Friday, October 19, 2007

A bit of nuclear reasoning from HuffPo

The following occurs in an otherwise ordinary rant by HuffPo blogger Bob Cesca:
Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon, and if they ever developed one, they'd be smart enough to know (despite how we caricaturize Ahmadinejad) that using it would invite their own destruction a thousand times over. Thus, there is no Iranian nuclear threat.
Interesting reasoning there. You would think that nobody ever considered the subject of Iran and nuclear deterrence. Ayatollah Rafsanjani (and this is probably not the first place you've ever read this) stated in 2001:
If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world.
Notice it says that the "Muslim world" would suffer "damages." What would be left of Iran in particular? A notion of the unimportance of Iran itself was actually articulated by Ayatollah Khomeini. Norman Podhoretz quotes him thus:
We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.
Is this just bravado? The only way to know for sure is to let Iran get a nuclear weapon. And add to that the danger of a terrorist group getting one, either from Iran or as the result of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Tags: Iran, nukes

No comments: