Iran - Nuclear Negotiations

[Atlas]

I've had an idea bouncing around in my head for the last few weeks that's been troubling me because I think it's one of those unthinkable ideas that my intellectual betters reject out of hand.

It started with the negotiations with Iran to give up its aspirations for a nuclear bomb. Iran says it has no such aspirations out of one side of its mouth and jeers "you can't make us stop" out of the other.

The conventional wisdom is that Bush or Israel will launch a crippling attack on Iran's nuclear facilities and programs before Iran tests its first nuclear device. My hopes for a successful mission will ride with those pilots, whoever they are.

In my unconventional "wisdom" I wonder if I've hit upon a bargaining chip that might make for more fruitful negotiation. It has a slight drawback to it. I think it's against the Geneva Convention accords. That's what makes it unthinkable. What makes it thinkable is that Iran seems to flaunt all of its treaties because it doesn't care what treaties with infidels say - they follow the way of Mohammed - double dealing, lies, and betrayal are sanctioned for holy causes.

So they can call for genocide against Jews, the destruction of Israel - a UN member state, and they can be a signatory of the UN Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty and run programs in violation of it for 20 years.

In other words there are things we won't do because of treaties and the Iranians are comfortable taking advantage of that by joining us in those treaties but do not feel bound to them like we do. To be fair, they're not the first to act duplicitously in signing treaties, history is rich with examples. The question is, how do we communicate how wrong that is.

There may be a good answer to that question but we haven't found it. Before I explain my answer I'd like to point out one more thing. Good communication involves knowing your audience. If we want to hit an idea home to Persians and Arabs we should do it by playing in their sandbox.

For instance, when Mohammed took Mecca and probably every other city and people he conquered, he threw down their pagan religious icons and replaced them with shrines to the truth that he subscribed to. What would happen if we did the same?

What if we launched a propaganda campaign that said we are glad that Iran has no plans to build a nuclear device because we believe Allah does not wish them to have it? In the event of an Iranian nuclear test we have prepared plans to completely destroy the holiest sites of Shia Islam in Iran. If we are wrong Allah will prevent us from destroying Mashad, if we are right and Mashad is destroyed we could only have done it inshallah (God willing) because we will have done it specifically to test whether the Islamic state has, with its lies, made all the holy things of Islam unholy in Allah's eyes by pursuing a weapon they are unworthy of wielding.

The Reza shrine in Mashad is as amazingly rich to the eye as it is to the soul of the Shia Muslim. There was a time when it was treacherous to travel for Hajj to Mecca and Persians were told they could fulfill their obligation by a pilgrimage to Mashad's Reza Shrine.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/83/RezaShrine.jpg

I can't imagine that the mullahs, Imams, and Ayatollahs would risk its destruction. A skillful propaganda campaign explaining to the Iranian people how their foolhardy leaders put their holiest site in peril might lead them to fall on their leaders if it were destroyed and carry their heads on pikes through the town. It could also lead to an angry Islamic backlash against us - I sorta think that's coming anyway. We may have to take out Qom and other stationary targets of faith. Could the Shias allow it to happen knowing how they'd be mocked by the Sunnis for risking their holiest places just to threaten Jews more scarily?

Yes, of course they could. Their thinking is steeped in hate not light. We'd have to make all the arguments many times over - each time the Iranians say they are only interested in peaceful nuclear power we ought to say, "Good, because there will not be one stone left on a stone in Mashad if you lie - if you test a bomb you will only have a crater where once there was a well where the 12th Imam was hiding."

If we do throw down any of the holy things of Islam we should complete the way of Mohammed. We should leave a shrine to our own truth. It can't be anything from Jewish or Christian faith - we don't want to feel like we need to defend it when they desecrate and destroy it. I think shrines to Ishtar, who we know in the West as Venus or Aphrodite would be appropriate. She would have been one of the pagan gods destroyed by Mohammed and would represent just how complete a loss the destruction of Mashad would be, taking it all the way back as if Mohammed never existed. Aphrodite/Venus/Ishtar is the Goddess of Love and Beauty and is generally depicted partially or completely unclad, sure to infuriate the sexually repressed Muslim man and deepen his humiliation which I think would be a clue to other states in the region that we're playing hardball; that we're ready to destroy the holy things of Islam and humiliate its people if they choose the bomb and to kill human beings which is terribly unholy to us.

