Bernard Lewis: Mutually Assured Destruction doesn’t scare Iran
posted at 6:32 pm on February 27, 2008 by see-dubya
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
If Bernard Lewis is right, then decades of received wisdom from the Cold War are no longer operative. After all, it doesn’t really matter if you deter 99% of a society. You only need to deter the ones with their fingers on the trigger. But if you can’t deter them, then what?
“Iran’s leadership comprises a group of extreme fanatical Muslims who believe that their messianic times have arrived,” Lewis said. “This is quite dangerous. Though Russia and the U.S. both had nuclear weapons, it was clear that they would never use them because of MAD — mutual assured destruction. Each side knew it would be destroyed if it would attack the other.”
“But with these people in Iran, mutually assured destruction is not a deterrent factor, but rather an inducement,” Lewis said. “They feel that they can hasten the final messianic process.
So if he’s right…what do we do? I don’t like this conclusion, but it seems that prevention is the fallback strategy if we doubt deterrence will work. However, there seems to be no will for prevention–at least serious measures for prevention– and instead there seems to be a misplaced eagerness in the world to believe that Iran is negotiating in good faith.
Hey, I’d like to believe that myself. But I don’t.
Exit question: is he right?
MORE: “Duh,” say several commenters. But while it’s not surprising that my conclusion about prevention is seen as obvious on the Hot Air boards, it does not prevail worldwide. That’s why I though a statement by Bernard Lewis–especially a pithily phrased one like this–was newsworthy. My own thoughts haven’t changed much from Dec. 2006, but I have no illusions about how influential my thoughts on the subject are. BL’s words, on the other hand, carry more weight.
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
Comment pages:
So guys who are bent on causing global apocalypse that will bring the 12th Imam and the Mahdi are not deterred by M.A.D? Who would have thought?
Aristotle on February 27, 2008 at 6:36 PM
Second look at aiming at the Kaabah?
Tzetzes on February 27, 2008 at 6:38 PM
I like reading Lewis. Thanks for bringing him back, CW. Too bad he got on AP’s s**t-list a while ago.
waterhouse on February 27, 2008 at 6:39 PM
What did he do?
Whatever he did, he knows more about the Middle East than I do, and his saying this matters infinitely more than my saying it. Policy makers listen to him.
see-dubya on February 27, 2008 at 6:40 PM
I kid you not, I bought one of these things and some these of a few months ago.
Conservative Gunman on February 27, 2008 at 6:41 PM
Two Words: Preemptive Military Strike!
No, Three Words…
Kini on February 27, 2008 at 6:41 PM
I’ll buy Fallout 3 when it comes out. Does it count?
Aristotle on February 27, 2008 at 6:43 PM
nuke them first and overkill?
Defector01 on February 27, 2008 at 6:46 PM
That’s the question that no one seems to be able to answer. We can’t get into the minds of the Iranian leadership, and its impossible to tell what they’re thinking.
Part of me wonders if its meant as a deterrent to keep either keep us from helping the Iranian people overthrow the regime, or as a means for the Iranian regime to intimidate the Iranian people themselves, like a “You people try and overthrow us, we’re taking you with us” type thing.
Or just to use as a deterrent to keep people from attacking their regime or undermining their interests, using the threat to use their nukes on their neighbors.
Could it be that they fear a Sunni/Shi’ite type conflict down the road (stemming from Iraq?), see that they have a serious disadvantage based on demographics(Sunnis are what, 85% of all Muslims?), and view a nuke as a great equalizer if it happens?
Maybe they are the religious whackos they say they are, and they aren’t bluffing when they say they’ll use it on whoever.
I dunno, but its hard to deal with this regime when its impossible to tell what the hell they want.
doubleplusundead on February 27, 2008 at 6:47 PM
I don’t remember the particulars, but I think Lewis made a prediction, some of the blogs (incl. HA) went with it, and it didn’t pan out. It may have been about the instant subject of your post, but I can’t remember.
When I try to go back in the archives more than one page I get a 404.
waterhouse on February 27, 2008 at 6:48 PM
Hmm I wonder if they will donate to some of our guys in OEF and OIF.
I like your posts. But something I kind of already knew. Lets see, you have a bunch of crazed men who think Jihaad is the best way to go and to get to their 72 virgins. You don’t think they don’t have a problem with death or getting blown up and taking as many infidels with them as they can?
upinak on February 27, 2008 at 6:52 PM
bomb bomb bomb ….bomb bomb Iran…..if they wanna see allaaah
lets accomodate them. The sooner the better
daddee02004 on February 27, 2008 at 6:53 PM
I don’t believe this garbage for a minute. These sons of beeeatches understand fear better than anyone, they use it on a daily basis to control their populous. Their folks after some serious airstrikes will probably turn on them. It will actually be easier than Iraq, because you have basically a population that is about 85% of the same sect who has been exposed to western influences in the past. Iraq was totally isolated from ANY outside influence since the days of Sadaam’s uncle being in charge mid 60’s.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 27, 2008 at 6:53 PM
Hard to deter a suicide bomber with nukes — and there in lies the real problem, does it not?
tarpon on February 27, 2008 at 6:56 PM
Which is why I wonder if the nukes are meant to be a deterrent against an internal overthrow as much as anything else. Maybe its all of the things I think it could be…
doubleplusundead on February 27, 2008 at 6:58 PM
Who does the Iranians hate more the greater Satan or the lesser one ?
William Amos on February 27, 2008 at 6:58 PM
Yes.
Blaise on February 27, 2008 at 7:02 PM
I was warned long ago about not talking about things like “lets bomb mecca” etc etc on this site.
I don’t wish to start now BUT…
At some point, couldn’t we mention that in our ‘negotiations’? I mean, if its so important to them, we could use it as a ‘deterrent’ if any of our interests are bombed. Again, this is all in the context of a nuclear attack.
Would it not be an effective deterrent perhaps, because the apocalypse they crave is superior and is a replacement to their holy sites?
Let me make it clear I am not advocating we do something to these sites in any context except a defensive one. And even then, following a nuclear / radio-active attack on us or our allies.
Utah Boy on February 27, 2008 at 7:03 PM
I think is the better question.
doubleplusundead on February 27, 2008 at 7:04 PM
Doubleplus— nukes aren’t very good for securing internal stability. You need different weapons for that. If you nuke one of your own cities, you hope of maintaining order and/or international viability are zeroed out.
There is a possible exception to this idea: Hafez Assad leveled the rebellious city of Hama with artillery, accomplishing in hours what a nuke would do in seconds. But still doesn’t seem applicable to the Iranian situation.
see-dubya on February 27, 2008 at 7:04 PM
Do you Hope? Sometimes Hope is good enough.
ninjapirate on February 27, 2008 at 7:06 PM
Right, with a caveat. The use of fear is a power tactic, which I see Iran and other thugs/terrorists using to try to get their way in the world. When the threat becomes overwhelming and personal to them, they will fold. At least that’s my take.
Have you noticed that few of the leaders encouraging suicide attacks personally wear the vests?
FWIW.
cs89 on February 27, 2008 at 7:06 PM
Be careful what you wish for, it may come true. The good part about the Iranian mullahs craving a nuclear exchange with the US or Israel is that it is a problem which extinguishes itself.
On a more practical level, the Iranian mullahcracy is a place where virtually everything is run incompetently. Why would their atom bomb program be any different? Iran fought Iraq for ten years in a massive stalemate, the same Iraq we body slammed in six weeks. Should they act on their Islamic delusions, the devastation wrought on them in exchange will convert those Iranians who survive into pacifists more ardent than the Japanese.
Tantor on February 27, 2008 at 7:07 PM
Which is why I wonder if the nukes are meant to be a deterrent against an internal overthrow as much as anything else.
doubleplusundead on February 27, 2008 at 6:58 PM
Smartest guy in the room.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 27, 2008 at 7:10 PM
Well the Mullahs orf Iran simply hang their own with words they are “Un islamic” and deserved death.
See being against Iran isnt anti Iranian its also anti Islamic in their mindset.
William Amos on February 27, 2008 at 7:14 PM
For four years, I was an ICBM Commander in the Air Force (1986-1990), controlling nuclear weapons aimed at the former Soviet Union. We trained extensively in case we were required to launch our missiles, but deep down we knew we’d never be put in that position. This was due to a concept called Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). We knew the Soviets wouldn’t nuke us first because we’d retaliate and destroy their country. They knew the same about us, and fortunately our two countries never saw a nuclear attack. Now, the threats of nuclear attacks from North Korea and Iran are growing, but Iran is really the most serious threat. Who can’t believe that a mullah/Islamic culture of suicide bombers, even using children and the disabled, could be capable of a preemptive suicide nuclear strike. Toss in their irrational, cult-like messianic hopes of the return of their Mahdi and you have an incendiary situation to say the least. Preemption is absolutely necessary in this situation. The world can’t allow them to have nuclear missiles.
liberty on February 27, 2008 at 7:15 PM
Perhaps. They do use fear masterfully – look at the impact they’ve had on US politics. Yet, none of the leadership has lead the way by volunteering for a suicide mission. Osama didn’t fly one of the planes.
The major seems to be increased Jihad globally, as long as it doesn’t threaten the “Leaders” personally, with regional warfare. It seems more likely a nuke or other mass attack would be used against Israel or other regional “enemies” if and only if they’re assured of no response in kind.
That still leaves 2 wild cards: 1) Belief the end has come so they commit national suicide; 2) A local/individual leader-type goes off for their own agenda or psychosis.
Any way I look at it leads to the belief that weak responses to attacks against the US and our allies only guarantees escalation. The only questions are who, when, how much.
Perfesser on February 27, 2008 at 7:15 PM
The first question I had was who is Bernard Lewis? Search engines have returned a ton of interesting stuff which I am currently wading through.
My next question was does he have any credibility with the liberal left?
Ha. Silly me. The phrase ‘Bush Derangement Syndrome’ was coined for a reason.
[The above ripped from an article in the Washington Monthly by Michael Hirsch, November 2004.]
rockhauler on February 27, 2008 at 7:23 PM
I disagree, think about what is gonna happen to these Iranian Mullahs if the Iranian people move to overthrow them. They’re gonna get ripped limb from limb and their bodies dragged through the streets, if they’re lucky. And the Iranians aren’t too happy with the way their lives are right now.
However, if the regime can convince people that they’re nuts enough to turn Tehran into a smoldering crater and take everyone with them if the Iranian people dare to attempt to overthrow them, they might cow the people into compliance.
From the regime’s perspective, they have nothing to lose, if the people make the effort to overthrow them, they’re dead, no one is gonna offer these Mullahs asylum, the Arabs won’t, because the Mullahs are Shi’ites, the West isn’t, because the regime is a long term sponsor and supporter of terrorist activity…where are they gonna go?
doubleplusundead on February 27, 2008 at 7:24 PM
I have no doubt that a people that will strap bombs onto themselves, their children or even women are afraid to die in a nuclear holocaust as long as they hit first. This IS totally different from Russia.
ihasurnominashun on February 27, 2008 at 7:25 PM
In this particular case “bombs away” is the sophisticated, intellectual response. People who have spent decades studying Islam such as Mr. Lewis and also Hugh Fitzgerald know that Iran is getting the bomb in order to use it, not to create some Soviet-style nuclear stalemate.
Iran have openly boasted that they intend to decimate the Anglosphere plus Israel (created by Britain, “the mother of all evils”, as they see it) simultaneously.
aengus on February 27, 2008 at 7:30 PM
If the Mullahs are really lucky the Iranian people will do what they’ve been doing since 1979 to overthrow their oppressors: next to nothing.
aengus on February 27, 2008 at 7:32 PM
I hope you don’t live in NYC:
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0803,thompson,78873,2.html
BadCubby on February 27, 2008 at 7:33 PM
Like you, I assumed almost everyone understood this.
It seems axiomatic that mutually assured destruction won’t work when one party is willing to die for its cause. Hence this special place in history for the confluence of technology (cheap, accessible WMD’s) and terrorism.
In a sense, we’re lucky this time. This time there’s a sovereign state, Iran, that can be held accountable.
But we’re unlucky too. The American left is bent upon destroying our will to resist the terrorist attack.
petefrt on February 27, 2008 at 7:39 PM
Quite possibly the greatest argument for capitalism and democracy I’ve seen.
The terminal, antique, impotent mullahs, imams and poobahs, whose lives have been a complete waste, and who are running out of answers for the repeated: “Why Imam? Why does Allah bless the infidels with food, crops, cars, medicines, while we the faithful die in misery?”
Nuclear death has got to start lookin’ pretty much like the only way out. That is, short of admitting that Islam is pretty much a crap religion and failure any way you look at it.
It comes down to: Can we just pop the zit on the nose, or do we have to take the whole head off?
heldmyw on February 27, 2008 at 7:39 PM
Quite possible, I’d be a bit nervous about trying to overthrow a regime that brutal too.
doubleplusundead on February 27, 2008 at 7:50 PM
Iran IMHO doubts that anything serious from the US would happen to it if they “nuclear truck bombed” several US cities.
Lets review: 79-80 Embassy Hostage Crisis, nothing happens. Beirut Barracks bombing 1983, nothing happens. Beirut Embassy bombings 1983, nothing happens. Abduction to Tehran and torture and murder of CIA Station Chief Buckley, nothing happens. The 1994 Buenos Aires bombings, nothing happens. The 1996 Khobar Towers bombings, nothing happens.
NOTHING EVER HAPPENS to Tehran when they bomb us. So why not, from their perspective, nuke NYC and DC out of existence, demand a withdrawal from the Persian Gulf and Eastern Med as Persian Lakes? Persian Empire, 2.0! It’s not as if they have people who’s leadership understands America, other than what they see on CNN International and Al Jazeera. It’s not as if they’ve not had enormous success over thirty years truck bombing America out of places they don’t want us. It’s not as if we’ve ever done SERIOUS harm to them. It’s not as if they are AFRAID of us.
Barack Hussein Obama gives them hope, also, that we might even surrender pre-emptively. And why not?
We WILL see US cities lost, that’s for certain. If Barack Hussein Obama is President we’ll see a lot of them, until he’s removed and we retaliate massively with our own nukes. If it’s McCain he’ll nuke em back, but that’s it.
[We DO have leverage: tit-for-tat terror sponsoring of ethnic separatists, cruise missile etc. bombing of mullah's property, their hotels and malls and factories etc. that make them billions, and targeted killings of regime / Mullah big-wigs to put the fear of the US into them. Once they start dying and getting poor, they could have a whole new attitude adjustment. But now, guys who made their bones killing people have only contempt for American leaders.]
whiskey_199 on February 27, 2008 at 7:58 PM
I view the problem as twofold. The first is that the MAD scenario simply doesn’t apply. As Lewis (and many others over the past year) said, it’s not a deterrent, it’s an inducement.
The other problem is that we’re used to bluster and rhetoric in dictators. What’s in the minds of the Iranian elite? As Neal Boortz exhorts daily, listen to their words. They’re telling us flat-out, in no uncertain terms, exactly what they’re going to do with their nukes. Don’t you remember the story of Imadinnerjacket dropping the note down into the well of the 12th imam? It basically said “Gimme nukes ASAP, baby!” When historians write the chapter, they’ll have to admit that Dinnerjacket set a new standard in honesty and forthrightedness.
The problem, as noted, is that everybody lumps him into the same arm-waving, wildly-gestulating category as Hitler and all the rest. The final chapter will end on a dismissive note:
“Did you hear about Ahmadinejad wanting to nuke us and kill every American and take over the country and establish a world caliphate? He said so, himself!”
“Oh, him.”
Boom.
Personally, I believe we’ll see NYC and DC go up in a mushroom cloud one day. Assuming Iran starts producing nukes in two years, I’d make it roughly five to six years. I simply don’t see how we can stop it. We certainly can’t physically stop it. Remember, all that talk about port security a few years ago (the Dubai thing) was just so much blather. That’s dealing with a conventional bomb, which must actually be brought into a city to be effective. That certainly isn’t true with a nuke.
There will be absolutely no reason, whatsoever, why a nuke couldn’t be brought into NYC harbor at 3 am in the morning aboard a small trawler, and one up the Potomac, and that’ll be all it takes.
At that point, we’d better hope to hell it’s a dirty bomb, and not the real McCoy. A real nuke would immediately kill all of the power brokers (business and political), leaving the residual kills for the suburbs. What decisional power that was left would probably revert to NORAD, and they wouldn’t have a clue what to do next.
With a dirty bomb, however, you’d have a whole sh*tload of Congresscritters who’d just been told they have six months to live. Think they aren’t going to be just a little pissed? They’d bomb Iran’s ass just for the exercise, and proof be damned. The wrath of Yamamoto’s sleeping tiger would be reawakened.
Dr. Mercury on February 27, 2008 at 8:10 PM
We have two options:
1) Pre-emptive strike
2) Promise to nuke Mecca if they nuke us
jgapinoy on February 27, 2008 at 8:10 PM
Thank goodness I don’t. Laissez-faire damnit!
Conservative Gunman on February 27, 2008 at 8:13 PM
Do we know what we need to strike? Can we strike those targets successfully? How would we confirm our success?
Iran is likely to retaliate, perhaps in Iraq, perhaps in Israel. What, then, are the probable consequences of a strike, and are we and our allies prepared to bear them?
Are there no alternatives? For example, can we do anything to destabilize the government of Iran?
paul006 on February 27, 2008 at 8:15 PM
The Mullahs will launch on Israel at the first sign of a legitimate internal threat to their rule. This is the best of all possible scenarios for them; keeps the sane Iranians afraid of nuclear war with Israel, positions them as the leader in the Muslim world, and keeps the us off balance because they are making no credible threat to our security. A very masterful strategy which cannot fail their desires.
dmann on February 27, 2008 at 8:20 PM
Of course it doesn’t. it relied on the simple fact that people want to live. The Islamofascists want to die or at the very least kill everyone who isn’t an Islamist.
The way Amahdinejad and the rest of the Islamofascists see it they will be in a win-win situation once they get their nukes.
If they nuke the infidels they get their caliphate. The 12th imam pops out of his well and it is Islamic paradise for all male Muslims. (Women are not viewed as humans, they are considered livestock under Islam thus have no souls.)
If they die they win the shahid sweepstakes. One way ticket to paradise, 72 virgins and a hearty thanks from ol’ Allah.
Nahanni on February 27, 2008 at 8:23 PM
Perhaps MADD was only applicable with the likes of the US vs USSR. Despite how powerful and devoted those communists to their beliefs and worship of the God of Government were, they weren’t willing to commit suicide by having nuclear war with the US. (How different they must have been after Stalin, who probably would not have given a damn about nuclear war with the US. He certainly wasn’t afraid to kill off millions of his own people without the aid of thermonuclear explosions.)
The likes of Iran is a different situation than the USSR because the Russians didn’t have, as part of their belief the spreading of communism, to start a world war to bring about their version of the Messiah so this savior can eliminate the State’s enemies, bring world peace, and everyone can sing the equivalent of Russian “Kum Ba Ya” (with those dancing bearded guys who jump up and down with their arms folded, etc). Like many here, I do not believe the leaders in Iran, such as the likes of Ahmadinejad and his 12th Imam fetish.
For all their faults, the Russians had really level heads about them. I am not so sure about the leaders in Iran, especially those who would have the ability to have their hand hover over the Big Red Button. Though with the likes of Iran, it will more likely be a proxy attack, utilizing very experienced terrorists to deliver a nuclear device to kill Americans or their allies.
Weebork on February 27, 2008 at 8:28 PM
If you haven’t read any of his books, they’re highly recommended.
Liberty, thanks for your service, it’s because of people like you we’re free to debate these issues.
Tony737 on February 27, 2008 at 8:29 PM
Any prudent military commander strives to minimize casualties and the amount of damage done to all combatants. Given this reality, the choice is clear, the sooner the Iranian regime is forced to feel/smell/cope with the horror of modern military technology the sooner peace will return to the region.
dmann on February 27, 2008 at 8:35 PM
whiskey_199 on February 27, 2008 at 7:58 PM
If we were nuked by any one….think of what would happen.
Our economy would most likely crash. We would withdraw from the world and millions of Muslims would starve in their earthen huts. Africa would be depopulated, starvation, no water and no medicine, no one to help them. Arabs would pay $502.50 for a bushel of wheat (if they could find it).
When we reemerged, we would be free of hydro-carbons and offer the same technology to the rest of the world,(probably no charge). Once again it would be a bitch to live in the Desert with camels.
Europe would go through Civil Wars between Anglos and Muslims born in their countries, both sides calling on God to bless their righteous efforts. All in all it would be a sh*t sandwich and we would all have to take a bite.
I’m Not looking froward to it.
spike on February 27, 2008 at 8:37 PM
paul006,
We’ve been trying to destabilize the government of Iran for a long time now. For example, we’re trying to capitalize on the sentiment of the younger generations who are quite vocal and adamant against certain held beliefs by their elder leaders.
It is to be assumed Iran will try to retaliate when the US or Israel attacks the nuke sites. It is more important that the nuke sites get taken out against any “What Will Iran Do?” in retaliation. I hope they come and attack the US and its allies, we will give them a good taste of what Iraq went through (who had a hell of a more modern and larger military than Iran has) in both Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom. This isn’t hubris — we will certainly take some damage, but Iran will bleed a lot more than us.
I don’t even believe Iran would be stupid enough to retaliate with a direct military attack. It will be much more insidious than that, deciding rather to engage in a string of mass suicide bombs in Israel.
We should in no way refuse to do the right thing because we will worry what Iran will do in retaliation. We must not allow them to gain access to nuclear bombs at whatever cost.
Weebork on February 27, 2008 at 8:39 PM
Weebork on February 27, 2008 at 8:39 PM
Hear hear!
dmann on February 27, 2008 at 8:43 PM
That’s right. And if Barak Hussein Obama is elected president they’ll see the election as a green light to bomb us again with whatever is available in their arsenal. They know that liberals/leftist place more value on empty words and the threat of diplomacy than military action. The good news is you still have 11 months to move away from potential high value targets and stock up on supplies.
manfriend on February 27, 2008 at 9:00 PM
There are ways to dislodge the mullahs, as see-dubya indicates. It would require a lot of our conventional assets and a large pair of Malkins to actually do it. We (as a country) have the conventional assets but I doubt anyone in Washington or the three liberal candidates running have big enough Malkins.
Agreed. I wish we would because we owe them serious payback for these last 30 years terrorism they have sponsored. But, sadly, I doubt we will.
Zorro on February 27, 2008 at 9:04 PM
Been saying this for years.
Unlike the earthbound, materialistic Communists (who require an existing planet to lord over), the millennialist and immaterialist cranks like the Jihadists (who believe in Another World for their meaning and salvation and destiny) cannot be “reasoned” with or threatened with Earthly Doom …to any effect.
They would love to see the Earth consumed and to enter Paradise (not just a little because their own belief system of Islam makes this very life a Hell and a torment and a prison for them… and Heaven promises them wine and virgins and gardens).
Communists wanted to own this Earth.
Jihadists would be more than happy to see our planet vaporized… and all beings on it slaughtered … if it “served Allah”.
(And theocratic maniacs can always rationalize that last qualifier.)
Our goal must be:
To keep their hands off the weaponry of the Apocalypse.
Since they do bad enough work with kitchen knives.
profitsbeard on February 27, 2008 at 9:16 PM
profitsbeard on February 27, 2008 at 9:16 PM
Truly shameless!!!
dmann on February 27, 2008 at 9:22 PM
The Shia, which the Mad Mullahs are, don’t tend to be the splodeydopes. The Sunni do. There’s a lot of reasoned speculation out there why, one of the theories has to do with sexuality. The Shia have the ‘rent-a-wives’ concept, and don’t supress the sexuality of the males quite so much, where the Sunni shove it down, preach the 72 virgins crap, and the lads don’t feel they have anything to live for. Everything to gain by going boom.
The Shia do however, tend to be end of times types. They believe that the Mahdi, or 12th Imam, can only return in a world of chaos, which they will helpfully provide. That’s why they don’t bother building refineries to help bolster their horribly short gas supplies, why they’re plunging massive amounts of money into their nukular program when they have runaway inflation, and why Ahmadinnerjacket rebuilt part of Tehran with pretty boulevards leading up to the well He is supposed to emerge from.
THAT is why MAD won’t work with these folks.
bikermailman on February 27, 2008 at 9:27 PM
The only solution is to let them know that we will extinguish the Muslim religion if they nuke us. Target every major mosque worldwide, especially Mecca. There will be no more Hajj. Let them know it. If I were president, I’d send that message back channel to Iran and al-Qaida. Hit us with a nuke, and we kill your faith. And I don’t just mean one warhead. I would put 10 or 20 on the place. The nearby sands would be nothing but radioactive glass.
fleiter on February 27, 2008 at 9:57 PM
Exit question best answered with another question: what evidence exists that he is wrong?
shaken on February 27, 2008 at 10:04 PM
Even if MAD doesn’t apply, we’re not the ones who are threatened here. Israel is threatened. And Israel has nukes, whereas Iran doesn’t — so Israel has the upper hand. It’s not really worth our worry. Israel has the ability (and is historically willing) to take out perceived regional nuclear threats. Let them deal with the fallout from preemptive strikes. We already have our hands full.
Mark Jaquith on February 27, 2008 at 10:21 PM
I don’t see how. If your population sees that you’re crazy enough to nuke one of your own cities the reasonable ones are gonna realize they can either calm down or be turned to ash. Internationally, if foreigners see that you’re crazy enough to nuke one of your own cities, they’ll reasonably assume you’d have no second thoughts about nuking one of their own and they’ll have to deal with you even if they don’t like it just because of that.
Darth Executor on February 27, 2008 at 10:35 PM
Does Iran really want to test Lewis’s theories?
Reminds me of the cold war, where neither Moscow or DC were willing to go that far.
F15Mech on February 27, 2008 at 10:48 PM
Also since the US first strike ability is much greater then Irans
+1 to the USA if it ever goes that far
Since the US Navy (squids are good for something) can shoot down fast moving objects in space, does Iran really want to push it that far?
+2 to the USA
Iran does not care about MAD
-5 to the USA
I think we are in steelmate.
Let Iran know that we will nuke every country and take out every Muslim country that advocates nuking the US. Once the US shows that resolve then Muslim countries around the world will put preassure on Iran to back off.
Think about it…
If we tell the Saudi’s “If Iran attacks us with nukes we will attack/nuke Mecca” and if we show that resolve I expect the Saudi’s will put pressure on Iran to make sure that does not happen.
While Iran/nukes is a concern it is like bringing a knife to a gun fight.
The key is making Iran realize they hold the knife and the USA has the gun.
F15Mech on February 27, 2008 at 11:23 PM
No? They already have missles that travel 2,000 miles. Load one of those on a ship, fire it from a Venezualan flagged tanker in the Gulf of Mexico, detonate it 300 miles over Kansas, and welcome to America, 1880 style.
bikermailman on February 27, 2008 at 11:45 PM
Every time I see the “nuke Mecca” thing, I wonder if the author actually understands that Mecca is a city in a completely different country.
That said, I wonder if the real solution isn’t as simple as granting the Iranian regime’s expressed wish to revisit the seventh century. Hit that gas refinery. Blow up anything military just to avoid the nuisance factor. Hit their electric plants — see how well those uranium centrifuges spin in the dark when turned by hand. Hit the airports, highways, railroads, and canals. Take out their radio broadcast towers and telephone networks; blockade their ports and close their borders. After the first couple of weeks, fly over occasionally and take out anything that uses electricity or internal combustion — easily detected by the exhaust or electromagnetic signature.
You don’t need to nuke anything. Just cut off the networks and let the pieces discover how interdependent they are. They keep disparaging all that nouveau stuff from the 1800’s and 1900’s anyway.
I suspect that building an empire in the 600’s required a completely different skillset than building a modern empire today, and that the geniuses currently running the show wouldn’t function too well with a complete change of rules.
cthulhu on February 28, 2008 at 1:26 AM
Yeah, “prevention” means a lot of things. I don’t see the need for a nuclear strike to give Iran plenty of better things to worry about than enriching uranium.
see-dubya on February 28, 2008 at 2:20 AM
I’ve been saying the same thing for years and it’s important the libs wake up from their denial and get on board before it’s too late.
For our own safety we need to ensure the mad-mullahs never get the bomb as the MAD doctrine is not a deterent to them because, well, they’re MAD as mercury sniffing hatters!
Liberty or Death on February 28, 2008 at 11:39 AM
Someone needs to say it in simple terms. I will.
If Iran uses a nuclear device, within 30 minutes Iran will become a hole in the ground.
NewsWonk
NewsWonk on February 28, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Interestingly enough we just parked the USS Cole off of Lebanon’s coast.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing
Is the Cole upgraded to Pac-3 etc. yet?
Tark on February 28, 2008 at 5:22 PM
Lewis is the master of the obvious in this one, but the trouble is, is it obvious to our current CIC, or is it just something to be, you know, sloughed off onto one of our craptastically eventual candidates for that office?
Nichevo on February 28, 2008 at 8:15 PM
Comment pages: