Iran, Nuclear Weapons, and Wilful Blindness
As Claire noted yesterday, the IAEA "revealed for the first time on Tuesday that it possesses evidence that Tehran has conducted work on a highly sophisticated nuclear triggering technology that experts said could be used for only one purpose: setting off a nuclear weapon."
Of course, it has been obvious for some time that Iran's nuclear activities are primarily about weapons development, not about power generation. If Iran stays on the current trajectory, it is only a matter of time until it detonates a nuclear weapon. It is only a matter of a little more time until they miniaturize such a weapon to fit in the nose cone of a ballistic missile. And the range of these nuclear-capable missiles will increase, year by year.They may not reach intercontinental range anytime soon, but Venezuela will provide a convenient base for Iranian missiles to threaten at least part of the U.S.
Why have so many people in the U.S. and in Europe failed to view this matter with utmost seriousness? Part of it, perhaps, is that it all seems too intangible: no mushroom cloud from an Iranian nuclear test has yet appeared. But as George Eliot wrote in Silas Marner:
The sense of security more frequently springs from habit than from conviction, and for this reason it often subsists after such a change in the conditions as might have been expected to suggest alarm. The lapse of time during which a given event has not happened is, in this logic of habit, constantly alleged as a reason why the event should never happen, even when the lapse of time is precisely the added condition which makes the event imminent ...
And perhaps another reason for the lack of sufficient focus on the Iranian nuclear threat is that it's just too scary to be faced. I'm reminded of a passage in Arthur Koestler's 1950 novel, The Age of Longing. The action of the book takes place in France, where a massive Soviet invasion is clearly impending--but denial of this obvious reality abounds, especially among the intellectuals. Jules Commanche, a Resistance hero and a senior French security officer, explains this phenomenon to a young American woman:
No, Mademoiselle, don't be misled by appearances. France and what else is left of Europe may look like a huge dormitory to you, but I assure you nobody in it is really asleep. Have you ever spent a night in a mental ward? During the Occupation, a doctor who belonged to our group got me into one when the police were after me. It was a ward of more or less hopeless cases, most of whom were marked down for drastic neurosurgical operations. When the male nurse made his round, I thought everybody was asleep. Later I found out that they were only pretending, and that everybody was busy, behind closed eyes, trying to cope after his own fashion with what was coming to him. Some were pursuing their delusions with a happy smile, like our famous Pontieux [a philosopher modeled on Sartre]. Others were working on their pathetic plans of escape, naively hoping that with a little dissimulation, or bribery, or self-abasement, they could get around the tough male nurses, the locked doors, the operating table. Others were busy explaining to themselves that it wouldn't hurt, and that to have holes drilled into one's skull and parts of one's brain taken out was the nicest thing that could happen to one. And still, others, the quiet schizos who were the majority, almost succeede in making themselves believe that nothing would happen, that it was all a matter of exaggerated rumours, and that tomorrow would be like yesterday. These looked as if they were really asleep. Only an occasional nervous twitch of their lips or eyes betrayed the strain of disbelieving what they knew to be inevitable...No, Mademoiselle nobody was really asleep.
And today, some tell themselves that Iran's nuclear program is merely for electrical power generation. Others find comfort in the fact that nuclear deterrence did work with the Soviet Union--ignoring the very real differences between the situations, and also ignoring the number of times that superpower deterrence did come close to catastrophe. Still others would like to believe that the Iranian regime can be mollified by throwing Israel to the wolves.
The threat of terrorism has already created a great deal of fear and intimidation. What we have seen thus far is nothing compared to the fear that will exist if Western Europe--and, a little later, the U.S.--fall within the range of nuclear-armed Iranian ballistic missiles.
A fear much like the waking nightmares of the patients in Koestler's mental ward.
- Comment (14)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Iran, Nuclear Weapons, and Wilful Blindness
My goodness. Very well put.
Dec '10
Re: Iran, Nuclear Weapons, and Wilful Blindness
Outstanding post, David Foster. Blind partisanship ("If it's against the US, I'm for it!"), humanism (a fervent religious belief that everyone -except conservative Americans - is really good, deep down), and a profound lack of any historical perspective create a world that spawned WW II, allowed communism to spread in the ensuing years, and islamism to become the militant force it's become. It is not hard to tell who's insane!
Jan '11
Re: Iran, Nuclear Weapons, and Wilful Blindness
The solution and, therefore, the onus for fixing the Iranian threat will be delegated to Israel, not by international mandate or even approval, but simply by the inevitable course of events. The world understands the danger of an Iranian future unaffected by strong action to curb their development of atomic weapons. The religious admonition to battle infidels (non-believers) and establish a global Islamic caliphate is a powerful incentive, particularly to a 7th Century mind, and that is the mindset of those now in charge of that country's government. At present, the focus of that admonition is Israel.
PM Netanyahu has made note of that on many occasions, most recently in his address to a joint meeting of congress. No one should be able to plead surprise when Israel takes steps to protect itself, although, as history teaches, that will surely be the case.
May '11
Re: Iran, Nuclear Weapons, and Wilful Blindness
When Iran has a usable nuke, it won't be just one. They will let fly 5 to 10 as well as 20 to 30 conventional weapons. They understand overwhelming force. They understand that we may be able to shoot down some rockets...but not all.