As horrible a thing as it is to contemplate, and it is as horrible as when the Taliban bombed the 100 foot Buddhas in Bamyan Valley, it stays true to our belief that human life is more important than buildings. Hopefully the Muslims will stand back so none of them are killed if their leaders challenge us to make the Reza Shrine disappear.

Anyway, though it's against the Geneva Convention, so is wiping Israel off the map and this plan has an allure in that it can be presented in terms of the way Mohammed acted against those who embraced abominations and unholy things. It might even bring them to their senses and so step back from the madness of their nuclear ambition.

 

[Darth Rotor]

In my unconventional "wisdom" I wonder if I've hit upon a bargaining chip that might make for more fruitful negotiation. It has a slight drawback to it. I think it's against the Geneva Convention accords. That's what makes it unthinkable. What makes it thinkable is that Iran seems to flaunt all of its treaties because it doesn't care what treaties with infidels say - they follow the way of Mohammed - double dealing, lies, and betrayal are sanctioned for holy causes.
What if we launched a propaganda campaign that said we are glad that Iran has no plans to build a nuclear device because we believe Allah does not wish them to have it? In the event of an Iranian nuclear test we have prepared plans to completely destroy the holiest sites of Shia Islam in Iran. If we are wrong Allah will prevent us from destroying Mashad, if we are right and Mashad is destroyed we could only have done it inshallah (God willing) because we will have done it specifically to test whether the Islamic state has, with its lies, made all the holy things of Islam unholy in Allah's eyes by pursuing a weapon they are unworthy of wielding.

The Reza shrine in Mashad is as amazingly rich to the eye as it is to the soul of the Shia Muslim. There was a time when it was treacherous to travel for Hajj to Mecca and Persians were told they could fulfill their obligation by a pilgrimage to Mashad's Reza Shrine.

A few weeks ago, I related my fantasy come true: I get all the B-2's in the USAF, and one day to assign them to my whims and whimsy.

First mission: rubble that black rock in Mecca, reduce Medina to rubble, and bomb the Saud Royal family into splintered bone and shredded flesh.

With a couple dozen B-2's, I could do that.

Luckily for Whirled Pease, I do not have that discretion.

(God is great, Allah or not, for that data point alone!)

So, on a more practical line of thought:

Iran is not capable, as of this writing, of overcoming Israeli Air Defense and CAP capabilities in the near term.

Mahmoud may know rhetoric, but he knows about

Edited by chillzero: 

You are in violation of Rule 8

about modern warfare.

DR

 

[Puppycow]

Modern warfare is complicated by the fact that the whole world would be watching and most would perceive the US as the aggressor. The worst policy IMO, is what we have now: rhetorical bellicosity with an unwillingness to take actual military measures. It falls between two stools, as it were.

I would rather rely on deterrence and engagement. Engagement doesn’t mean condoning. It means trying to win over the hearts and minds of the youth with “soft power.” I believe that the more exposure to western ideas and culture there is, the less attractive fundamentalist Islam will appear in comparison.

So we have to be patient enough to wait for another generation or two. In the meantime keep a military advantage just in case they try anything overt. The US and Israel both have nukes, and don’t follow treaties when they don’t want to, either. It’s not worth going to the mat over, IMO.

 

[richardm]

there will not be one stone left on a stone in Mashad if you lie - if you test a bomb you will only have a crater where once there was a well where the 12th Imam was hiding.

A problem I can see is that it would be seen as a hollow threat that would change nothing; if you actually followed through on your threat, you would succeed only in confirming their worst fears about the Evil America, generate a huge amount of ill-will around the world and generally do no good at all. So while it might make you feel better to trample their geraniums, as it were, I can't really see it making a difference.

 

[Atlas]

It's a game of brinksmanship.

The Islamic leaders must defend and protect the holy things of the faith or risk the wrath of their own people and the mockery of the other Islamic sects.

It may work as a bluff if it were sold well - but I think we'd have to be prepared to follow through if and when Iran performed their first underground (or above ground) test.

