Jump to content

Featured Replies

Posted

By RALPH PETERS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

October 28, 2005 -- THIS week the president of Iran told a student rally that Israel should be "wiped off the map." Always a crowd pleaser in Tehran, Mr. Ahmadinejad's call to exterminate Jews rang freshly ominous in view of his government's nuclear ambitions.

Meeting with a lively group of American businessmen on Tuesday, I was asked how we'd know when Tehran was on the verge of acquiring a nuclear capability. "You'll see Israeli planes in the sky over Iran," I said with a smile masking my seriousness.

 

But it won't be as easy as Israel's 1981 destruction of Iraq's French-built Osirak reactor. This time, Israel will need more than attack aircraft (and better refueling means). It may take a combination of aircraft, missiles, special-ops teams and clandestine resources to interrupt Iran's nuclear program if the world fails to act. The effort would look more like the opening of the 1967 war than a pin-point strike.

 

But Iranian nuclear weapons constitute a literal life-or-death issue for Israel. Tel Aviv would be better off facing the world's (disingenuous) outrage than nuclear destruction.

 

Even for the military power of the United States, shattering Iran's nuclear-weapons program would be complicated. Iran's facilities are dispersed, hidden, buried and hardened. Attacks would kill foreign technicians wisely hired by Iran ? de facto hostages.

 

Yet, for all of the concern that Israel, the United States and blithely irresponsible Europe should feel about Tehran's quest for nuclear weapons, the Sunni Muslims of the Middle East and Pakistan should be more worried still.

 

The likeliest future nuclear exchange in the Middle East may not be between Israel and Iran, after all, but between Shi'a and Sunni Muslims.

 

 

 

The Pakistani bomb is a Sunni bomb. Tehran is hell-bent on having a Shi'a bomb to counter it.

 

And we are not talking about emotionally stable adversaries. The psychological dislocations of the greater Middle East and the ferocity of religious differences make the region the likeliest in the world to see an internal nuclear exchange. Even India and Pakistan are far less apt to engage in nuclear war (unless a regime of religious madmen grasps power in Islamabad).

 

Fiery rhetoric notwithstanding, Tehran's nuclear target list doesn't necessarily start with Israel. Tel Aviv's capacity for devastating retaliation may ? may ? deter an Iranian government with any residual survival instincts. And while Israel is the great symbolic enemy, the first place on the practical side goes to Sunni Arabs.

 

With our abysmally short historical memories, we forget that the most savage conventional war of the past 60 years was the Iran-Iraq conflict, a decade of bloodletting between Iran's majority Shi'a population and (formerly) Sunni-dominated Iraq. It was a replay of Islam's 7th-century tribal clashes, with modern weapons and mass armies. Millions perished or suffered crippling wounds. And every available weapon, including poison gas, was used enthusiastically.

 

Humans may hate a distant enemy in theory, but we're likelier to kill our neighbors.

 

An Iranian nuclear threat to the United States comes in at a distant third place behind the danger to Israel and the possibility of an intra-Muslim conflict of apocalyptic proportions. (Does anybody really think that luxury condos in Dubai are a good investment? Well, here's a toast to their "glowing" future as the mullahs nuke the Middle East's Las Vegas wannabe.)

 

Of course, we cannot dismiss the nuclear danger to our deployed forces or from a Tehran-backed terrorist strike on our homeland. But we may be exaggerating our importance to our sworn enemies.

 

If all politics are local, so are most wars. The advent of nuclear weapons in the Middle East just may coincide with the due-date for a devastating Shi'a-Sunni confrontation. In one of reality's bizarre twists that intelligence agencies never forecast, we may see Sunni Arab states begging Israel for a wartime alliance.

 

With all of these rising dangers between the Red Sea and the Indus, the United States long remained willfully blind to the roots of nuclear development in the region. The Iranians worried us but we essentially gave our "allies" a pass.

 

The Pakistani bomb was funded by Saudi Arabia as a Sunni bomb. We had no end of evidence, but Clinton-era apparatchiks refused to face the embarrassing facts.

 

On the eve of Pakistan's first nuclear detonation, Islamabad's leading luxury hotel filled with Saudis. On the day of the blast, the phone lines (in those days before cells) lit up from the test site back to the hotel, then from the hotel to Riyadh. According to one well-placed American witness, the information was suppressed.

