Friday, October 28, 2005

Israel and the president of Iran

The Reference Frame has repeatedly criticized the new policies of appeacement and an insufficient support of Israel from Europe and other regions, for example in the article "Disengagement is a mistake". For example, I argued
  • ... And I don't think it is quite reasonable to expect that all the Arab [sic: I meant Muslim] states are going to like the idea of the Jewish "spot" in the middle of "their" region for decades or indefinitely. ...
Unfortunately, the newest events start to confirm these worries in detail. The current president of Iran - representing the political party called "Islamic Society of Engineers" (what a strange kind of thinking for an engineer) - has called the "wise" Palestinians to "wipe off this disgraceful blot [Israel] from the face of the Islamic world". He has expressed the very same plan in many similar sentences.

You can see that my prediction was not accurate. I predicted the word "spot" while Ahmadinejab used the word "blot". Please accept my apologies for the inaccuracy. If you want to see that all good people in the world agree with the upgef**ked Mahmoud, read his newspaper.

The European Union, the United Nations, even some Arab analyticians have protested. Israel has officially asked the U.N. to cancel Iran's membership in the world's organization. Some other Iranian politicians attempted to soften the president's remarks. Nevertheless, the president of Iran has re-confirmed his statements today on a demonstration of thousands of empty heads.

The ministers of defense of all potent democratic countries in the world - which of course means primarily Donald Rumsfeld - should refresh their strategic plans for a conflict, including nuclear war, with Iran because unfortunately, the probability that such plans will be needed soon has just increased by an order of magnitude. It would be irresponsible to assume that we will never need nuclear weapons.

The Reference Frame finds it inappropriate for the politicians in civilized countries to tollerate statements such as the recent statements by Ahmadinejab and to do things that increase their self-confidence, and I personally find it inappropriate to keep this creature alive.


  1. Lubos:

    I am as shocked as any one else that the Iranian president would make an irresponsible statement like that. But I think it is even more irresponsible for an American or a Czech to suggest that we should plan a nuclear war against a certain country just because one of its leaders has uttered some words that's unwise and unpleasant to the rest of the world.

    It remains a fact that he came to power by the votes of the Iranian people. So what he says do represent the opinion of some people in that part of the world. I can imagine that they feel uncomfortable with the fact that out in their part of the world, which is largely Islamic, there is an alien nation which speaks a different language, practice a different religion, and which is just so different from them that they feel uncomfortable that this tiny nation sits amoungst themselves, not to meantion that it also unofficially has several hundred nuclear weapons.

    A head of state would not say something randomly unless he is a total idiot. And a total idiot would not have been elected in the first place. So there must be something there that makes him feel he can say those words to server some certain purpose. What are those things? I do not think he made the statement just for the pleasure of his lips.

    Maybe Iran has successfully assembled some nuclear weapons, and even has the long distance projection capabilities to target Isreal already. It's a dangerous world and is becoming even more dangerous.

    Unlike Lubos, I hardly see any thing useful in threatening to use nuclear weapons. What purpose does it server when you make a threat, and when you are really not prepared to use it? The only message it ever delivers is the one you threat gets the idea it needs to have its own nukes. And nowadays nukes is really nothing hitech at all. It's no longer a matter of whether you have the industry capability to make it or not. It's now merely a question of political will whether you want it or not. All the basic knowhows are there in high school textbooks. With a couple billion dollar investment any one can figure out the intricacy details.

    I do not think a world with Isreal and Pakistan inside the nukes club and Iran outside will last very long. It's only a matter of time that Iran will have it, too. And then Sandi and Egypt will be next. And should USA decide to wipe Iran out of existence in a pre-emptive strike, you could suddenly find all the countries in the world all of a sudden want their own nukes as well as an insurance policy. And then the end of human race is not far away.

    Not to meantion that although we have a powerful weapon we are unable to used, Iran, and the rest of the Arabs, has an even more powerful weapon that they do not need to hesitate to used: The oil. Remember 1973? They only cut off 5% of the oil that time and see what happened then?

    This country, at 8 trillion dollars deep in debt, and two hurricanes that wiped out a city and the bulk of gulf oil production, and a troubled president entangled in scandals, is in a very fragile state now.


  2. As I said, my opinion is, on the contrary, that it would be thoroughly irresponsible for Pentagon *not* to have plans for various possible alternatives how the history could continue including the nuclear alternative.

    If the president of Iran switched from the words about Israel to acts and started to erase Israel from the map, I would find it absolutely obvious that every civilized Western country would have to declare war on Iran. With all the sadness it could mean for our Iranian and Iranian-born friends, some of which would definitely agree with the war against Iran. Let me say that it is still unlikely that this will occur in 2005 or 2006, but it is not forbidden by any conservation laws.

    One simply can't sacrifice Israel. This is just a step from sacrificing Europe and two steps from sacrificing the rest.

    And in this hypothetical case of a war, it would be unlikely that such a war could be fought efficiently without the strong weapons that are available.

    I am not proposing a pre-emptive attack against Iran just because of some silly words. But of course that there may be other reasons - such as the Iranian nuclear program - that could make even a pre-emptive attack justifiable very soon. I am not one of the biggest hawks in this respect, but I certainly have some understanding for the threats.

    "It remains a fact that he came to power by the votes of the Iranian people. So what he says do represent the opinion of some people in that part of the world."

    Well, that's exactly one of the reasons why assassination against one individual may turn out to be insufficient to eliminate the existential threats of Israel. And one of the reasons to believe that he is not just an irrelevant lunatic as some friends of ours say. If you find the opinion of a few millions of Iranian madmen more important than the existence of Israel and the lives of Jews who live there, it's likely that we would stand on the opposite sides of the hypothetical war under consideration.

    I am not saying these comments about nukes just to scare someone. The Iranian lunatics probably don't read my blog. ;-) I am discussing this as a real possibility that the responsible people in the West should think about, at least academically.

    Concerning your weird comments about oil and fragile economy, let me mention that the U.S. GDP grew by 3.8 percent in the 3rd quarter despite the hurricanes and other things that you find so terribly important. They're obviously much less important and catastrophic than you think.

    Concerning your statements that the U.S. want to "wipe off" some countries. That's ridiculous. The U.S. have had a long record of establishing freedom, democracy, and independence of nations throughout the world. This holds for the U.S. help to Europe in the first war and especially the WW2; this holds for Afghanistan, Iraq, and many other cases.

    There is no tendency to eliminate "disgraceful spots" from map; rather to make these spots safe and free. Any comparison of the U.S. policy to the violent statements of the Iranian president is profoundly unfair and confused.

  3. Read some alternative comment Here regarding Oil and Iran.

    I would suggest that Lubos enlist himself in the US army to fight the inpending Iran war. We currently have a shortage of soldiers to even fight in Iraq and Lubos would be doing something more useful than string theory research.

    Unfortunately Iran is not a pig laying on the butcher's table to be slaughtered. It could easily throw a few missles on the Saudi oil fields or sink a super tanker in the Pesian Gulf, and the whole world will be plunged into an immediate chaos since half of the world's oil will be cut off. The US dollars will become worth nothing.

    Mean while, all of the US war planes, instead of flying sorties that cost 200 tons of fuel each, would be instantly converted to fly on nuclear power only and not needing any fuel. At home, all Americans would stay at home instead of drive their cars to work. The scene you see in Miami just two days ago, where people stand in line for 12 hours for a few gallons of gasoline, will be seen over the country.

    Oh, don't forget we ARE using up our strategic petroleum reserves already in getting that 3.5 GDP growth. Next quarter will be a different story. I thought that was supposed to be kept for war time usage.


  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.