It is time to disarm Iran.

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, who themselves admitted two years ago that Iran has an "impressive" nuclear power infrastructure, still haven't adjusted the silly "Doomsday Clock" by which they profess to gauge the threat of nuclear war. Nevertheless, the world has today moved much closer to a nuclear weapon being used offensively by a totalitarian regime. Iran's messianic President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced today that his nation has successfully enriched uranium, a crucial step towards building a bomb.

Being a scientist, I am unfortunately very familiar with the products of our modern higher education system, many of whom seem to know more and more about less and less as they "progress" in their quest for greater knowledge. Yes. Some very intelligent people can somehow tell when a country is nearly ready to build a bomb, but can't decide that such a development is a threat to civilized human beings! Such people are nearly beyond hope. I am not writing for them, but for anyone who is open to the idea that we might have to act militarily against Iran. We'll start by reviewing some well-documented things Iran's elected (and undeposed) leader is known to have said.

About September of last year, Madman Mahmoud made quite a stir at the United Nations.

[Ahmadinejad] often raises the topic [of preparing for the return of the Mahdi, at the end of the world], and not just to Muslims. When addressing the United Nations in September, Ahmadinejad flummoxed his audience of world political leaders by concluding his address with a prayer for the Mahdi's appearance: "O mighty Lord, I pray to you to hasten the emergence of your last repository, the Promised One, that perfect and pure human being, the one that will fill this world with justice and peace."

On returning to Iran from New York, Ahmadinejad recalled the effect of his U.N. speech: "[O]ne of our group told me that when I started to say 'In the name of God the almighty and merciful,' he saw a light around me, and I was placed inside this aura. I felt it myself. I felt the atmosphere suddenly change, and for those 27 or 28 minutes, the leaders of the world did not blink. And they were rapt. It seemed as if a hand was holding them there and had opened their eyes to receive the message from the Islamic republic." [links dropped, one link added]
Ahmadinejad wasn't drugged, or joking, or hamming it up for the world stage. In fact, he has indulged and acted upon such fantasies at home as well.
When he was still mayor of Tehran in 2004, for example, Ahmadinejad appears to have secretly instructed the city council to build a grand avenue to prepare for the Mahdi. A year later, as president, he allocated US$17 million for a blue-tiled mosque closely associated with mahdaviat [The return and rule of the Mahdi. --ed] in Jamkaran, south of the capital. He has instigated the building of a direct Tehran-Jamkaran railroad line. He had a list of his proposed cabinet members dropped into a well adjacent to the Jamkaran mosque, it is said, to benefit from its purported divine connection.
Oh yeah, and more recently, the news reported a bit more on what he and his pals have said.
"At this historic moment, with the blessings of God almighty and the efforts made by our scientists, I declare here that the laboratory- scale nuclear fuel cycle has been completed and young scientists produced enriched uranium needed to the degree for nuclear power plants Sunday," Ahmadinejad said.

"I formally declare that Iran has joined the club of nuclear countries," he told an audience that included top military commanders and clerics in the northwestern holy city of Mashhad. The crowd broke into cheers of "Allahu akbar!" or "God is great!" Some stood and thrust their fists in the air.
How's all that for "impressive"? Oh yeah. And I haven't even touched that whole "Holocaust never happened but the Jews would have deserved it so let's make it happen" schtick. Really. Just what does it take for those bozos at the Bulletin to reset their silly clock? I suggest we keep time for ourselves instead.

And, being a scientist, I spend my working days surrounded by liberals and leftists. The latter are definitely sympathetic to the enemy, but a few of the former are belatedly realizing what's going on. Hearing "We might have to drop something on them," recently from a Kerry voter was music to my ears, except that we need to bump up the volume just a bit.

Many liberals, who would agree with my caution about the political goals of the religious right seem oddly unconvinced -- despite the near-daily occurrence of violent acts by Moslems -- that Islam might be even half the threat that fundamentalist Christianity is! So let's put the Iranian theocracy into context by considering Islam's historical record in additon to its current state. (HT: TIA Daily)
In our own time there is a reluctance to consider the true and emerging nature of Islam, what the faith teaches and its doctrines. For tactical reasons, many politicians in the West call Islam a religion of peace; some say it is a religion hijacked by extremists and others maintain that Sufis (a small minority sect) represent the true nature of Islamic pacifism.

Very recently, however, MEMRI reports that an Islamic scholar Dr. Kamel Al-Najjar challenged these suppositions by restating the obvious: intellectuals, who call for a condemnation of violence among Moslems and an openness in Islam, do not understand the history of this religion.

According to Dr. Al-Najjar, Islam was tolerant during only one brief period in its history. Islam was humane and tolerant when it was relatively weak, during the so-called Mecca period. Later Koranic verses call on Muslims to fight anyone who does not convert to Islam: "And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out." The "verse of the sword" and other warlike verses were said to abrogate tolerant verses of the Mecca period. [bold added]
They not only have a religion that preaches violence over there, but the Iranians also actually believe it. In fact, they believe it to the point that their leader openly talks about seeing lights and feeling auras without fear of being removed from office and sent to an asylum, where he arguably belongs. This is a people with a medieval mindset who will soon have nuclear weapons at their disposal unless WE stop them. What we eventually had to do to to rid ourselves of Saddam Hussein might be an accurate gauge of the value of protracted diplomatic efforts.

These are the facts, and yet, as Robert Tracinski of TIA Daily recently pointed out:
Over the weekend, the mainstream media finally caught on to the fact that US military strikes against Iran are actively being planned and considered, and for the most part, the MSM has tried to make this sound like a crazy, impractical idea. They are trying to stop US action against Iran before it begins.
If considering the above facts has convinced you that attacking Iran is necessary, or if you were in no need of convincing, I think that Tracinski offers some sound advice for you.
Now is the time for a war mobilization by all of us whose contribution to the war effort is made with a keyboard instead of a rifle. Many of us having been saying for years that Iran is the ultimate enemy in the War on Terrorism -- and now war with Iran is openly being considered and debated. This is the moment we have been waiting for. This is the time for us to make the case for war with Iran.

Use whatever medium is open to you: blog entries, letters to the editor, phone calls, e-mails, and letters to your congressman and to the White House, one-on-one debates with friends and coworkers. Make the case that war with Iran is not just "thinkable" -- it is mandatory. We need to attack Iran, not just to keep it from developing nuclear weapons, but to topple the largest remaining state sponsor of terrorism, and to discredit Islamic rule.
Let's roll.

-- CAV

Updates

4-14-06: Cox and Forkum have a good roundup on Iran and note how the anti-war/pro-Islamic left plan to wage their battle in favor of American inaction.

And, in yesterday's TIA Daily, Robert Tracinski said the following.
In response to my "mobilization alert" yesterday, a TIA Daily reader noted that some of the reporting on US military planning for a strike against Iran has been overblown, and that routine war-planning has been portrayed as evidence of an imminent attack. The war planning has actually gone a bit further than the routine -- e.g., negotiations to line up British military support for action against Iran -- as TIA Daily has covered.

But this reader has a point: a US attack on Iran is not inevitable. The report below, for example, gives us evidence in the opposite direction, portraying the talk about war planning as just a gimmick in the diplomatic game, to put pressure on the Iranians, in a "war of words" instead of a "war of action." And that is precisely why we need to mobilize.

...

Since September 11, there has been a small number of people (inside and outside Objectivist circles) arguing that Iran is America's most important enemy in the War on Terrorism, and that we won't win the war until we topple the regime in Iran. But up to now, direct American action against Iran has not been part of the mainstream political discussion. It has not been "on the table." Now it is -- and this is our big opportunity.

7 comments:

Narges said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Gus Van Horn said...

Narges,

You sound like a very decent person, but your pleas are being directed at the wrong ears.

I live in our nation's fourth-largest city, which is too large to be destroyed outright by a nuclear weapon of the type Iran hopes to build. But it is a port city and as such, it is especially vulnerable to being bombed from the sea via container ship.

Iran having the bomb would mean: (1) Your nation would have a way to better threaten nations like mine that might want to force it to stop supporting terrorism. 3,000 of my countrymen have already died here in America due to terrorism. (2) The lives of my countrymen, including friends and loved ones, would be at risk. (3) I personally could conceivably die in a nuclear blast. (4) I could end up getting cancer from the fallout of a nuclear blast.

My life is being threatened by the activities of your government, which seems intent on causing some kind of military confrontation. My choice is either to let your government threaten my life and those of the ones I love -- or support a war to defeat it.

This is a choice your leaders are forcing me to make. I choose to live, knowing full well that decent people like you -- people probably very much like me in many ways -- will die as my country defends my life.

If you understand this, then you will see why you must redouble you efforts to depose the regime in Iran or, if that is not possible to you, to flee.

You have my sympathy, but I cannot allow my sympathy to cost me my own life.

Gus

Anonymous said...

Another guy who wants to start a world war. Happy Easter - the last one.

Gus Van Horn said...

Anon,

Comments like yours usually just get deleted here, but since this one epiomizes the treason of moral equivalence, it stays.

In case you've been asleep since 1979, Iran has been at war with the United States ever since, and Islamic totalitarians have joined them in increasing numbers. Recall that 3,000 Americans were killed in 2001. Please explain how fighting back in self-defense could possibly make things any more dangerous for us than doing nothing. Please. Be my guest.

There is no war to "start". The only thing I want to "start" is for the West to finally fight back.

If we follow your advice and do nothing, Iran will get the bomb and the Mullahs will use it in some way to execute Westerners.

Gus

Gus Van Horn said...

Dear Readers,

My normal policy on this blog is to leave all comment exchanges in place. However, I have taken the unusual step of removing an entire exchange from the comments to this blog between myself and a commenter named Mark, whose first comment contained a URL to a website attacking the Ayn Rand Institute, which I support.

Since I have a long-standing policy of not providing free, unsolicited advertising on this blog I specifically asked him to leave this URL out of all future posts, a condition to which he agreed. I later discovered that all his posts contained hyperlinks to the same site anyway.

At first, I reproduced the entire exchange (minus URLs and hyperlinks) and posted it here, but I have decided that that solution is unsatisfactory as well, as it is clear upon rereading it that in addition to a major mistake in one of my own replies, that the commenter himself quoted me out of context on numerous occasions.

I could leave the whole distracting mess here to detract from the value of this post, spend hours going through it line-by-line to straighten things out, or remove it altogether.

Having neither the time nor obligation to do the second, I have chosen the last. Any reader who was following this exchange is free to request that I send it via email.

To the commenter (Mark), I re-state that you are not permitted to post to this blog again with that URL or that hyperlink included in the post. I will summarily delete such posts and any others I see fit.

If you wish to slam ARI, or call me an "ignoramus" on the strength of not having read an entire library of anti-Israel literature, you are free to do so on your own blog. You may not do so here.

Gus

Narges said...

Hi. I'm sorry to come here this late. The problem about blogger is that you don't know when you're being replied and I had forgotten your blog's name! I'm sorry to cause trouble in your blog.. In fact all I wanted to do was to help you see the life of a real iranian as it's not very common to find in blogsphere, and I guess I did manage that.

Again sorry for the trouble!
Have a great life,
Bye.

Gus Van Horn said...

Nargess,

You caused no trouble, and I certainly understand why you stopped by.

The fact that it is to an American, but not to your own leaders, that you can say, "Help me. I am a human being." speaks volumes. Your life is already being suffocated by them. And it may be put into mortal danger by the fact that they cause others to have to defend themselves.

Your leaders are doing everything they can to spread their form of oppression throughout the world. If no one resists them, they will ruin or end the lives of everyone they can, and not just yours.

I once again can only offer my sympathy and my hope that you can leave Iran -- and that last is whether or not my country attacks it.

Gus