with excuses for not using it on Tel Aviv?
Excuses to whom? Are a majority of the Iranian people calling for their government to rain nuclear fire on Israel? I’m asking seriously, as I have no idea but I doubt all that many people do.
I really don’t think Mr. Lewis knows what he is talking about. As someone else has said here, the chance that Iran currently has a workable nuclear weapon is vanishingly small. I’ll add my own opinion that North Korea would, even if they themselves are in possession of usable weapons, would release one of their very few deivces to another country, especially since they know as well as anyone that it could be traced back to them quite easily. Finally, yes, Israel is physically a fairly small country, but there is little chance that Iran could destroy it with the single, untested weapon that they just possibly might have under the most wildly speculative scenario.
On the Iranian side, apocalyptic pronouncements are a cultural staple as a response to perceived threats, all over the region. Anyone remember “the mother of all battles?”
I’m going to put my money on this: if Ahmedinejad really did suggest that his final reply on the nuclear issue would take place on 22 August, and if it was actually some coded reference to a militiary or terrorist action against western interests or Israel, he was referring to something like the apparent bombing plots revealed within the past 48 hours in the UK. Even to admit knowledge of that strikes me as a rather foolish choice, but I sincerely doubt we have any sort of immediate nuclear threat facing us.
I think if something like this were going to happen we would be hearing all kinds of statements from Khamenei & Co. designed to prepare the Iranian people for the ultimate sacrifice. I have seen none of this.
I don’t think suicidal necessarily equals crazy either.
Of more legitimate concern is Iran’s reported release of one of Osama Bin Laden’s sons. This could be a sign of rapprochement between Tehran and AQ and I don’t think we need that.
Even if Iran has a bomb, which seems doubtful, they’d also need a delivery system. Odds are they would not be able to get aircraft into Israel’s air space to drop a nuke, so that leaves missles. What have they got to deliver the goods? We saw what NK missles are like–cheap fireworks with unpredictable results.
Even if he did nuke Israel, I dont think it would signal the start of WW3. Why would it? Who in the world community would stand with Iran on something like that? Syria maybe? But the world vs 2 is not exactly a world war in the sense that WW1 and WW2 were.
I would think it would take more than a country with a few nukes to really start the big one. Unless, sorta like Iraq, our integllenice (sp wrong for irony sake) leads us to believe one country was responsible when it wasnt. But when an actual missle is launched from one country and lands in another, not much doubt there.
I’m beginning to think Bernard Lewis really is loony. Where’s his evidence for any of this? As people have pointed out upthread, Iran doesn’t have a nuclear bomb, or a delivery system, and is unlikely to have one in the next two weeks, even if they *do *use FedEx. The whole August 22 thing looks like just a minor coincidence.
