Former Mossad chief: It’s time to send Ahmadinejad to meet Allah
posted at 6:32 pm on February 14, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
A timely subject given the heat InstaGlenn’s been taking from the nutroots generally and Rick “Mad Dog” Ellensburg in particular for advocating assassinations of the Iranian leadership and their nuclear brigades. Moran’s got a long post about it and is worried about tit-for-tat reprisals against America’s own leaders, but that’s not something that should deter us with the stakes as high as they are. If killing person X would stop terrorists from building a nuclear weapon but lead them to threaten Bush, then you kill person X and take the consequences.
…Unless, that is, you believe there are worse options than terrorists having a nuclear weapon. Are there? Moran:
[A]nything we do to Iran will enormously complicate if not totally doom our efforts in Iraq. Fighting a Shia insurgency against our occupation along with war against the Sunnis and al-Qaeda would be a disaster. If Professor Reynolds believes that assassinations of the kind he is suggesting won’t set off the Shias in Iraq, he should read some recent speeches from al-Sadr where he warns against any American actions against Iran. And of course, the political situation – already tenuous – would go to hell in a handbasket. Forget about the Shias sharing power with the Sunnis or Kurds at all. In fact, that turn of events would make staying in Iraq a complete exercise in futility.
Never mind Iraq; what would killing Ahmadinejad do to Iran? What it’d probably do is cause an anti-western backlash that would entrench the leadership, which in turn would make it more likely that Khamenei’s successor is a radical, which would actually make the risk of regional and/or nuclear war more likely. The only way that’s worth chancing is if we knew, with confidence approaching certainty, that taking him or Khamenei or whoever out would destroy their nuke program. Otherwise it’s too much risk with too little reward. After all, why strike at the king if you don’t expect to kill him?
Nothing wrong with a little healthy fantasizing, though:
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should “be made to disappear from the arena,” Meir Amit, a former director of Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency, advocated in an exclusive interview with WND.
Amit, one of the most esteemed figures in the Israeli intelligence establishment, said while he was director of the Mossad from 1963 to 1968 he regularly argued against the assassination of world leaders. But he said the case of Ahmadinejad is different.
“Ahmadinejad is the pusher of all the Muslim world toward fanaticism and extremism. In his case, he should be made to disappear from the arena. He has said he wants to become a shahid, a martyr, so I think he should get his wish and be sent to heaven,” Amit said.
Exit question: “Heaven”?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I’m guessing it was sarcasm.
JamesVersusEveryone on February 14, 2007 at 6:48 PM
Er, me too.
Allahpundit on February 14, 2007 at 6:50 PM
I don’t have a problem with it.
JammieWearingFool on February 14, 2007 at 6:51 PM
I’ll fly the mission myself
Defector01 on February 14, 2007 at 6:57 PM
And I’ll write a comment about it on the internet!
Savage on February 14, 2007 at 6:59 PM
What’s sad is that the intelligence agencies have no imagination anymore; hell, we brought down Mossadegh with nothing but rumors in the streets. In the most conspiratorial susceptible area of the world one would think eliminating this twit would be a relative cakewalk.
kiakjones on February 14, 2007 at 7:09 PM
Ultimnately all power is vested in Khameini, the supreme leader. Perceived weakness in Iraq led to the “election” of the puppet Ahmadinejad and I don’t think his assassination would lead the Iranians to install Mesbah-Yazdi as supreme leader. Of course I don’t really know what would happen, your guess is as good as mine.
aengus on February 14, 2007 at 7:21 PM
Yes but all eyes are on Iran. The ayatollahs can’t fart without it making the papers. The regime change in Somalia didn’t create a massive fuss because like Mossadegh-era Iran it was perceived to be of minimal importantce, at least compared with Iran and Iraq.
aengus on February 14, 2007 at 7:24 PM
I think we should just send Ahmadinejad a slab of bacon and wish him a Happy Valentine’s Day.
(just daydreaming)
.
GT on February 14, 2007 at 7:24 PM
I don’t think so.
Jaibones on February 14, 2007 at 7:26 PM
I have only one thing to ask:
does this mean that he won’t get his
72 virgins?
If so, I say: go for it! Heh
sharinlite on February 14, 2007 at 7:31 PM
Despite the ‘raving lunatic’ factor, Iran’s behavior can be understood in the context of a rational actor.
We’re not already in a hot war with Iran, despite the many acts of war against us, because it doesn’t suit our national interests. Neither would provoking us too far be in Iran’s interest. They’re betting we won’t strike back in force, and it has given them a freer hand.
But the same audaciousness that so many countries use against us, we can use with even more confidence. It doesn’t make sense for Iran to escalate with us beyond a certain point, when the ultimate outcome of a hot war would be a devastated Iran.
A full scale Shia uprising in Iraq, instigated by Iran, would almost certainly stir up the same nationalism in the US (remember that weird feeling that everyone had after 9/11?) that we are so hand-wringingly worried about occuring in Iran. They have the same calculus to consider, but with a downside that is orders of magnitude greater than ours.
Targeted assassinations are worth the risk. Punching a bully in the snot almost always has the intended effect.
a4g on February 14, 2007 at 7:35 PM
He’ll get seventy-two raisins, crystal clear.
aengus on February 14, 2007 at 7:36 PM
Yeah, exactly. You’ve hit the nail on the head.
aengus on February 14, 2007 at 7:38 PM
The former Mossad chief is a little slow.
Kralizec on February 14, 2007 at 7:41 PM
I didn’t get the 72 Raisins reference at first… and then.
Ha!
“Welcome to Raisins! Hi Cutey!”
Yeah, Mohammad had a 6-year old wife.
JamesVersusEveryone on February 14, 2007 at 7:48 PM
It’s pretty f*cking oligarchic of the Left or anyone else to propose, in effect, that fighting and dying should be left to the little people. For my part, I regret the small probability that I’ll ever get to vivisect Ahmadinejad.
Kralizec on February 14, 2007 at 7:50 PM
Why not kill him and frame someone else for it?
Darth Executor on February 14, 2007 at 7:51 PM
Yeah, that’s the problem with assassination by onesies and twosies. But the Maxim gun can take out an entire ruling class all at once. I’m not arguing for the sake of present action: Fat chance. I’m casting aspersion on our moralism and the retail scale of our willingness to destroy our enemies and those who generate them, and my argument is for the future.
Kralizec on February 14, 2007 at 7:59 PM
The military offensive against the Somali Islamists was non-news because it didn’t involve a full-blown American ground presence and was mostly carried out by Ethiopian troops supporting the military of the legitimate Somali Government.
Instead of destroying weapons we capture bearing the markings of Iranian origins, perhaps they should be redeployed to friendly Middle Easter countries (covertly) in an attempt to instigate open confrontation with the Mullahs. Instead of assassinating MJ or any hostile Mullahs you assassinate a friend thereby dividing OPEC countries who will then increase Oil production and marginalize Iran’s main source of revenue. As their economy deteriorates you open up mass unrest at home and…no more Mullahs.
They play dirty, why the hell can’t we?
kiakjones on February 14, 2007 at 8:00 PM
The secret assassination of Iranian leaders wouldn’t involve a “full-blown American ground presence” either. No disagreement with your second paragarh.
aengus on February 14, 2007 at 8:04 PM
By the way, in case anyone’s wondering why I haven’t updated my non-blog in about 6,000 years I’ve been too busy. I’ll start a proper blog in June if I get the time.
aengus on February 14, 2007 at 8:06 PM
I think we should kidnap him and send him to US Naval Base Guantanamo Bay…
Zorro on February 14, 2007 at 8:19 PM
Yeah; but how long do you think our “secret” involvement would stay a secret? We would be blamed the minute the news hit the airwaves.
Use Iranian weapons in covert sabotage or assassinations in friendly ME countries and watch the Arab street erupt; remember how long it took for Arabs in Jordan to condemn Zarqawi after he blew up a wedding?
With direct evidence linking Iranian weapons used in Saudi Arabia, Egypt (et al) the Mullahs would be backed into a corner and so would AJ; then watch the fun begin.
kiakjones on February 14, 2007 at 8:29 PM
I disagree. This is a logical assertion base on the Western perspective that influences world opinion, but this is not how I understand the Middle Eastern mindset.
Killing their leader may put them in a spin and cause conflict, but it will cause an internal strife for power and weaken them externally. Mercilessly cutting the head off of their leader sends a distinct message of strength, and their culture highly respects that kind of strength.
Likewise, we need to stop playing patty-cake with enemy leaders in Iraq. Maliki is a nominal leader with little cultural influence, expecting him to help solve our problems in Iraq is ignorant and borderline foolish.
Kill their cultural leaders, and their followers will seek to make peace with the new big dog on the block. As long as we let the big-dog cultural leaders like Al-Sadr remain alive, when we could so easily kill them, makes us look weak in their eyes. As long as we continue to present our weak side to them they will continue to shoot at it.
Lawrence on February 14, 2007 at 8:41 PM
I am sure the party of power in the Senate would trade a few of their own in order to take out Mr Big in Iran. Right? Huh??
…or is that just for the over paid, over pampered misfits in the military???***
*** FYI….Sarcasm
Hening on February 14, 2007 at 8:46 PM
This is why Iran NEEDS Iraq to remain unstable. Amahjahmahdingdong knows that as soon as Iraq is quiet, HE’S next!
We oughta send more troops to Afghanistan along with our Iraq “surge” and then hit Iran from East and West.
Tony737 on February 14, 2007 at 9:21 PM
If the man wants to be a martyr then by all means we should facilitate that. He can go to that big strip club in the sky with 72 dancers.
Once he gets there he just may notice the air conditioning is broken and it will be quite a bit hotter than he anticipated.
Mojave Mark on February 14, 2007 at 9:35 PM
May Israel speed the day that Ahmadinejad meets Allah. May the 72 virgins that Allah gives him all be uglier than Helen Thomas and colder of heart than John Murtha.
flutejpl on February 14, 2007 at 9:37 PM
What’s needed here is an Israeli PM who will state publicly and repeatedly that he intends to nuke Tehran. Ahmadinejad believes that the Twelfth Imam will come when the Muslims kill the Jews. He doesn’t know what the hell will happen if the Jews strike first. He’ll have no choice but to get the hell out of Tehran. That’ll slow down his nuke project and make him an easier target for the millions of Iranians who would like to send him to paradise.
RedWinged Blackbird on February 14, 2007 at 9:43 PM
Death to Ahmadinejad!
CP on February 14, 2007 at 10:09 PM
I suggest a delayed hit. Give him AIDS and let him die like Arafat did.
JG2K6 on February 14, 2007 at 10:25 PM
Polinium
Alden Pyle on February 15, 2007 at 8:52 AM
If theres any justice in the world, AhmedinaNutJob will get 72 clones of Rosie O’donnel in his afterlife.
JayHaw Phrenzie on February 15, 2007 at 9:19 AM
If he meets any kind of untimely demise, we’ll get blamed for it…so why not do it?
jdpaz on February 15, 2007 at 9:24 AM
articles here and here
RushBaby on February 15, 2007 at 11:39 AM
Given our current political leadership I’d be willing to take the chance on a few of them getting whacked.
After all, it would be ‘for the children’.
KCSteve on February 15, 2007 at 12:07 PM