Did you ever wonder why, in countries like Iran, so much hatred is directed at the West? No doubt you’re thinking, "What the hell did we do to deserve this, huh?" Well think about it. There is a history there to ponder. Anger like this doesn’t simply materialize in a vacuum. Right?
Well, put that on the back burner for the moment while we deal with the here and now, i.e. the U.S. and Europe being in a collective dither about the radical president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a man who insists on having the right to create a nuclear energy system for his country, and who, in the West’s opinion, really wants to develop nuclear WMDs. Which should be no great surprise considering that North Korea, India, Pakistan and Israel already have them, so why shouldn’t Iran join the nuclear crowd, if they choose to arm themselves in the same manner?
I suppose there might be a mite less resistance to this idea from the West if Ahmadinejad would stop treating us like the Great Satan, stop messing around in Iraq with Shiite friends, or if he would stop loudly insisting that the holocaust is “a myth,” and that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth. I think for the time being we should consider the possibility that he doesn’t believe for a minute the holocaust is a myth, that he sees it as a good way to antagonize the Jews, and for the rest — be a nuclear tough guy, face down the U.S., and firm up his political base in Iran.
I’m not suggesting Ahmadinejad and his pals aren’t dangerous, but remember the Soviets had enough WMDs to destroy the planet ten times over — albeit coming close to it (with us) over the Cuba missile insanity, but didn’t. (Of course we had some prudent American leadership at the time - the Kennedys - men who wanted to avert a war). I am suggesting that since the Iranians do not yet have the nuclear wherewithal, then unlike the Bush neo-cons who want to hit them hard whether they have nukes or not, we should listen to the saner heads in Europe who are opting first for negotiations, inspections and/or sanctions. If these moves don’t work then war would be a more reasonable last resort when the intel of all the Western partners agreed a nuclear threat was imminent.
It’s true, ours and European intelligence agencies believe Iran is determined to have nuclear warheads, and believe certain types of religious Middle Easterners embrace martyrdom, meaning Allah will receive them into heaven as heroes if they sacrifice themselves, and that President Ahmadinejad may be one of them, not caring if his country is vaporized as long as it’s in the name of Allah; which is all very worrisome, but it’s hard to believe the latter. I don’t have an inside track, but it is possible that he is more shrewd political extremist than religious zealot. Of course, he can be political and religious without being mad and out of control, which is probably closest to the truth. Nevertheless, whatever his proclivities, I know he can be dangerous if a mistake is made. Nikita Khrushchev came very close in Cuba, and he was not crazy.
Article comments
1 - Bliffle
I think the underlying objective of GWBs handlers is to implement longterm strategies thru radical policy moves, like war, that future presidents and administrations will find it impossible to change. Thus, their influence will persist long after thay are out of office.
2 - uncle sammy says
To Bliffle-- I have no quarrrel with your comment. You are right. Though the real "handlers," beyond the likes of K. Rove, are the the heavy-hitting oil people who pump/refine the crude and fill the pockets of their lobbyists, who in turn court, entertain and corrupt our lawmakers and presidential candidates. The sooner (don't hold your breath) their power is usurped by developing alternate souces of energy, the sooner we remove ourselves from the Middle East where we are not wanted, and the sooner terrorism fades away. Otherwise, terror is eternal.
3 - tommyd
Excellent blog. The Iranians don't call America "The Great Satan" just because they feel like it and want to stir up trouble. After the CIA overthrow of Mossedegh,the US supported the massively corrupt Shah who brought the multi-nationals (Americans) back into Iran's oil fields which ended up making millions of Iranians poor as dirt. The Shah didn't hold elections. The Shah spent lavishly on himself and his family and his elite. The Shah had a secret police force, SAVAK. Big deal women didn't have to cover their heads and you could buy yourself a drink in the Shah's day. Wonder why the Islamic students stormed the US Embassy in 1979?
The thing is back in '79 when I was in 8th grade, I don't remember EVER hearing about this particular history of the US and Iran nor any discussion about why the hostages were taken. All I heard was "Ayatollah-Assaholah" and "kill them Eye-ranians!".
So the Iranians are calling America nowadays on their hypocrisy. So, let's listen and learn and talk to Iran. In the end, we'll have peace. If we don't listen we have war. Massive war. What's better?
4 - uncle sammy says
Nothing's better than that, Tommyd.
Talking is usally better than war, whenever possible. Thanks.
