Must Ahmadenijad Mean What He Says?

"Why," asks Jeffrey Herf "would Roger Cohen, or the leaders of the Council on Foreign Relations think Ahmadinejad has not meant what he has said in public?"

Of all the alleged lessons of Munich, surely this is the dumbest one. What Herf has in mind here are Ahmadinejad's statements about Israel being wiped off the map. But Herf certainly isn't proposing to extend this "assume foreign leaders are always telling the truth" principle to Ahmadinejad's claims that Iran's nuclear program is entirely peaceful. And Herf is right not to extend it, but simply because it's a dumb principle. Nothing in the actions -- present or historical -- suggests a desire to wipe Israel off the map that extends to a willingness to commit national suicide while trying. Similarly, Iran's actions suggest a desire to either build a nuclear bomb or to create the capacity to build one very rapidly, primarily in order to deter the more powerful militaries (Israel, US, Pakistan) in Iran's neighborhood.

Comments

The two positions are not completely contradictory, assuming that one is true and the other false are both cases of erring on the side of caution.

Unfortunately, the idea that Iran would not act to wipe Israel off the map if doing so might result in national suicide is not convincing. Rationality is not that correlated to decisions to go to war in the past. You heard Ahmadenijad at the UN calling for the imminent return of the 12th Imam and the apocalypse. If Iran had nuclear weapons, the use of them might be seen as helping to usher in the final judgement or they might look to Allah to protect them from retaliation or domesticate posturing might acquire momentum sufficient to push them over the edge.

Posted by GregPStone | September 27, 2006 3:26 PM

GregPStone - Yes, if your enemies are wholly irrational, it follows that they might do crazy things. But you also shouldn't believe them when they assert they're wholly irrational, nor should you pass along their assertions. Instead, you might wonder: have people in the past claimed that some enemy, whomever the current enemy happens to be, is far more unreasonable than those in the past and impossible to negotiate with? If yes, have they ever been right about this? Is there some reason to think the same people are right this time?

Also, you can tell the exact same story you just told, but instead of using Islamic beliefs about the Twelth Imam, beliefs held by some American evangelicals about the Rapture and subsequent events. I feel no need to tell such a story, because it's not in my interest to trick people into believing Americans are wholly irrational.

Posted by washerdreyer | September 27, 2006 3:48 PM

Yeah, someone else (perhaps a CFR guy?) made this point: you cannot talk to people who start with the assumption that Iran is irrational. If Iran is entirely irrational and a potential threat, we have to kill the country, because it will not respond to incentives, even military ones.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 27, 2006 3:58 PM

washerdryer,
To clarify, my point about rationality is a general one. Iranian leaders are not at all irrational (perhaps arrational) in embracing what they see as a supernatural truth. From a secular perspective starting a nuclear conflict with Israel seems irrational only because we cannot see things from the point of view of Allah and do not realize that Armgeddon is essential to His plan.

The point is that we cannot count on Iran acting according to western rational rules as Matthew seems to.

His point about Bush or the Council of Foreign Relations believing what suits their preconceptions is a good one. Nothing is certain about Iran's actions in the future.

To give a recent example of irrationality in going to war: in the runup to the Iraq war I kept saying that surely Bush

Posted by GregPStone | September 27, 2006 4:07 PM

continued . . .

was brandishing the sword to put pressure on Hussein; he couldn't be stupid enough to actually invade Iraq . . .

One thing that is clear from the revelations of the runup to the Iraq war is that rationality played little part in it. Perhaps Bush didn't need conventional reasons and relied instead on carrying out what he perceived to be God's will.

Posted by GregPStone | September 27, 2006 4:12 PM

I appreciate the Stanley Cavell reference. More Harvard philosophy in-jokes! More!

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | September 27, 2006 4:15 PM

we cannot count on Iran acting according to western rational rules

They have their own crazy rational rules, right? The fact is that the Iranian government, loathesome though it is in many ways, has been rigorously "rational" for the past quarter century. There's absolutely nothing, except hysterical propaganda, to make you believe that they're likely to act in ways that would be to their own detriment, let alone suicidally.

Posted by ogged | September 27, 2006 4:20 PM

ogged,

Slow down, you're missing the point. Why do you think that Iran is MORE rational than the US in 2003 or many other examples (that I will not specify lest they be quibbles over)?

We cannot count on western countries acting according to western rational precepts, much less non-western contries.