 

Now Sunni Muslims have their bomb, the Shi'a are determined to have theirs, and the truly horrific religious war in the coming years may not be between terrorists or murderous Islamist governments and the West, but between Muslims. The sectarian hatreds within Islam (as well as between the Persian and Arab civilizations) pre-date any resentments toward the United States by many centuries.

 

It should surprise no one that the great bloodlettings of the 21st century will be over religion. The shock may be over which masses of believers slaughter each other.

 

Fantastic article. Thoughts?

It does seem like a possibility. Obviously Iran isn't a direct threat to the U.S. They are more of a threat to Israel and its neighbors.

 

The question is, would Iran really want to go through an even bloodier rematch of the Iran/Iraq war of the 1980's? I would hope that they aren't stupid enough to want that. There is no way that they could gain anything from it.

Interesting article.

 

Though an Pakistani-Iranian nuclear exchange I don't really see developing, at least based on an Arab v. Persian model. Pakistanis aren't even close to being Arab and thier beef is still with India first as boring and obvious as that sounds.

 

I agree with the author's more obvious point is that Iran's focus will be on destabilizing Iraq and attacking Iraqi Sunnis. They will get around to Israel when they are done with backing a Sunni-Shia civil war and securing Najaf and Basra.

 

Even then I could see them moving on Saudi Arabia and just performing some token bombings on Israel.

 

Hopefully, enough Iraqi divisions can be trained and mobilized before Iran starts to back up thier rhetoric with escalation. Maybe we will see some shiny new French Leclerc battle tanks in the desert this time around.

The question is, would Iran really want to go through an even bloodier rematch of the Iran/Iraq war of the 1980's? I would hope that they aren't stupid enough to want that. There is no way that they could gain anything from it.

 

 

Revenge, nationalism, and above all complete control of Shia Islam's most holiest cities, in the name of those reasons I see a new, younger, forgetful generation spilling blood like that again.

 

The Mahdi Army/Active Religous Seminary is also an enormous Shia militia group within Iraq and could give Iran a nice toe-hold in the south. At a glance, I would probably agree with you, but if you look at some of the details, there are some alarming posibilities set up.

I guess it pretty much depends on which group in Iran holds the most power for the next decade or two.

Exactly why Iran should be allowed to have their bomb. The only protection you have against your enemy that has a bomb is the threat of using one of your own against them. Then no one uses it and we all live happy. Let them have their cold war, and let western weapons manufacturers cash in on the military buildup.

Exactly why Iran should be allowed to have their bomb. The only protection you have against your enemy that has a bomb is the threat of using one of your own against them. Then no one uses it and we all live happy. Let them have their cold war, and let western weapons manufacturers cash in on the military buildup.

 

 

No thanks. I'd rather the U.S. make money off of some endeavor that doesn't involve arming unpredictable Middle Eastern countries with nuclear weapons. That's just me, though.

  • Author

Exactly why Iran should be allowed to have their bomb. The only protection you have against your enemy that has a bomb is the threat of using one of your own against them. Then no one uses it and we all live happy. Let them have their cold war, and let western weapons manufacturers cash in on the military buildup.

 

 

No thanks. I'd rather the U.S. make money off of some endeavor that doesn't involve arming unpredictable Middle Eastern countries with nuclear weapons. That's just me, though.

 

And me...and most other people. But its a thought that you have Sandro. I'd actualy prefer if the muslims bombed the hell outta each other. Then we could come in and look like saviors to them. :mischief

 

 

 

Ok so I don't prefer they have the bomb at all. But that'll likely happen if they get the bomb on the shi'ite side.

Exactly why Iran should be allowed to have their bomb. The only protection you have against your enemy that has a bomb is the threat of using one of your own against them. Then no one uses it and we all live happy. Let them have their cold war, and let western weapons manufacturers cash in on the military buildup.

 

 

No thanks. I'd rather the U.S. make money off of some endeavor that doesn't involve arming unpredictable Middle Eastern countries with nuclear weapons. That's just me, though.

 

And me...and most other people. But its a thought that you have Sandro. I'd actualy prefer if the muslims bombed the hell outta each other. Then we could come in and look like saviors to them. :mischief

 

 

 

Ok so I don't prefer they have the bomb at all. But that'll likely happen if they get the bomb on the shi'ite side.

 

Would you really be comfortable with a nuclear aresnal(s) that close to Israel? I don't even want nuclear material in that region.

  • Author

Exactly why Iran should be allowed to have their bomb. The only protection you have against your enemy that has a bomb is the threat of using one of your own against them. Then no one uses it and we all live happy. Let them have their cold war, and let western weapons manufacturers cash in on the military buildup.

 

 

No thanks. I'd rather the U.S. make money off of some endeavor that doesn't involve arming unpredictable Middle Eastern countries with nuclear weapons. That's just me, though.

 

And me...and most other people. But its a thought that you have Sandro. I'd actualy prefer if the muslims bombed the hell outta each other. Then we could come in and look like saviors to them. :mischief

 

 

 

Ok so I don't prefer they have the bomb at all. But that'll likely happen if they get the bomb on the shi'ite side.

 

Would you really be comfortable with a nuclear aresnal(s) that close to Israel? I don't even want nuclear material in that region.

 

Nope. Only nuclear material should be in Israel because *gasp* they don't kill Arabs or other ethnicities for the hell of it.

Does Israel have nukes or no? Officially they don't but they are rumored to have a program in the works. I don't mind Israel having nukes as they wouldn't use them offensively, though I think it would have a net negative affect as it would give neihbors excuses to develop nukes for defense and stability issues, some legit, some made up to simply have the capacity to destroy Israel.

 

Let's assume Middle Eastern countries acquire nukes, if Iran nukes Israel, it might spare a missle or two for Iraq's Sunni heartland, Israel and Jordan (assuring they aren't next) then may retaliate against Iran. Lebanese nationalists might under the cover of confusions and tension may bomb Syria and so on and so forth. There are just too many ancient, moronic, justified, and contrived rivarlies in the Middle East that are totally unlike the U.S and Russian Cold War rivalry.

 

I don't think either side of the Cold War wanted to nuke each other, there was an unsaid understanding between the two sides, dialogue, some limited cultural exchanges... within Middle Eastern rivalries though, let's just say those n****s won't play around.

  • Author

Pretty much sums the situation up Marlin Nation.

 

 

The problems in that region date back thousands of years just because of the vast cultural mix that occured there since the middle east is both figuratively and literally, the crossroads of the world.

 

Iran won't play around with nukes, they'll fire them at Israel first, than the Iraqi Sunni's in retaliation for the Iran-Iraq war. Then the Pakistani Sunnis will fire them at Iran to protect other Sunnis. Thus devolving into World War 3.

Does Israel have nukes or no? Officially they don't but they are rumored to have a program in the works. I don't mind Israel having nukes as they wouldn't use them offensively, though I think it would have a net negative affect as it would give neihbors excuses to develop nukes for defense and stability issues, some legit, some made up to simply have the capacity to destroy Israel.

 

Let's assume Middle Eastern countries acquire nukes, if Iran nukes Israel, it might spare a missle or two for Iraq's Sunni heartland, Israel and Jordan (assuring they aren't next) then may retaliate against Iran. Lebanese nationalists might under the cover of confusions and tension may bomb Syria and so on and so forth. There are just too many ancient, moronic, justified, and contrived rivarlies in the Middle East that are totally unlike the U.S and Russian Cold War rivalry.

 

I don't think either side of the Cold War wanted to nuke each other, there was an unsaid understanding between the two sides, dialogue, some limited cultural exchanges... within Middle Eastern rivalries though, let's just say those n****s won't play around.

 

If either side of the cold war never intended to use nukes why spend so much money developing thousands of them? Other than that, I agree. Middle Eastern countries might not be so reluctant to use nukes on each other. But you guys really think Iran would nuke Israel if they thought that the retaliation would be a nuke on Teheran? I don't know...

Exactly why Iran should be allowed to have their bomb. The only protection you have against your enemy that has a bomb is the threat of using one of your own against them. Then no one uses it and we all live happy. Let them have their cold war, and let western weapons manufacturers cash in on the military buildup.

 

 

No thanks. I'd rather the U.S. make money off of some endeavor that doesn't involve arming unpredictable Middle Eastern countries with nuclear weapons. That's just me, though.

 

And me...and most other people. But its a thought that you have Sandro. I'd actualy prefer if the muslims bombed the hell outta each other. Then we could come in and look like saviors to them. :mischief

 

 

 

Ok so I don't prefer they have the bomb at all. But that'll likely happen if they get the bomb on the shi'ite side.

 

Would you really be comfortable with a nuclear aresnal(s) that close to Israel? I don't even want nuclear material in that region.

 

Nope. Only nuclear material should be in Israel because *gasp* they don't kill Arabs or other ethnicities for the hell of it.

 

 

 

ya cause Israel is the kind and loving nation we are all lead to believe. they shouldnt have nukes just like nobody should have nukes.

Exactly why Iran should be allowed to have their bomb. The only protection you have against your enemy that has a bomb is the threat of using one of your own against them. Then no one uses it and we all live happy. Let them have their cold war, and let western weapons manufacturers cash in on the military buildup.

 

 

No thanks. I'd rather the U.S. make money off of some endeavor that doesn't involve arming unpredictable Middle Eastern countries with nuclear weapons. That's just me, though.

 

And me...and most other people. But its a thought that you have Sandro. I'd actualy prefer if the muslims bombed the hell outta each other. Then we could come in and look like saviors to them. :mischief

 

 

 

Ok so I don't prefer they have the bomb at all. But that'll likely happen if they get the bomb on the shi'ite side.

 

Would you really be comfortable with a nuclear aresnal(s) that close to Israel? I don't even want nuclear material in that region.

 

Nope. Only nuclear material should be in Israel because *gasp* they don't kill Arabs or other ethnicities for the hell of it.

 

 

 

ya cause Israel is the kind and loving nation we are all lead to believe. they shouldnt have nukes just like nobody should have nukes.

 

 

Beinfest is the last person who should comment on Middle eastern foreign policy. Contrary to this armchair diplomacy, there is structure and organization to the the varying nations in that region.

  • Author

Exactly why Iran should be allowed to have their bomb. The only protection you have against your enemy that has a bomb is the threat of using one of your own against them. Then no one uses it and we all live happy. Let them have their cold war, and let western weapons manufacturers cash in on the military buildup.

 

 

No thanks. I'd rather the U.S. make money off of some endeavor that doesn't involve arming unpredictable Middle Eastern countries with nuclear weapons. That's just me, though.

 

And me...and most other people. But its a thought that you have Sandro. I'd actualy prefer if the muslims bombed the hell outta each other. Then we could come in and look like saviors to them. :mischief

 

 

 

Ok so I don't prefer they have the bomb at all. But that'll likely happen if they get the bomb on the shi'ite side.

 

Would you really be comfortable with a nuclear aresnal(s) that close to Israel? I don't even want nuclear material in that region.

 

Nope. Only nuclear material should be in Israel because *gasp* they don't kill Arabs or other ethnicities for the hell of it.

 

 

 

ya cause Israel is the kind and loving nation we are all lead to believe. they shouldnt have nukes just like nobody should have nukes.

 

 

Beinfest is the last person who should comment on Middle eastern foreign policy. Contrary to this armchair diplomacy, there is structure and organization to the the varying nations in that region.

 

 

 

Israel, last time I checked, won't use nukes due to pressure from both the US and EU.

 

How should I be the last person? Last time I checked, I have pretty thoroughly researched the subject. You may say that I learned it all in biased sources but I really don't think a history teacher, who had never met a Jew till he moved to Miami, is a biased source for learning this information. And Iran will use the nukes because they currently have nutjobs in power.

 

And Das, Israel has its faults like many countries due, but they aren't going to blow up any civilians because its the fastest way to get to God. Palestinian civilians get caught in the crossfire because thats exactly how the militants want it to look like: the Jews killing Palestinian civilians.

F_M is a history teacher?

  • Author

F_M is a history teacher?

Oops, I screwed that up, I meant my history teacher. :lol

look.

 

no country should house nuclear weapons. israel just because of what they said, i dont trust.

 

i mean israel should do as we say anyway, if it werent for us they dont exist.

  • Author

look.

 

no country should house nuclear weapons. israel just because of what they said, i dont trust.

 

i mean israel should do as we say anyway, if it werent for us they dont exist.

That, I wholy and totally agree with you. I don't believe any country should have nuclear weapons. But as it stands, no one will give up their nuclear weapons. And which quote, may I ask, are you referring to? The one you don't trust? And Israel does do as we say, I mean, Israel held back for quite a while on bombing the militants due to the wishes of the US to try and fix the peace process.

look.

 

no country should house nuclear weapons. israel just because of what they said, i dont trust.

 

i mean israel should do as we say anyway, if it werent for us they dont exist.

That, I wholy and totally agree with you. I don't believe any country should have nuclear weapons. But as it stands, no one will give up their nuclear weapons. And which quote, may I ask, are you referring to? The one you don't trust? And Israel does do as we say, I mean, Israel held back for quite a while on bombing the militants due to the wishes of the US to try and fix the peace process.

 

 

no i just dont really trust israel in general by and large.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...