5 - sr
Talking is usually better then war, whenever possible. Reminds me of the late great Neville Chamberlain 1938.
6 - Dave Nalle
No, tommy. Not listening to to or giving credibility to the fundamentalist dickheads in Iran does not mean war. We don't have to take them more seriously than they deserve because they have no real ability to do us serious harm unless we cooperate to a large extent in making it happen. If we secure our borders, monitor their activities and just cut them off and ignore them we'll be pretty damned safe. So we really don't have to listen to them or do a damned thing to legitimize their megalomaniacal, fanatical ravings.
Dave
7 - sr
Dave, with respect to you we are in ground hog day. History always repeats. Thats a fact.
My powder is full.
For Jews in Iran, Europe or wherever you may be, please consider Israel. Sure Im an old coot. Could care less what people may think of this comment. However I do care about G-ds Chosen.
Discusion and comments are not weapons of war. They only allow your enemy time to become stronger. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not my friend or your friend. Should you be stupid enough to think otherwise, well a BIG GOOD LUCK for you.
Mein Kampf is still with us. If you thought no-way, bend over and give your ignorant ass a big kiss good-by.
Hey, what did you expect from a dumb-fuck. Spent three years in 5th grade.
Sincerely,
sr
PS. Dave my first sentence was for you. The rest is for all who may read my comment. Still love me Glock dude.
8 - uncle sammy says
To SR-- I'm old enough to recall the "late" but not so "great" Chamberlain. The key words in my statement above were: "whenever possible." Right now because of Iraq, we have about 20 thousand American casualties, with limbs ripped from bodies. Think about having your buddy turned into body parts strewn along the road, having that memory for the rest of your life.
Dec 7/41: talk not possible, with 300 hundred thousand dead. Korea: talk not possible, with (I think) 38 thousand dead. Viet Nam: maybe talk not possible, but was it necessary? with 58 thousand dead. Back in the 40s all of my buddies were in the service, including me, (I was lucky--did not see combat)and I saw lives destroyed by the war. I strongly recommend talk--first--but as the late great Teddy R. suggested: carry a very big stick, which we are famous for having. War, which is often necessary, remains an abomination.
9 - Ruvy from Jerusalem
Uncle Sammy,
If you are old enough to remember the late and not so great Chaimberlain and recall the fact that Teddy Roosevelt's gransdon turned out to be a regular prick doing a nasty job creating an American dictatorship in Iran (your article did a fine job outlining all that the Bush administration and American gov't wants you and others to forget), then maybe - just maybe, you can be understand that maybe, just maybe, Ahmadinejad means it with his messianic politics.
It is high time to take the enemy seriously on HIS OWN TERMS and recognize him for what he wants to be in his own mind, not what we want him to be.
This is not just about oil. This is about vengeance and the desire of the Iranians to reassert what they view as their historic primacy in this part of the world. And it is also about the desire of a religious man to speed the arrival of his own messiah. In political terms, Qadafi is the dinosaur and Ahmadinejad is the cave bear - and Olmert is the village idiot - America's village idiot.
10 - uncle sammy says
I agree with what you are saying, that this guy, Ahmadinejad, appears very dangerous, that religious fundementalists hate our secular lifestyles, therefore our guts; except it is still about oil. It is because of our need for the stuff that we are in the Middle East, on their turf, in their face, and they want us out! The West has long intruded. If we develop alternate energy policies, we can ultimately remove ouselves and reduce the friction. After we have gone, if they then continue to threaten us based solely on our modern secular ways, it will in the end come down to a war of civilizations. Which is why I meantioned Teddy's big stick ( I didn't forget his grandson). "National interests" is what creates foreign policy. Our foreign policy is based on open markets and acquisition of resources. Oil is the main resource we require. Bush talks about the long war against terrorism. This insane war is as long as our need for oil. Only my opinion, of course, which doesn't make it true. By the way, thanks for all your comments.
11 - uncle sammy says
P.S. I mean all this solely in regard to them and us, not in regard to their historical need for primacy or anything else.
12 - sr
The shoe fits. Furture comments unnecessary. Yours truly.
sr
By
13 - JP
I'm pretty sick of the immediate assertion that we "cannot allow" Iran to have nuclear weapons, without any consideration of the reasons. It's not a foregone conclusion--I've been writing several articles about the topic, as has Scott Adams of the Dilbert Blog.
The story about Iran forcing non-Muslims to wear specific badges struck me immediately as suspect because of the instantaneous references to Hitler. I feel the strings being pulled again.
14 - sr
JP, "Nukes for Iran". How long have you resided in Israel? "DUH".
Never heard about the badge thing. Did hear about color of clothes.
What the freck do I know.
Just remember the words of a great American Indian Chief viewing the buffalo as they passed below his TP. Ca-chu-au see many Ca-chu-au ma wan-ta ra-sil-pa-da-uau. Chief Bullashta 1882, Iowa.
15 - Ruvy from Jerusalem
Uncle Sammy,
This is where the clear distinctions get critical. For the oil and banking establishment ru(i)ning your country, this is all about access to oil and keeping its sale in American dollars. In one way or another, they want Americans to view all this as being about oil or about a nuclear threat from Iran.
For the oil and banking establishment running you country, this is about oil and keeping their hands in your pockets, stealing your (and everybody else's) money. But for the Iranian Islamic Republic, oil is an incidental, the weapon they have to use today in place of the nuclear weapon they aspire to, and in place of the Mahdi they desire to see destroying the West.
Your government has a "war on terror" - but the Iranian government has you and me both in their gunsights.
16 - uncle sammy says
Hi Revy from Jerusalem-- Hope the weather's better there than here. Raining, raining!
"...oil is an incidental, the weapon they have to use today in place of the nuclear weapon they aspire to..."
Not entirely sure of your use of "incidental?" But if you're saying Iran will use oil as a weapon against us, if they can, I certainly agree. And beyond oil, if they have us and Israel in their gunsights--it will be their downfall if they ever squeeze the terrorist trigger and we can prove it.
17 - mschannon
Only a fool would question the threat that Iran poses, but Dave N (comment 6) offers some good advice. I'd go one step further and get some on-the-ground intel(which I think we're doing) to make sure we know where they are with their nukes program.
But there's enough news from inside Iran that it's a society that isn't working. We should be using convert means of stimulating that dissention. We may have to bomb their nuclear sites at some point...but there are a lot of options before that.
Great article, by the way.
In Decaf Veritas
18 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
BTW, Uncle Sammy,
The rainy season is over in Israel. Now we bake for the next several months until Sukkót. Set the timer for five months and take me out to cool...
19 - uncle sammy says
We are there, undercover, I'm certain, probing.
One major problem is, if we strike them, is increasing and hardening whatever nationalistic feelings the people have, strengthening their president's hand. A lot of those young Iranians look pretty hip, to me, leading me to believe they might not hate the idea of being a bit more westernized.
Thanks, mschannon.
Ruvy, I will not mind baking for a little while--can't wait. The sun only comes out when I have to drive and forget to wear my sunglasses. Maybe that's the solution.
20 - -E
Congrats, this article was picked for one of this week's Ed Picks. Keep up the good work.
21 - uncle sammy says
Terrific-- Thanks
22 - Ewerton
Just somethings are not clear:
- Brasil is a democracy, not a dictatorship: we vote to choose our president.
- We are oil dependent and only this year be became self-contained, for our natural reserves of oil are able now to product what we consume.
- What we do have is alcohol as a alternative for gasoline in every gas station. We have cars that can be moved by gas or alcohol or both in any level of misture ( what we call flex car.
23 - uncle sammy says
Ewerton--
I stand corrected. I know this to be true, but was trying for sarcasm--that whether Latin countries are democratic or dictatorial they'll be accused of whatever works and undermined, whenever possible (i.e. overthrowing elected officals, or sanctioned), if they stand in the way of outside free-market/national-interests. Capital markets with social tweaking is good; raw capital is ruthless and cruel. We have to work hard in this country to maintain the social net. The political right has always voted against things like Medicare and Social Security, and would zap it in a New York second if they could
Regarding Brazil,notice at the end I wrote: B.S.
But I should have said, "Some will say with authority that Brazil is a dictatorship, and most of us will believe them because so many of us know little of other countries...etc."
Thanks.
24 - uncle sammy says
P.S. I also stand corrected on Brazil's alternative fuel program. Not having been there I only know what I read. For instance, if you go to my site and scroll down to Global Warming Alert, click it and follow it to the "Message" page, scroll down to the bottom to the the links and you will find CBSNews: Brazil Oil Free. You can read their take on the subject, which is typical of everything I've heard and read on the subject.