I’ve been saying this for years

Frankly, I don’t know if I’ve ever said it on my blog, but both my mother and Don Quixote can corroborate the fact that I’ve been saying for years that mutually assured destruction is not deterrent when dealing with Iranian leaders because they not only believe in the Muslim equivalent of the Apocalypse, they also believe that it’s their responsibility to bring it about.  These same leaders, therefore, are not worried that sending off a nuclear bomb will result in one coming right back to Iran.  Instead, they think that’s a pretty darn good idea.  (Of course, it would be an equally good idea, at least from my point of view, if they’d just turn the bomb on themselves and leave us out of their end-of-days visions.)

Since this whole thing is a truly horrible thought, I probably shouldn’t be so pleased that noted Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis is now saying the same thing about Iran.  However, since I would believe the risk Iran poses to be true even if Lewis didn’t second it, it salves my intellectual ego to know that I’m in good company with regard to my end-of-the-world nightmares.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Al

    Another extrapolation of this insane scenario is would the Liberals even tolerate a non-nuclear military response against Iran if Iran placed a nuke over Tel Aviv?
    I have to think that a sizable fraction of that alternative universe would insist that we would need to be understanding of Iran’s frustration of Israel’s existence. We should talk about it.
    If this idea seems absurd, look at what the United Methodist Church is saying about Israel in the AT today.

  • CDR Salamander

    ….and you are exactly correct.

  • Ymarsakar

    I think Democrats are so obsessed with false flag operations that they will help Iran carry one out, just for the sake of historical accuracy.

  • Lissa

    I agree with the idea that Iran is not afraid of having a nuclear war, both for the religious aspect and the practical jihad aspect. Anyone else read Tom Clancy’s Sum of All Fears? (Not the movie – fleh.) A nuke is smuggled into the US and detonated by two terrorists who, when captured, lie and tell their captors that they were sponsored and supported by Iran. Their hope, almost realized, is that the US will lob a return nuke at Iran and thus begin a massive war, with the entirety of the Muslim world becoming our eternal and implacable enemies. Whether or not an Iranian leader believes in the coming of the Islamic messiah, if he wants to start a fervent war against the United States (and doesn’t particularly care about how many of his own people are killed) then trying to nuke us is a good strategic move.

  • Allen

    Notwithstanding the recent NIE Iran continues taking the steps to build a weapon. The February report from the IAEA pretty much said this. The recent telling factor: Iran has been attempting to purchase hydrodynamic software. You absolutely need that if you want to build a bomb. Iran’s excuse was they wanted it for seat belt design, and plane crash investigations. True you probably could do that but it’s like using a Stradivarius as a hammer. They could have said “we want it for our conventional weapons R&D” which is plausible.

    So, where does that leave us? Iran definitely wants a nuke and is working at it. Eventually they will get there. Israel is a one weapon state in that one large weapon pretty much destroys her, and they know it. So in the not too distant future Israel will be striking, with or without us. I’ll put money on it.

  • Ymarsakar

    In a way, Iran needs to have an Islamic city vaporized, so long as it has been vaporized by the will of Islam and Allah instead of by the West. The only way they could do is to precipitate a crisis and force the West to react in a fashion they have planned for, so that then Iran can acquire the option of nuking one of their own cities and gaining support thus. Although if they nuke an Israeli city, the outcome would be the same: more Islamic recruits because Islam has increased the suffering of the people and blamed it on an outside factor.