Posted by GregPStone | September 27, 2006 4:27 PM

by the way, my respondents have apparently spent too much time listening to politicians as they are all using false dichotomies. My saying that we can not count on Iran acting strictly rationally is NOT to say that they are the opposite: completely irrational. Cut it out.

Posted by GregPStone | September 27, 2006 4:34 PM

Pat Robertson, a regular guest at the Bush White House and a person often referred to as one of the Republican Party's key spiritual advisors, stated the he wanted to see the lawfully-elected president of Venezula assasinated. Yet we were all expected to accept his subsequent rowback when called out. If Chavez had sent a team to kidnap Robertson and commit him to a Gitmo-type prison, on the not unreasonable expectation that Robertson, his followers, or his spiritual advisees might follow through on that assasination threat, what would the Radical Republicans' response have been?

Not Really

Posted by Not Really | September 27, 2006 4:43 PM

actually, Neil, I had the opposite reaction.

Quoting Rawls? that's cool.

But Cavell? that's lame.

Posted by kid bitzer | September 27, 2006 4:51 PM

What you're saying about the twelth Imam and whether or not national suicide would be a sufficient incentive for Iran is a typical argument used by people in favor of immediately bombing Iran, or using more military force than that. I assumed you favored such tactics. Others may well have assumed the same. Am I mistaken?

Posted by washerdreyer | September 27, 2006 4:54 PM

Pakistan has a more powerful military than Iran?

Posted by J | September 27, 2006 5:11 PM

Why do you think that Iran is MORE rational than the US in 2003 or many other examples (that I will not specify lest they be quibbles over)?

Umm, because you're suggesting that Iran is, in fact, substantially less rational than the US in 2003, maybe? We could have invaded Iraq for the express purpose of killing all the people slowly and raping all the kittens, and there is fuck all the rest of the world could have done about it. National suicide was not on the table. It is for Iran, and you're suggesting ("the idea that Iran would not act to wipe Israel off the map if doing so might result in national suicide is not convincing") that the total destruction of the country is not sufficient disincentive to keep it from acting. A little less disingenuousness would go a long way. It still wouldn't get you to "convincing" or even "not a lunatic," but you'd be closer.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 27, 2006 5:12 PM

I think some of what Greg Stone is saying is covered by the Pope's speech, no? I admittedly know little of religion or philosophy, and the Pope's speech seemed to me to be quite dense. But what I got out of it was a critique of the relationship between religion and rationality under Islam. Seems to me to be relevant here.

Posted by Al | September 27, 2006 5:19 PM

washerdreyer,

You were mistaken. I was supportive of Israel bombing the Iraq nuclear reactor that was under construction, so I'm not against that sort of thing in every instance. In this case, there is no use even getting into the pros and cons because the Iraq war has put the US in an impossible diplomatic position to conduct any type of war on Iran as well as a extremely difficult logistical position. (not to mention telling India that we will help them make many more nuclear bombs)Even were we in the pre-Iraq position, years of hard diplomacy would have to occur before any serious consideration of war.

If you imagine Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as the permanent constitutional leaders of the US then you get closer to the situation in Iran. I don't trust either Christians or Shia that anticipate the imminent end of the world and are anxious to play their part in it.

Any nuclear proliferation must be taken VERY seriously and stopped if possible.

Posted by GregPStone | September 27, 2006 5:19 PM

The point is that we cannot count on Iran acting according to western rational rules as Matthew seems to.

I think what Matthew was saying is that we can't just rely on what Ahmadinejad says to try to understand what his behavior will be. We have to look at his past actions, the past actions of other Iranian presidents, and the political situation within Iran.

Why do you think that Iran is MORE rational than the US in 2003 or many other examples (that I will not specify lest they be quibbles over)?

Well, the easy answer here would be: when the US invaded Iraq, it may have been a bad idea, but it did not ammount to a sucidal move in the sense that "wiping Israel off the map" would be. So the Iranian government would have to be acting considerably less rationally than the US government in 2003, unless you think that they actually believe that Allah will protect them after the invasion.

What you're saying about the twelth Imam and whether or not national suicide would be a sufficient incentive for Iran is a typical argument used by people in favor of immediately bombing Iran, or using more military force than that.

I think GregPStone is saying that we need to take into account religious motivations and other belief systems, and not just assume that what seems like "suicide" to us seems like suicide to them. But from where I sit, Ahmadinejad's behavior has been pretty rational and calculated. He's working himself into a bargaining position with the United States, ratcheting up the "culture war" that will eventually pit his people against the west instead of against him, and at the same time making advances in the area of nuclear technology. Sure, it's a dangerous game of chicken, but that's what it will take for Iran to become a more powerful country in the short term.

Posted by worm eater | September 27, 2006 5:21 PM

The thing of it is, it seems that Ahmadenijad didn’t even say what most people think he said. See here:

http://www.juancole.com/2006/08/ahmadinejad-we-are-not-threat-to-any.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

There’s no evidence that Iran has any plans or intentions of attacking Israel. On the contrary, its leaders have stated many times that Iran does not have a history of attacking other countries, and that they’re not going to attack any other countries.

This is not to defend Ahmadinejad or the Iranian regime. They’re bad guys, clearly. But this whole ‘wiped off the map’ business is a bunch of hype.

Posted by RC | September 27, 2006 5:23 PM

Tim,

I'm not expert enough to say what the probabilities are. I am saying that we can't discount the repetitive and unequivical call for the destruction of Israel by a theocracy that is trying to, IMO, acquire nuclear weapons and firmly believes that the end of the world is at hand. What Iran has to lose is NOTHING if it acts in the context of ushering in the end of the world and the final judgement.

Millenialist cults have been known to resort to violence in order to bring about the end of the world. It could happen again, but with nuclear weapons.

Posted by GregPStone | September 27, 2006 5:35 PM

I acknowledge that I was mistaken, and agree with paragraphs 1 & 3 of Greg's 5:12 comment. Greg, I continue to fairly strongly question your insight into the actual views of the actual ruling coalition in Iran.

Posted by washerdreyer | September 27, 2006 5:40 PM

worm eater,

YES! You got it.

In fact, I think the Israel bashing and surrogate attacks show someone who is very clever about courting domestic and regional popularity. And Bush continually plays right into his hands.

But this does not mean that the real power in Iran is not dead serious about destroying Israel. An evaluation of the real risk must be theological, not political.

Posted by GregPStone | September 27, 2006 5:46 PM

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/06/20030626-3.html

excerpt (6/23/2003):

" The United States is committed to the world-wide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example. I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture and in undertaking to prevent other cruel and unusual punishment. I call on all nations to speak out against torture in all its forms and to make ending torture an essential part of their diplomacy. I further urge governments to join America and others in supporting torture victims' treatment centers, contributing to the UN Fund for the Victims of Torture, and supporting the efforts of non-governmental organizations to end torture and assist its victims."

why would anybody think the leader of a country might not mean what he says?

Posted by supersaurus | September 27, 2006 5:55 PM

worm eater, thank you for your courtesy

We are in agreement then because I also question what deeper game the religious leaders of Iran are playing. I'm enunciating what I see as a reasonable POSSIBILITY to dispute the notion that we shouldn't worry about Iran because they will act in their rational self-interest.

I also think that a history of pouring billions of dollars into building Hezbollah and supplying weapons and training for numerous attacks on Israel coupled with the rhetoric is SOME evidence, although certainly not conclusive.

Posted by GregPStone | September 27, 2006 5:57 PM

Greg, I'm still waiting to hear of a single instance of Iran acting in a way that we can't explain with a straightforward political theory of rational action.

Posted by ogged | September 27, 2006 5:59 PM

oops,

last message for washerdreyer, not worm eater

Posted by GregPStone | September 27, 2006 6:00 PM

ogged,

OK, how about the age of marriage be dropped to nine? That is an example of an action motivated by religious purity rather than political calculation.

Posted by GregPStone | September 27, 2006 6:04 PM

also think that a history of pouring billions of dollars into building Hezbollah and supplying weapons and training for numerous attacks on Israel coupled with the rhetoric is SOME evidence, although certainly not conclusive.

I'm assuming Iran is allowed to use our invasion of Iraq, Israel's (idiot, to my mind) agreement with it as a course of action, the billions of dollars spent, and the huge set of munitions supplied, as evidence--if not conclusive evidence--that both we and Israel want to destroy Iran, come hell or high water. I can't imagine why they might want a nuclear bomb.

The larger point is that guessing at motivations is something to be avoided if possible. As long as you're willing to posit a semi-rational Iran (one not willing to commit national suicide), we can worry about relative capabilities and not the twelfth Imam.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 27, 2006 6:17 PM

There are two iconic cities, Athens and Jerusalem. Jerusalem stands for Faith. Athens stands for Reason. The same pope who decried Islam's scant connection to Reason has been getting all revanchist about previous papal losses to Darwin and Science. Reason is not the foundation of a religious faith. Revelation is the foundation of faith. The Pope's remarks about Islam call to mind a word from the 3rd great religion associated with Jerusalem: chutzpah.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 27, 2006 6:23 PM

Al: I don't know what the Pope's speech has to do with anything. The relationship between faith and reason in most Protestant theology -- and I imagine most of the people running our government are Protestants -- bears no more resemblance to the Catholic Church's view than the typical Islamic view does.

Posted by Christopher M | September 27, 2006 6:31 PM

Re: Rationality is not that correlated to decisions to go to war in the past.

Nations that go to war do so in the belief that they cvan win-- orat least gain some useful benefit to themselves. That belief may be mistaken and may be seen as foolish in 20/20 hindsight, but no nation goes to war knowing that it will lose and be destroyed (except in cases where said nation is attacked by an aggressor and literally has no other choice-- that does not apply here.).

Re: You heard Ahmadenijad at the UN calling for the imminent return of the 12th Imam and the apocalypse

Blithering and blustering nonsense. He would last in office if that was his whole policy. But instead we see him digging in for the long haul. No, he isn't really expecting Judgment Day! Meanwhile, remember hairman Mao's bluster that China's bliion people could easily survive a nuclear war? I don't seem to recall the Sino-American nuclear nuclear exchange, do you?

Re: From a secular perspective starting a nuclear conflict with Israel seems irrational only because we cannot see things from the point of view of Allah and do not realize that Armgeddon is essential to His plan.

And the Qu'ran says that where exactly? If you really think religious people (at least people whose religions have a doctrine of a Last Judgment and Parasdise to Come) then do you also support booting George Bush and all the American Christians out of power?

Re: The same pope who decried Islam's scant connection to Reason has been getting all revanchist about previous papal losses to Darwin and Science.

Um, the Catholic Church did not lose anything to Darwin (you have them confused with the Baptists I think). Like most Christians denominations Catholcism picks no major fights with science these days.

Posted by JonF | September 27, 2006 6:56 PM

how about the age of marriage be dropped to nine

Greg, the marriage age was kept at nine, not lowered to it; and that's primarily a (long-standing, but rarely practiced) matter of culture, not religion.

And it would be more apposite to talk about what Iran has done internationally.

Posted by ogged | September 27, 2006 7:03 PM

Matthew: "Nothing in the actions -- present or historical -- suggests a desire to wipe Israel off the map that extends to a willingness to commit national suicide while trying. Similarly, Iran's actions suggest a desire to either build a nuclear bomb or to create the capacity to build one very rapidly, primarily in order to deter the more powerful militaries (Israel, US, Pakistan) in Iran's neighborhood."

This is followed by a number of comments suggesting that it isn't fair (or proper, or otherwise correct) to treat Iran as if it is wholly irrational.

But what if it is partially irrational?

What if it believes that nuking Israel would not be national suicide? What ex-President Rafsanjani speaks for many when he says that (he believes) Iran could survive the counterstrike? That is irrational, but just the kind of stupid thing a leader might be likely to believe.

What if Iran believes rampant anti-Jewish sentiment suggesting that the international community would be relieved to see Israel wiped from the map?

What if Ahmadinejad believes that Allah would protect his nation?

And what is this "willingness to commit national suicide while trying"? Iran supports Hezbollah's war against Israel right now. If Iran had nuclear weapons (even if it did not nuke Tel Aviv), surely they would feel even freer to support far more action against Israel. If they are willing to dramatically fund Hezbollah now, how much more so when they are a nuclear power. They can pursue their desire to wipe Israel off the map without risking suicide by merely having the defensive threat of nuclear bombs so they can't be retaliated against for managing a proxy war.

Posted by Sebastian Holsclaw | September 27, 2006 7:29 PM

The point is that we cannot count on Iran acting according to western rational rules as Matthew seems to.

That's a pathetic fucking cop-out, and you know it. Same applies to Sebastian, who seems ignorant of the many loyal GOP voters who think they're busily hastening the Rapture.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | September 27, 2006 7:56 PM

ogged,

The marriage age was dropped to nine for girls after the revolution. The fact that there have been attempts to raise it since then that have been vetoed by the mullahs reinforces the point.

If you want to believe that the mullahs act based on secular political concerns rather than religious faith I'm not going to be able to dissuade you. Every religiously inspired action can probably be rationalized in political terms.

Posted by GregPStone | September 27, 2006 7:58 PM

And: What if Iran believes rampant anti-Jewish sentiment suggesting that the international community would be relieved to see Israel wiped from the map?

And what if Star Jones believes that Sebastian is a flesh-eating alien?

Cites, please. If it's so rampant, you'll have a lot to choose from, gathered from a diverse range of sources. Or are you just placing one bullshit premise atop another bullshit premise?

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | September 27, 2006 7:59 PM

Excuse me, but why are we asking what Ahmadinejad thinks about all this, when Ahmadinejad does not, in fact, control his country's military? Any decision to drop the proverbial big one would have to be made by Iran's Supreme Leader. Ali Khameni is the one you have to demonstrate is suicidally irrational.

Posted by Christmas | September 27, 2006 8:00 PM

If you want to believe that the mullahs act based on secular political concerns rather than religious faith I'm not going to be able to dissuade you.

And if you want to make a nice apple pie with a bag of oranges, then it's likely to taste sour.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | September 27, 2006 8:01 PM

JonF,

"Nations that go to war do so in the belief that they cvan win"
Well sure people that start wars think they are going to win! The belief is often based nationalistic narrative fantasies and groupthink and these aren't what I would call rationsl.

"Blithering and blustering nonsense."
That's what I thought of communism.

"And the Qu'ran says that where exactly?"
Tell me where the Bible proclaims the Trinity or prohibits abortion before you start insisting that every belief of every moslem sect is explained in the Koran. The Shia doctrine of the 12th imam is not in the Koran but that is irrelevent to the reality of belief in this doctrine.

Posted by GregPStone | September 27, 2006 8:14 PM

> The marriage age was dropped to nine for
> girls after the revolution. The fact that
> there have been attempts to raise it since
> then that have been vetoed by the mullahs
> reinforces the point.

Oops. From your first post about marriage age I had assumed you were talking about Arkansas and Missouri.

Not Really

Posted by Not Really | September 27, 2006 8:27 PM

What if it believes that nuking Israel would not be national suicide? What ex-President Rafsanjani speaks for many when he says that (he believes) Iran could survive the counterstrike? That is irrational, but just the kind of stupid thing a leader might be likely to believe.

What makes it just the kind of thing that a leader might be likely to believe, other than your statement that it's so? Lessee: What if George Bush thinks that he is an emissary of God, and that it's his responsibility to reorder the Middle East in a way that brings about the End Times, the Rapture, and the Apocalypse, and so no results on the ground, or election results, are likely to disuade him from that path? (That seems kind of crazy to me. Wait, wait....) That is irrational, but just the kind of stupid thing a leader might be likely to believe. (Wow. It all makes sense now.)

Iran supports Hezbollah's war against Israel right now. If Iran had nuclear weapons (even if it did not nuke Tel Aviv), surely they would feel even freer to support far more action against Israel.

I'm not sure where "surely" comes from. Even if Iran were more likely to support proxy wars, that would suck for Israel. And, even then, it sucks for Israel only marginally more than it does now. In a honest-to-god shooting war--one that doesn't ramp up over the kidnapping of two soldiers--Israel will be granted a lot more freedom of action by the West.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 27, 2006 8:37 PM

> This is followed by a number of comments
> suggesting that it isn't fair (or proper,
> or otherwise correct) to treat Iran as
> if it is wholly irrational.
>
> But what if it is partially irrational?

This would be as opposed to the End Times prophets holding regular bible study meetings in the US White House? People who claim that there must be an apocolypic war (literally) over Isael in order for Jesus to return to Earth? Do you consider that "rational"? Should the leaders of Iran take it into account in making their decisions?

Not Really

Posted by Not Really | September 27, 2006 9:18 PM

Using the irrationality of Bush invading Iraq to point out he possibility of the Iranian government doing something as stupid as trying to nuke Israel does not hold water. It may have been irrational, but it was not suicidal. Iran nuking Israel would be more like Bush nuking Russia.

Posted by Glaivester | September 28, 2006 1:17 AM

Mr. Stone isn't really making an argument, just a bunch of assertions. Yeah, it is possible that human beings, religious ones in particular, are irrational, Iranians are religious human beings, hence it is possible that they are irrational. That part is logical. Beyond that, there's not much.

Iran's support of Hezbollah seems quite rational to me, given that Israel invaded Lebanon multiple times and occupied the southern part of the country for 18 years. It was only Hezbollah that drove them out. Since Iran feels some kinship and fellow feeling with Lebanese Shi'ites and Lebanon is in their neighborhood (compare e.g. Russia and Eastern European Serbs), it makes some sense that they would try to protect them from Israeli occupation. Their strategy worked at a quite low cost to them. How is that irrational?

Posted by MQ | September 28, 2006 1:53 AM

Of all the alleged lessons of Munich, surely this is the dumbest one. What Herf has in mind here are Ahmadinejad's statements about Israel being wiped off the map. But Herf certainly isn't proposing to extend this "assume foreign leaders are always telling the truth" principle to Ahmadinejad's claims that Iran's nuclear program is entirely peaceful.

Uh, Matthew, are you suggesting that the lesson Herf (or anyone else) draws from Munich is, "Hitler was completely trustworthy"?

Look, the standard lesson from Munich--not the ridiculous strawman lesson you're holding up--is that when a leader consistently and continually announces his intention to conquer his neighbors and/or commit genocide, it's unwise to assume he has no such intention. It's not just Hitler--check out the early writings of the Khmer Rouge leadership, or the pre-1994 radio broadcasts of the Rwandan government.

Mobilizing a nation to commit mass atrocities is much easier following a steady drumbeat of dehumanizing, chauvinistic propaganda, and dictators with monstrous ambitions know that. The Iranian government's words and actions are fully consistent with such a program.

Posted by Dan Simon | September 28, 2006 3:07 AM

Re: The Shia doctrine of the 12th imam is not in the Koran but that is irrelevent to the reality of belief in this doctrine.

True, but irrelevant. The more pertinent point here is if Shi'a Islam's eschatological doctrine means that Shi'ite Iran will start a nuclear war, what can you say about Christianity eschatological doctrines and their effect on Chrisdtian nations with nuclear weapons-- as in France, Britain, Russia and, yep, the good old USA? If eschatological religion has a destabilizing effect on nations why hasn't the US gone on an Armageddon binge?

Posted by JonF | September 28, 2006 5:55 AM

Look, the standard lesson from Munich--not the ridiculous strawman lesson you're holding up--is that when a leader consistently and continually announces his intention to conquer his neighbors and/or commit genocide, it's unwise to assume he has no such intention.

Wait, are you suggesting that Hitler pre-announced the Holocaust? I don't know enough to strongly dispute the claim, but I'm surprised enough that it's going to take some citation to convince me. I'm more sure that neither Ahmadinejad nor anyone else of import in Iran has said (a) "I'm going to commit genocide," or (b) "I'm going to invade Iran's neighbors." In fact, I think, at least on (b), Ahmadinejad's has precisely denied that. So perhaps you don't need to decode and defend your alt.history.Munich example, as the present situation doesn't seem to meet either of the two criteria you've defined as necessary to its use as a guide.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 28, 2006 9:13 AM

> Using the irrationality of Bush invading Iraq to
> point out he possibility of the Iranian government
> doing something as stupid as trying to nuke Israel
> does not hold water. It may have been irrational,
> but it was not suicidal. Iran nuking Israel would
> be more like Bush nuking Russia.

Sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree on a number of fronts. If the United States triggers off a general war in the Middle East and/or with all Muslim peoples, the chances of it blowing up into a general world war or just worldwide anarchy are fairly high. If the United States triggers off a sitution where any party uses a nuclear weapon (most notably, but not exclusively, Israel) the chances of a worldwide conflagration (or at minimum a worldwide depression) are very high.

Talking about Pat Robertson and the End Timees people seems like a cheap shot, but it is a fundamental point (pun perhaps intended). First, because over the last few years I have come to think that these people are actually serious, and it is clear that they do have a lot of influence in the Bush Administration (although perhaps not the Cheney Administration).

Second, because you have to take into account the perceptions of people in other nations and other cultures. Americans seem particularly bad at understanding that if they are running around claiming other nations are "insane" based on the offhand/crowd-pleasing remarks of their politicians, that the citizens of other nations may sincerely view the United States as "insane" for the very same reasons. But wait, _we_ know we aren't insane...

You can't seriously argue that the words of the public figures of other nations have to be taken literally, but that the words of public figures of the United States should be taken figuratively or just laughed off. Other nations have to make decisions based on the capabilities of the US, not its stated intent.

Not Really

Posted by Not Really | September 28, 2006 10:04 AM

"That's a pathetic fucking cop-out, and you know it. Same applies to Sebastian, who seems ignorant of the many loyal GOP voters who think they're busily hastening the Rapture."

"Lessee: What if George Bush thinks that he is an emissary of God, and that it's his responsibility to reorder the Middle East in a way that brings about the End Times, the Rapture, and the Apocalypse, and so no results on the ground, or election results, are likely to disuade him from that path? (That seems kind of crazy to me. Wait, wait....) That is irrational, but just the kind of stupid thing a leader might be likely to believe. (Wow. It all makes sense now.)"

Did I either of you notice the irony of attacking my position that religiously influenced world leaders can make stupid decisions that are disconnected from reality by suggesting that Bush and some fundamentalist Christians make stupid decisions that are disconnected from reality?

Or did you mean to agree with me?

Posted by Sebastian Holsclaw | September 28, 2006 12:56 PM

I argue that you can't say something crazy and, by declaring it not crazy, make it not crazy. I illustrate this by giving a description of Bush's actions that I paranthetically indicate is crazy. I then claim that the description as not crazy to see if that sentence is a convincing argument for "not crazy." (It isn't.) The only thing ironic in my comment is in the second paranthetical. Buy a dictionary.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 28, 2006 1:45 PM

"Mobilizing a nation to commit mass atrocities is much easier following a steady drumbeat of dehumanizing, chauvinistic propaganda..."

Well, that certainly proved to be the case in the run-up to invasion of Iraq. Having had so much success with the initial war-mongering followed by the inevitable war, the same crowd, giddy from their little adventure in Lebanon, now seems to trying to replicate it with a war against Iran now.

Who exactly are the crazed fundamentalists in all of this again?

Posted by King Colbert | September 28, 2006 2:58 PM

"Well, that certainly proved to be the case in the run-up to invasion of Iraq. Having had so much success with the initial war-mongering followed by the inevitable war, the same crowd, giddy from their little adventure in Lebanon, now seems to trying to replicate it with a war against Iran now."

Once again, is this an argument for or against the idea that leaders can do things that other people see as against their country's interest.

Posted by Sebastian Holsclaw | September 28, 2006 4:35 PM

Once again, is this an argument for or against the idea that leaders can do things that other people see as against their country's interest.

"Once again" seems to imply you've rightly asked this before. It's certainly not clear that you have, as I've indicated. Once you've demonstrated your inability to read, I'm not sure why you believe people should respond to your questions. It's not clear that you'll understand their responses, so what's the point?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 28, 2006 5:02 PM

SomeCallMeTim:

You said:

"What makes it just the kind of thing that a leader might be likely to believe, other than your statement that it's so? Lessee: What if George Bush thinks that he is an emissary of God, and that it's his responsibility to reorder the Middle East in a way that brings about the End Times, the Rapture, and the Apocalypse, and so no results on the ground, or election results, are likely to disuade him from that path? (That seems kind of crazy to me. Wait, wait....) That is irrational, but just the kind of stupid thing a leader might be likely to believe. (Wow. It all makes sense now.)"

Since we are talking about leaders of Iran, and since I specifically mentioned Rafsanjani (ex President of Iran and current member of the Expediency Discernment Council which advises the Ayatollah) I presumed you were aware of his famous quote on the topic of surviving nuclear retaliation: "If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists' strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality."

Perhaps you weren't aware of it. Now you are.

So, there we have a reason to believe that a country's leader might have silly thoughts about what would happen if nuclear weapons were used against Israel.

Now some might argue that it wasn't actually a threat. That doesn't make sense because why else would the imperialist strategy be brought to a standstill? If Iran wouldn't use nuclear weapons, why would the imperialist strategy be brought to a standstill? So I presume you wouldn't make that argument.

Some might argue that he is speaking of the "Islamic world" surviving the counter-strike and not Iran. That isn't much of an objection since he is speaking of the "Islamic world" acquiring nuclear weapons when he obviously means "Iran".

After pretending that there is no reason to believe that Iranian leaders might have the irrational belief that they could survive a counter-strike you then relate a hypothetical which one would normally presume had a point related to your contention. I see now that I misinterpreted your statement because I thought if you were having a discussion about what prominent leaders in Iran say about destroying Israel that you might actually be knowledgeable with the very most famous statements. My bad for making assumptions.

You provided one of three quotes I responded to. Do you believe that my comment about the confusion of using irrational decisions as evidence against irrational decision making is appropriate for "Well, that certainly proved to be the case in the run-up to invasion of Iraq. Having had so much success with the initial war-mongering followed by the inevitable war, the same crowd, giddy from their little adventure in Lebanon, now seems to trying to replicate it with a war against Iran now." or "That's a pathetic fucking cop-out, and you know it. Same applies to Sebastian, who seems ignorant of the many loyal GOP voters who think they're busily hastening the Rapture."?

You analogy as you have described its intent is merely useless. Theirs is wrong.

Posted by Sebastian Holsclaw | September 28, 2006 6:11 PM

> "However, it will only harm the Islamic world.
> It is not irrational to contemplate such an
> eventuality."
>
> Perhaps you weren't aware of it. Now you are.
>
> So, there we have a reason to believe that a
> country's leader might have silly thoughts
> about what would happen if nuclear weapons
> were used against Israel.

I doubt Hermann Kahn really wanted to experience a nuclear war, but he certainly contemplated the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons. As did many others in the upper reaches of the US Government and its prime contractors. And they still do so today; the US Air Force has entire planning staffs devoted to the topic of how to nuke any place on earth including Iran.

Does that make the United States irrational, crazed, or likely to use its nuclear weapons? Why shouldn't a person outside the United States think so?

Not Really

Posted by Not Really | September 28, 2006 6:22 PM

Sebastian, Jeebus. Read the quotation in fuller context. Leave to one side the problems of translation and interpretation of ambiguous phrases. Rafsanjani is making a balance of power argument. If an "independent Islamic country" has a nuclear bomb, then the balance of power in the region will no longer clearly favor Israel and its "imperial" supporters. Islamic nations will have a wider range of actions available to them.

This is a perfectly standard understanding of the likely results of Iran acquiring a bomb. It has been mentioned in comments here, and I've acknowledged that it will present a real problem for Israel. To the extent that you think that Western interests are implicated in problems for Israel, it may present a real problem for the West. Given the Shi'a-Sunni split, which has become more violent since his speech, I don't think that more freedom of action for Iran will yield more concerted Islamic action against Israel, but whatever. What he's not saying is that Iran or another Islamic country would shoot a nuclear bomb into Israel as an offensive act. He's saying that an "independent Islamic" nuclear bomb would limit the scope of actions that Israel or its Western supporters could take against Islamic countries. (GlobalSecurity.org, which provides the linked translation of the excerpt from the speech, characterized the speech as follows: "Hashemi Rafsanjani, president of Iran from 1989 to 1997, gave a speech on 14 December 2001 that was widely interpreted as indicating that Iran was seeking nuclear weapons as a deterrent to Israel.")

All of which is to say that he's not minimizing the effect on an Islamic country of a nuclear war, or suggesting that launching a nuclear bomb into Israel might be worth the costs. Your point remains pointless.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 28, 2006 8:02 PM

Sebastian is an expert at making long, yet pointless, points.

The tortured logic of "destroy Iran just to be safe", so common on the right, is itself a good proof that the Iranians are quite rational in wanting a nuclear deterrent.

Posted by MQ | September 28, 2006 8:55 PM

So if it is merely a balance of power issue why mention "one bomb" destroying Israel while the Islamic world could survive the counterstrike.

And what exactly is "more freedom of action" when they already fight a proxy war with Israel? What options will nukes give them that they don't already have with respect to the Palestinians? They only options it adds that they don't already have is a nuclear strike or full conventional war. They are already doing everything else and have been for more than 20 years. Rafsanjani's "Islamic world" doesn't need nukes to fight Israel, it is already fighting Israel. Iran doesn't need nukes to defend against the invasion carried out by Israel, Israel doesn't even border them and has no interest whatsoever in trying to invade Iran (and any interest they would have in attacking Iran at all could be easily disposed of if Iran weren't trying to actively attack Israel through Hezbollah).

Unless of course you believe they irrationally fear an invasion by Israel. You certainly couldn't believe that could you?

Posted by Sebastian Holsclaw | September 29, 2006 11:24 AM