The Hitler thing is nuts. I think the more apt comparison is with stalin and mao. If it were bin laden podhoretz was talking about, i would agree with him. That is not to say that there are some in iran who are nuts. That is not to say that iran will be difficult to contain and deter.
The reason it's important to remember the Hitler comparison, is that all during the 30s, Hitler was routinely saying some nutso stuff in his speeches, about the purity of the German race and the diabolic crimes of the Jews. The reaction of observers in London and New York was to blow it off as nothing but rhetoric for the masses. Well, turned out it wasn't just rhetoric; Hitler was saying what he really believed, and he acted on as soon as he got the chance.
Today Ahmedinijad is saying some nutso stuff about restoring Iran's greatness in the world, wiping Israel off the map, and the imminent return of the 12th Imam - a return which is in Shia tradition, heralded by apocalyptic wars. Once again, the sophisticates of London and New York dismiss it as rhetoric.
But what if it isn't? What if the followers of Ayatollah Yahzdi, of whom Ahmedinijad is the most prominent but far from alone, become powerful enough to control Iranian foreign policy? What if, once again, it isn't just rhetoric? Can we afford not to consider the possibility?
If we fail to deter iran and somewhere along the way they use a nuke, it needs to be made quite clear to them that they will be turned into a parking lot and that threat must be credible and carried out
Not enough. They could use nukes plenty without ever setting one off. The intimidation factor would roil the Gulf and set of an Arab arms race. Can you say golden opportunity for Al Qaeda? |
