12 January 2006 - Nuclear Iran? - By Gwynne Dyer

When the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed last
Tuesday that Iran had broken the seals on its nuclear research facility at Natanz, many people reacted as if the very next step was the testing of an Iranian nuclear weapon. In the ensuing media panic, we were repeatedly reminded that Iran's radical new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, declared just months ago that Israel should be "wiped off the map." How could such a lethally dangerous regime be allowed to proceed with its nuclear plans?

But talk is cheap, and not to be confused with actions or even
intentions (1). Ahmadinejad was quoting directly from the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini, but neither during Khomeini's life nor in the sixteen years since his death has Iran made any effort to wipe Israel off the map (2), because to do so could mean the virtual extermination of the Iranian people (3). Israel has held a monopoly on nuclear weapons in the Middle East since shortly after Ahmadinejad was born, and now possesses enough of them to strike every Iranian AND every Arab city of over 100,000
people simultaneously (4).

Ahmadinejad's comment was as foolish, but also ultimately as
meaningless (5), as Ronald Reagan's famous remark into a microphone that he didn't know was open: "My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you today that I have signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes." Nobody doubted that Reagan wanted the "evil empire" to be wiped from the face of the earth (6), but nobody seriously believed that he intended to attack it. Russia had nuclear weapons too, and the US would have been destroyed by its retaliation.

Ahmedinejad was not joking about wanting Israel to vanish, but he
was expressing a wish, not an intention (7), because Iran has been thoroughly deterred for all of his adult life by the knowledge of those hundreds of Israeli nuclear warheads (8). And Iran would still be deterred if it had a few nuclear weapons of its own, just as Mr Reagan was deterred from striking the Soviet Union even though the United States had thousands of the things. So why would Iran want nuclear weapons at all? Mostly national pride, plus a desire to keep up with the neighbours (9).

(1) - "But talk is cheap, and not to be confused with actions or even intentions" - Whatever the elected "Leader" of any nation says, particularly at a "World Conference on Anti-Zionism" must be listened to and analysed (I put "Leader" in inverted comas because the world and it's dog knows that Iran is actually run by 12 Religious Fanatics, normally known as the 12 Old Gits, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's slavish subservience to them extends to him not allowing official portaits of the "elected" President of Iran to be displayed, instead he has issued orders that portraits of the senior Old Git be displayed). What Gwynne Dyer is expressing here is an opinion based on the premise that from the outset regardless of context or circumstance the most optimistic and harmless interpretation must be placed on any statement. When charged with looking after the interests and security of any nation that is not a prudent point of view to take.

(2) - "but neither during Khomeini's life nor in the sixteen years since his death has Iran made any effort to wipe Israel off the map." Really? Obviously Gwynne Dyer hasn't read much of what Khomeini preached while in exile in France, Gwynne Dyer does not count unstinting support for International Terrorist Groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, etc, etc, as being, in any way shape or form, an attack upon a sovereign state recognised by the United Nations. Those terrorist attacks having but one single purpose, to provoke and goad Israel into over-reaction. To separate Israel from international support in order that Groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas can carry-out their well documented aim - To wipe Israel from the face of the earth - Ensure the total destruction of the state of Israel - To drive the jews into the sea. To Gwynne Dyer I would suggest that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was not the only Eedjit listening to that poisonous Old Git Khomeini.

(3) - "because to do so (wiping Israel off the map) could mean the virtual extermination of the Iranian people." Now let's be very clear about this - Unlike MGOH's rather cosy interpretation of what Khomeini and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said - Dyer is in no doubt about what Khomeini/Ahmadinejad meant, even then Dyer tempers this bit of opinionated drivel with the word "could". By the way the 12 Old Gits who rule Iran do not care two hoots for the "Iranian People", that they have more than adequately demonstrated in the past.

(4) - "Israel has held a monopoly on nuclear weapons in the Middle East since shortly after Ahmadinejad was born, and now possesses enough of them to strike every Iranian AND every Arab city of over 100,000 people simultaneously." - With regard to this I would simply ask Gwynne Dyer to prove it. I also doubt very much if Gwynne Dyer could actually list the cities referred to. In other analysis with regard to Israeli reaction to a nuclear armed Iran, it has been stated that the IDF does not have the capability to take on the number of targets required to eliminate Iran's nuclear programme, hence no pre-emptive strike such as the one carried out against Saddam's nuclear plant. So how come, all of a sudden. Israel has enough weaponry and delivery systems to take on the number of targets suggested by Gwynne Dyer - utterly ridiculous.

(5) - "Ahmadinejad's comment was as foolish, but also ultimately as
meaningless," - Example of Dyer's maxim that "regardless of context or circumstance the most optimistic and harmless interpretation must be placed on any statement". Given the past history of the Jews over the last 100 years, it could not under any circumstance be considered unreasonable of THEM to take such statements as those stated, or quoted, by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as being anything other than literal and deadly serious, they were after all stated at a "World Anti-Zionist Conference".

(6) - "Nobody doubted that Reagan wanted the "evil empire" to be wiped from the face of the earth" Please note unlike Khomeini or Ahmadinejad, Reagan at no time whatsoever stated that he wanted anywhere "wiped from the face of the earth". Here Gwynne Dyer is putting words into the mouth of the late President Reagan.

(7) - "Ahmedinejad was not joking about wanting Israel to vanish, but he was expressing a wish, not an intention," Now apart from the rose-tinted glasses school of interpretation and evaluation. Exactly what grounds has the redoubtable Gwynne Dyer got for expressing this OPINION? - An assumption

(8) - "because Iran has been thoroughly deterred for all of his adult life by the knowledge of those hundreds of Israeli nuclear warheads" Anyone, including the IAEA has yet to prove, proof positive that Israel has any nuclear weapons. Most intelligence evaluations by agencies outwith the state of Israel believe that Israel possesses nuclear weapons. But hang on that's an intelligence evaluation right? and all the left-wing, anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-Blair supporters don't put a great deal of credibility in intelligence evaluations do they? Or do they only believe the ones they want to believe - Gwynne Dyer certainly does.

(9) - "So why would Iran want nuclear weapons at all? Mostly national pride, plus a desire to keep up with the neighbours." Classic Gwynne Dyer rose-tinted glasses stuff. OK play devil's advocate and argue it from the other side, a far darker scenario could be envisaged.

Oh and as for Little Hawk's over reaction and highly spun version of what an American political spokesman said goes referring to Robert Gates answers to specific questions put to him by Senator Bird:

"American political spokesmen seem to just assume that the USA has a God-given right to attack any country it wishes to any time it wishes to"

Utter rubbish specific hypothetical answers to a specific hypothetical questions do not reflect official government policy, nor have they ever done so.