There's a two edged WWMD (What would Mohammed do?) thing in play. We need to convince them that we're asking the question. Mo would strike at his enemy ruthlessly if they questioned the will of Allah and destroy their shrines to false gods.

Iran will use the weapon if they create it, sooner or later they will, because Mohammed would - to spread the faith, reclaim lost land, and oppress people in fear. It is the power of Allah in their hands.

They have made claims that they could strike Israel and one bomb could destroy it - and because they are so big they could withstand any nuclear counterattack. In other words, their people are expendable.

I'm playing with the question; "Is there anything they love that is not worth risking to acquire the bomb?" I think we should threaten them that they put all their mosques and minarets and madrassas and shrines at risk by seeking the bomb. These things are cultural artifacts that, in a sense belong to the world as much as the statues in Bamyan Valley, but in the Islamic Republic they also serve as extensions of the state and incubators of hate.

There must be a way to get inside their head and manipulating their own stories of ruthless destruction and threatening the loss of all they hold holy might do it so no really hideous violence occurs.

 

[Atlas]

Modern warfare is complicated by the fact that the whole world would be watching and most would perceive the US as the aggressor. The worst policy IMO, is what we have now: rhetorical bellicosity with an unwillingness to take actual military measures.

I completely agree with this.

In my attempt at brinksmanship no nation would stand with us in making the threat... not even Israel. But if we did make such a threat we'd have to follow through and if we failed it would convince the Islamic Republics that the will of Allah would protect them in their quest for world domination through nuclear fear and fireball.

 

[Kerberos]

Sometimes I read post on this forum that remind me that Bush isn't that stupid after all.

 

[Atlas]

Well, I did put it in the unthinkable catagory.

What first led me to contemplate it was the question of how we'd respond to a nuke going off inside Israel placed there by Hamas or Hezbollah.

Would we attack Iran? Would we chase the mullahs into hidey holes like we did Saddam?

We know it is malignant Islam that fuels their quest for power and we cannot contemplate harming a single minaret. They know their holy sites are safe and so can contemplate themselves the nuclear annihilation of Israel.

Anyway, it seemed like the ugliest of scenarios that Israel would be nuked and the US would then systematically take out ALL the stationary holy places of Iran until the people carried their leaders heads on pikes through the streets.

It's the only thing I could think of that would change the rules of the game and reverberate through all of Islam and waken the people to reject the Iblissian menace that beats at the very core of their faith.

After contemplating that most ugly scenario, which does not put a boot on the ground but relies on the locals themselves to cut the head off the beast that has called down the wrath of Allah on their heads, I wondered if such an argument might have a salutory effect on the thinking of their clergy BEFORE their aspirations for apocalyptic weaponry become reality.

My use of the term "apocalyptic" may point at EXACTLY what they are after, in which case the clergy may welcome a nuclear exchange. I don't know - I suppose the sane approach is to target their programs and facilities to prevent them from getting the bomb, but I sure wish there was a way to make them reject this nightmare by manipulating the symbols of their faith so they see it as a devil's errand.

 

[MaGZ]

I've had an idea bouncing around in my head for the last few weeks that's been troubling me because I think it's one of those unthinkable ideas that my intellectual betters reject out of hand.

It started with the negotiations with Iran to give up its aspirations for a nuclear bomb. Iran says it has no such aspirations out of one side of its mouth and jeers "you can't make us stop" out of the other.

The conventional wisdom is that Bush or Israel will launch a crippling attack on Iran's nuclear facilities and programs before Iran tests its first nuclear device. My hopes for a successful mission will ride with those pilots, whoever they are.

In my unconventional "wisdom" I wonder if I've hit upon a bargaining chip that might make for more fruitful negotiation. It has a slight drawback to it. I think it's against the Geneva Convention accords. That's what makes it unthinkable. What makes it thinkable is that Iran seems to flaunt all of its treaties because it doesn't care what treaties with infidels say - they follow the way of Mohammed - double dealing, lies, and betrayal are sanctioned for holy causes.

So they can call for genocide against Jews, the destruction of Israel - a UN member state, and they can be a signatory of the UN Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty and run programs in violation of it for 20 years.

In other words there are things we won't do because of treaties and the Iranians are comfortable taking advantage of that by joining us in those treaties but do not feel bound to them like we do. To be fair, they're not the first to act duplicitously in signing treaties, history is rich with examples. The question is, how do we communicate how wrong that is.

There may be a good answer to that question but we haven't found it. Before I explain my answer I'd like to point out one more thing. Good communication involves knowing your audience. If we want to hit an idea home to Persians and Arabs we should do it by playing in their sandbox.

For instance, when Mohammed took Mecca and probably every other city and people he conquered, he threw down their pagan religious icons and replaced them with shrines to the truth that he subscribed to. What would happen if we did the same?

What if we launched a propaganda campaign that said we are glad that Iran has no plans to build a nuclear device because we believe Allah does not wish them to have it? In the event of an Iranian nuclear test we have prepared plans to completely destroy the holiest sites of Shia Islam in Iran. If we are wrong Allah will prevent us from destroying Mashad, if we are right and Mashad is destroyed we could only have done it inshallah (God willing) because we will have done it specifically to test whether the Islamic state has, with its lies, made all the holy things of Islam unholy in Allah's eyes by pursuing a weapon they are unworthy of wielding.

The Reza shrine in Mashad is as amazingly rich to the eye as it is to the soul of the Shia Muslim. There was a time when it was treacherous to travel for Hajj to Mecca and Persians were told they could fulfill their obligation by a pilgrimage to Mashad's Reza Shrine.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/83/RezaShrine.jpg

I can't imagine that the mullahs, Imams, and Ayatollahs would risk its destruction. A skillful propaganda campaign explaining to the Iranian people how their foolhardy leaders put their holiest site in peril might lead them to fall on their leaders if it were destroyed and carry their heads on pikes through the town. It could also lead to an angry Islamic backlash against us - I sorta think that's coming anyway. We may have to take out Qom and other stationary targets of faith. Could the Shias allow it to happen knowing how they'd be mocked by the Sunnis for risking their holiest places just to threaten Jews more scarily?

Yes, of course they could. Their thinking is steeped in hate not light. We'd have to make all the arguments many times over - each time the Iranians say they are only interested in peaceful nuclear power we ought to say, "Good, because there will not be one stone left on a stone in Mashad if you lie - if you test a bomb you will only have a crater where once there was a well where the 12th Imam was hiding."

If we do throw down any of the holy things of Islam we should complete the way of Mohammed. We should leave a shrine to our own truth. It can't be anything from Jewish or Christian faith - we don't want to feel like we need to defend it when they desecrate and destroy it. I think shrines to Ishtar, who we know in the West as Venus or Aphrodite would be appropriate. She would have been one of the pagan gods destroyed by Mohammed and would represent just how complete a loss the destruction of Mashad would be, taking it all the way back as if Mohammed never existed. Aphrodite/Venus/Ishtar is the Goddess of Love and Beauty and is generally depicted partially or completely unclad, sure to infuriate the sexually repressed Muslim man and deepen his humiliation which I think would be a clue to other states in the region that we're playing hardball; that we're ready to destroy the holy things of Islam and humiliate its people if they choose the bomb and to kill human beings which is terribly unholy to us.

As horrible a thing as it is to contemplate, and it is as horrible as when the Taliban bombed the 100 foot Buddhas in Bamyan Valley, it stays true to our belief that human life is more important than buildings. Hopefully the Muslims will stand back so none of them are killed if their leaders challenge us to make the Reza Shrine disappear.

Anyway, though it's against the Geneva Convention, so is wiping Israel off the map and this plan has an allure in that it can be presented in terms of the way Mohammed acted against those who embraced abominations and unholy things. It might even bring them to their senses and so step back from the madness of their nuclear ambition.

You sound like a Republican nut case. I bet you watch an listen to Glenn Beck.

 

[Pardalis]

You sound like a Republican nut case. I bet you watch an listen to Glenn Beck.

Is this all you got to say, Missile at Ground Zero? Seems a bit unfair to leave a one-liner after Atlas' elaborate post.

Just sayin'.

 

[President Bush]

Sometimes I read post on this forum that remind me that Bush isn't that stupid after all.

I am The Decider. Remote from the consequence of whatever decision...

 

[Azure]

You sound like a Republican nut case. I bet you watch an listen to Glenn Beck.

I bet you didn't read his post....

Doofus!

 

[Azure]

I am The Decider.

I thought Cheney was...or was that Rove?

 

[MaGZ]

I bet you didn't read his post....

Doofus!

I read his post and read it again to see if I missed anything. I didn’t.

Feel free to justify the destruction of Islamic religious sites when Iran explodes their first nuclear bomb–if you like. It won’t bring peace to the area and in the long run it won’t save Israel.

 

[Kerberos]

Well, I did put it in the unthinkable catagory.

What first led me to contemplate it was the question of how we'd respond to a nuke going off inside Israel placed there by Hamas or Hezbollah.

Would we attack Iran? Would we chase the mullahs into hidey holes like we did Saddam?

We know it is malignant Islam that fuels their quest for power and we cannot contemplate harming a single minaret. They know their holy sites are safe and so can contemplate themselves the nuclear annihilation of Israel.

Anyway, it seemed like the ugliest of scenarios that Israel would be nuked and the US would then systematically take out ALL the stationary holy places of Iran until the people carried their leaders heads on pikes through the streets.

It's the only thing I could think of that would change the rules of the game and reverberate through all of Islam and waken the people to reject the Iblissian menace that beats at the very core of their faith.

After contemplating that most ugly scenario, which does not put a boot on the ground but relies on the locals themselves to cut the head off the beast that has called down the wrath of Allah on their heads, I wondered if such an argument might have a salutory effect on the thinking of their clergy BEFORE their aspirations for apocalyptic weaponry become reality.

My use of the term "apocalyptic" may point at EXACTLY what they are after, in which case the clergy may welcome a nuclear exchange. I don't know - I suppose the sane approach is to target their programs and facilities to prevent them from getting the bomb, but I sure wish there was a way to make them reject this nightmare by manipulating the symbols of their faith so they see it as a devil's errand.

OK let me explain things to you using the smallest words possibly. First of all your entire "analysis" (I use the word loosely of cause) is based on a assumptions about how Iranians think and act that you have clearly pulled out of your ass. Secondly if they test a nuke that means they are a nuclear power (please say so if this is going to fast for you). Has it occurred to you that attacking a country that has just demonstrated that they posses nuclear weapons might not be the brightest idea ever? Yes I know you said it was unthinkable, but that doesn't change the fact that you aired an idea so catastrophically stupid I feel dumber just reading it.

 

[Atlas]

Kerberos,

Yah, you're going too fast for me. Perhaps if you reread my post a few more times you'd be dumb enough - but you're not there yet. Think Paris Hilton without money.

Could you pull out of your ass the correct way that Iranians think? I think they love their holy places.

I think their rulers really do seek the destruction of Israel and the bomb. That's not a good combination. I do believe we should make plain that the consequences to Persian Islam will be tragic - horrific even - if they pursue their genocidal dreams. Couching our threat, promise, or prediction in the symbols and stories of their own faith should clarify the issue in their minds.

I know there exists a law of unintended consequences. The Pope's Brandenburg address resulted in "hurt feelings" that culminated in the death of some nuns and the Pope's apology. The destruction of a mosque would surely put the Iranian Christian community under mortal threat from the madness that would ensue. Their lives must be horrible enough now.

Is your idea that the US, the West, or Israel must use all means necessary, including bombing runs, to prevent Iran from achieving a testable nuclear device because once they have that only fools would fight them?

Or are you satisfied that they are only seeking peaceful nuclear power as they have repeatedly said - so all nations should just butt out of their affairs? Your slow simple words whizzed by me there.

Perhaps you believe that we should wait to see if they really will nuke Israel. Would it still be a bad idea to attack them if they show their nuclear might by following where Allah leads them? Do you think we could appease them by letting them destroy Israel? That they'd stop there? I'm just asking - I can't tell yet where you're coming from.

I thought Mutual Assured Destruction was a terrible policy when we faced down the Soviet Union with it. But it worked. The Soviets and Americans were just sane enough not to be tempted by apocalypse. I don't get that same warm fuzzy feeling about the Islamic state. Do you?

At the core of my assful idea is that there is some powerful idea like Mutual Assured Destruction that can be employed to frighten the mullahs, Imams, and Ayatollahs into reconsidering the consequences of their dark genocidal dream. I brought the idea here just for a thorough vetting. I've tried to present the downside of it to show that I'm not frothing at the mouth for destruction of everything Islamic. I'd like to find some way to keep that from happening. Certainly no one has promoted anything like this in any writing I've read. I'm willing to say there are probably good reasons for that. So feel free to reach beyond naming them "catastophically stupid" and explain why and what is the better approach.

I'm not an advocate of stupid, unless like Mutual Assured Destruction it's the wisest course. Obviously mine isn't... what is?

 

[egslim]

I think they love their holy places.

Fair assumption, but do they love their holy places more than their country? You assume they will chose to let their country be humiliated if you hold their holy places hostage. That assumption is shaky at best.

I think their rulers really do seek the destruction of Israel and the bomb.

They've been consistently demonized by the US government, the same government that ordered the invasion of two other countries and right now masses military power on Irans borders. No wonder they want a nuclear capability.
An Iranian nuclear attack on Israel would be followed by a retaliatory strike that would turn Iran into a parking zone. The Iranian rulers may hate Israel, but they probably love their own country and positions of power more. Did you notice most suicide bombers are either people who have nothing to lose or very young men who are willing to sacrifice themselves?

if they pursue their genocidal dreams.

Pure speculation on your part.

Couching our threat, promise, or prediction in the symbols and stories of their own faith should clarify the issue in their minds.

Muslims are far more similar to atheists and christians than you seem to assume. If you go to a christian funeral you will notice people are sad, even though they should be happy their loved one is now in heaven. The same is true for Muslim funerals. All people share the same basic emotions and motivations, religion is merely a small coat of paint on top of that.

Their lives must be horrible enough now.

Evidence? Popular life in Iran seems to be pretty westernized.

 

[Atlas]

I think they love their holy places.

Fair assumption, but do they love their holy places more than their country? You assume they will chose to let their country be humiliated if you hold their holy places hostage. That assumption is shaky at best.

Thanks for the response egslim. I have no doubt that nationalism is real and deep among Iranians. I am assuming only that they would find it humiliating to have all of their holy sites destroyed by infidels. I am assuming that because of the Geneva Convention they feel comfortable that this isn't going to happen. I further assume that the leaders of the Islamic state are tasked with defending and preserving the holy things of Islam. I'm trying to find an angle here that minimizes the chance of miscalculation on their part, insures they will not be humiliated, and that no holy site will be destroyed. I'm questioning whether a wise path for us would be to very explicitly spell out the danger in a propaganda campaign that weaves tales from their own history that resulted in catastrophe and humiliation.

I think their rulers really do seek the destruction of Israel and the bomb.

They've been consistently demonized by the US government, the same government that ordered the invasion of two other countries and right now masses military power on Irans borders. No wonder they want a nuclear capability.

They have not to my knowledge linked the possession of a nuclear capability to their defense. Of course they deny that they even seek such a capability. However, they sometimes connect, in speeches given by their President, nuclear attainment and wiping Israel off the map. These not so veiled terroristic threats are popular for public consumption but they are not hidden from Israel which feels directly threatened. I can only imagine having to live with threats like Ahmadinejad's. I remember the Cuban missile crisis and thought the US was about to disappear under a mushroom cloud. I don't know if you're old enough to remember what that was like, I'll describe my imagined impending annihilation as unpleasant.

If you have statements by the Iranians that they need the bomb solely because of the fear they have of the US attacking them for no reason, I'd like to read them. They had our hostages and there have been other moments when we might have attacked but the secret program they have been running for the last two decades in contravention of the UN Non-Proliferation treaty they signed seems to be the main reason that the US is threatening them. They want the bomb because it means power and perhaps a way to threaten their neighbors with impunity to advance their agenda in the region, IMO. I'll look at arguments counter to these preconceptions if you present them.

An Iranian nuclear attack on Israel would be followed by a retaliatory strike that would turn Iran into a parking zone. The Iranian rulers may hate Israel, but they probably love their own country and positions of power more. Did you notice most suicide bombers are either people who have nothing to lose or very young men who are willing to sacrifice themselves?

I think the leaders feel like they would survive even though many of their countrymen would die. It doesn't matter so much to faithful Muslims, they tell their flock, because to die means instantaneous transport to heaven.
From here... http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/html/final/eng/bu/iran/shihab_11_03.htm
(I know I've read more recent similar statements but I can't seem to find them now. This site gives many examples of the vitriolic rhetoric directed at Israel. I think Rafsanjani is considered more moderate than Ahmadinejad.)

Former President, Rafsanjani
In a Friday sermon, (14 December 2000, Khabar TV )
“… “If one day, a very important day, of course, the Islamic World will also be equipped with the weapons available to Israel now, the imperialist strategy will reach an impasse, because the employment of even one atomic bomb inside Israel will wipe it off the face of the earth, but [such a bomb] would only do damage to the Islamic World...

... if they pursue their genocidal dreams.

Pure speculation on your part.

I admit that they call for the destruction of Israel many, many, many more times than they call for killing of the Jews but their support for Hamas and Hezbollah and any other suicide bomber takes my claim outside the realm of "pure speculation." Rafsanjani's consideration of exploding a nuke in Israel seems genocidal to me. I don't think I want to quibble over this though, if you'd like to consider the mass murder of a distinct people different from genocide we can agree to differ.

These quotes are from the same link as the previous excerpt.

Iranian Leader Khamenai
In a meeting with the organizers of the International Conference for Support of the Intifada (15 January 2001, Iranian TV )
“The foundation of the Islamic regime is opposition to Israel and the perpetual subject of Iran is the elimination of Israel from the region..."

Iranian President Khatemi
In a conference on the subject of the Koran in Iran, (24 October 2000, Khabar TV )
“... If we abide by real legal laws, we should mobilize the whole Islamic World for a sharp confrontation with the Zionist regime… if we abide by the Koran, all of us should mobilize to kill.”

Couching our threat, promise, or prediction in the symbols and stories of their own faith should clarify the issue in their minds.

Muslims are far more similar to atheists and christians than you seem to assume. If you go to a christian funeral you will notice people are sad, even though they should be happy their loved one is now in heaven. The same is true for Muslim funerals. All people share the same basic emotions and motivations, religion is merely a small coat of paint on top of that.

I agree with what you say here but I don't see the connection you intend. I don't want Muslim funerals at all. I put forth the idea as a MAD equivalent. Understand that we will be as ruthless with all you hold holy if you commit unholy nuclear abominations - as ruthless as Mohammed who destroyed the holy things of the people he conquered. We will do it, inshallah! So knock off the threats and give up your nuclear ambitions so we can live - so all of us can live together.

I worry if we're not explicit and plain they will miscalculate that as weakness and move darkly on. If we are committed to destroying their nuclear infrastructure beforehand then my idea is completely unnecessary.

I prefer destroying their holy things to putting American troops on the ground in Iran. I think of the holy sites of the virulent Islamic state as an extension of the state and as the incubators of the hate the state promotes. We could have attacked Afghanistan as an Islamic state but we wanted the Taliban to die so that meant putting troops in harms way. Secular states like Syria and Saddam's Iraq could not be threatened this way. The only reason to consider this with Iran is because Nuclear annihilation is weaved into their rhetoric. We need some way to match the rhetoric by threatening something they hold exceedingly valuable.

Evidence? Popular life in Iran seems to be pretty westernized.

Anecdotally, there is a family friend, recently deceased, who was a high school exchange student and classmate of my little brother. He graduated soon after the Shah abdicated and he returned to an otherworldly Iran under Khomeini. He was Christian and told stories of what he had to do to blend in to society in those early days of Khomeini's ascension to power. His story of escape, walking out with nothing but the shirt on his back was a testament to the human spirit. A funny, warm and wonderful human being. My impressions of Persians is informed by him, which is to say, quite favorable.

The Christian community is constantly watched but he had always been Christian. Converts from Islam are persecuted and apostasy is a capital offense. Apparently much of the Christian observance is conducted underground.
http://www.persecution.com.au/news/article.asp?artID={CF7C4FE0-A3C2-42DE-A520-66D37E790A8C}
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20060209/16043_Iranian_Christians%2C_New_Converts_Face_Deteriorating_Situation.htm

 

[egslim]

I am assuming only that they would find it humiliating to have all of their holy sites destroyed by infidels. I am assuming that because of the Geneva Convention they feel comfortable that this isn't going to happen. I further assume that the leaders of the Islamic state are tasked with defending and preserving the holy things of Islam.

I think it's more likely they would find it infuriating instead of humiliating. Both Pearl Harbor and 9/11 attacked and destroyed important American symbols, but the result was fury - not humiliation. How do you think the US would respond if Bin Laden threatened to destroy the Statue of Liberty, unless the US withdrew from Iraq? Symbols, as important as they may seem, are always expendable.

I'm questioning whether a wise path for us would be to very explicitly spell out the danger in a propaganda campaign that weaves tales from their own history that resulted in catastrophe and humiliation.

And would infuriate some 1.8Bn Muslims against the US...

They have not to my knowledge linked the possession of a nuclear capability to their defense. Of course they deny that they even seek such a capability. However, they sometimes connect, in speeches given by their President, nuclear attainment and wiping Israel off the map. These not so veiled terroristic threats are popular for public consumption but they are not hidden from Israel which feels directly threatened.

Iran isn't going to nuke Israel, for at least three reasons:
1) The retaliatory attack would turn Iran into a parking place.
2) Israel contains and borders significant Muslim populations.
3) Several Muslim Holy sites are located in Israel.
And finally, what's in it for Iran? Israel provides convenient propaganda material, but there's very little for Iran to gain from nuking Israel.

If you have statements by the Iranians that they need the bomb solely because of the fear they have of the US attacking them for no reason, I'd like to read them.

Iran is consistently labelled as part of the Axis of Evil by the US. They have vast oil reserves. The US has allocated a budget for regime change in Iran. The US has attacked two of their neighbours. And they've had deplorable relations with the US for some 35 years. The US is far more powerful than Iran, and they have no close allies. Iran would be crazy not to feel threatened.

They want the bomb because it means power and perhaps a way to threaten their neighbors with impunity to advance their agenda in the region, IMO.

As opposed to the US projecting power in the region and advancing its agenda there. It has nothing to do with democracy, or the US would not support Saoudi Arabia and Pakistan. It's about power and security in an oil-rich area - for both the US and Iran.

It doesn't matter so much to faithful Muslims, they tell their flock, because to die means instantaneous transport to heaven.

BS. Seriously, it's not meant as an insult. The Iranian population is far too secularized to fall for that. The country has a state-owned condom factory. Women play rugby and soccer. And even in very devout Muslim countries it's hard to find many people willing to blow themselves up. You're limited to very young men and people living in desperate conditions. Human nature is the same everywhere.

Rafsanjani's consideration of exploding a nuke in Israel seems genocidal to me. I don't think I want to quibble over this though, if you'd like to consider the mass murder of a distinct people different from genocide we can agree to differ.

“If one day, a very important day, of course, the Islamic World will also be equipped with the weapons available to Israel now, the imperialist strategy will reach an impasse, because the employment of even one atomic bomb inside Israel will wipe it off the face of the earth, but [such a bomb] would only do damage to the Islamic World.
Bolding mine. It reads to me like he says exploding a nuke in Israel would only do damage to the Islamic World. In other words, he would like to have a nuke, but to create an impasse - not to actually use it. Which is very similar to how Western nuclear powers us theirs.

I agree with what you say here but I don't see the connection you intend. I don't want Muslim funerals at all.

My point is that Muslims feel the same emotions as Christians and atheists do. Regardless of what their faith says, they don't want to die or lose loved ones.

 

[MaGZ]

I prefer destroying their holy things to putting American troops on the ground in Iran.

Maybe you haven’t been following the news lately. There are no American troops to put on the ground in Iran. This will never happen because there are none to spare.

Your entire argument is that America or Israel can somehow threaten Iran to give up their pursuit of the bomb by holding their religious sites hostage. Iran could conceivably play the same game with the threat of using their agents to burn every synagogue in Europe in retaliation to an action against them. You are not very rational in your proposals.