The targets? Israel, nearby Europe, and US bases and task forces in the Mid-East. They may even launch one at themselves to enable the martyr role amongst other Muslims. Would we actually respond with nukes? Probably not and they know it. The leaders will head for deep bunkers. The commoners...martyrs.
Are they crazy enough? No.
Are they filled with enough religious zeal and hate?
Feb '11
Re: Iran, Nuclear Weapons, and Wilful Blindness
"And perhaps another reason for the lack of sufficient focus on the Iranian nuclear threat is that it's just too scary to be faced. I'm reminded of a passage in Arthur Koestler's 1950 novel, The Age of Longing. The action of the book takes place in France, where a massive Soviet invasion is clearly impending--but denial of this obvious reality abounds, especially among the intellectuals."
And whatever became of that Soviet invasion of France in 1950? Perfect metaphor for all the fear mongering. Belongs in there with Al Gore and the crazy pastor who said the world was going to end last Saturday. When is there going to be some perspective on this?
May '11
Re: Iran, Nuclear Weapons, and Wilful Blindness
Q.E.D.
Feb '11
Re: Iran, Nuclear Weapons, and Wilful Blindness
HangOn.."whatever became of that Soviet invasion of France in 1950?"
Non-occurrence of said invasion might have had something to do with B-29s/36s, atomic bombs, carrier task groups, a powerful army, and the clear willingness to use the assets in defense of Western Europe. In Korea, where American committment was in some doubt, things played out a little differently.
What do you think would have happened in that era if instead of presidents Harry S Truman and Dwight D Eisenhower we had had a president Barack H Obama?
Feb '11
Re: Iran, Nuclear Weapons, and Wilful Blindness
david foster: HangOn.."whatever became of that Soviet invasion of France in 1950?"
Non-occurrence of said invasion might have had something to do with B-29s/36s, atomic bombs, carrier task groups, a powerful army, and the clear willingness to use the assets in defense of Western Europe. In Korea, where American committment was in some doubt, things played out a little differently.
What do you think would have happened in that era if instead of presidents Harry S Truman and Dwight D Eisenhower we had had a president Barack H Obama? · May 26 at 7:35am
Yeah, you're right. We don't have weapons like we did back in 1950. And of course, Iran is much mightier than the Soviet Union was. That's what I mean by your lack of perspective.
Feb '11
Re: Iran, Nuclear Weapons, and Wilful Blindness
HO, you are ignoring the different between (1)deterring a state which is formally atheist and (2)deterring a state ruled by a religiously-based government which believes strongly in an afterlife and moreover that death in battle will help them get to Paradise. You are ignoring also the much weaker state of leadership and of national resolution, both in the US and in Europe.
In Holland, in Austria, and in Denmark, people are already being prosecuted by their governments on chargeds of being insufficiently deferential to Islam. These prosecutions are clearly based on FEAR of terrorism, as well as airhead "multicultural" values. What do you think is going to be the effect on (what remains of) free speech in these countries when they fall within range of Iranian ballistic missiles controlled by religious fanatics?
Mar '11
Re: Iran, Nuclear Weapons, and Wilful Blindness
Many people have compared our present time to the 1930's, which I think is right.
Where is our Churchill? I don't think we have one. And there won't be a time like 1939 when the War started, and we (the UK) barely survived long enough, until the US (reluctantly) entered the fray.
If the Iranians do finally master the required Nuclear Technology (which remains in doubt) they only need one fairly small atomic bomb, in a truck parked in East Jerusalem. There are people in their Government who are crazy enough to use it, and welcome the inevitable martyrdom of their own people, who are prisoners in their own country. What could go wrong?
Let's hope Mr Obama remembers which year it is.
Edited on May 26, 2011 at 9:00amMar '11
Re: Iran, Nuclear Weapons, and Wilful Blindness
Rather than your choice The Age of Longing I think anyone wishing to have a better grasp of this ennui would be well rewarded by studying Shirer's neglected The Collapse of the Third Republic
In similar fashion to how one cannot turn away from a gruesome car wreck he puts together a gripping history on a society that reached such a point of self loathing where even the prospect of invasion was looked upon with indifference. An apt description for much of Europe today and I would even say for many in the US.
Feb '11
Re: Iran, Nuclear Weapons, and Wilful Blindness
david foster: HO, you are ignoring the different between (1)deterring a state which is formally atheist and (2)deterring a state ruled by a religiously-based government which believes strongly in an afterlife and moreover that death in battle will help them get to Paradise. You are ignoring also the much weaker state of leadership and of national resolution, both in the US and in Europe.
In Holland, in Austria, and in Denmark, people are already being prosecuted by their governments on chargeds of being insufficiently deferential to Islam. These prosecutions are clearly based on FEAR of terrorism, as well as airhead "multicultural" values. What do you think is going to be the effect on (what remains of) free speech in these countries when they fall within range of Iranian ballistic missiles controlled by religious fanatics? · May 26 at 8:40am
So you're going to base your policy on the mighty Mahdi behind the curtain? Now, I ask you: who is more insane, the one who believes it or the one who bases his policy on it?
May '10
Re: Iran, Nuclear Weapons, and Wilful Blindness
It's not "insane" to acknowledge the existence of madmen and their ability to rise to power. National leaders have led their nations to certain ruin before. How many of his own people did Stalin slaughter?
Some generations of Americans grew up under constant threat of nuclear war. Others never experienced the Cold War but have always known a world full of nuclear weapons. I don't blame people for struggling to believe a nuclear strike is likely to happen in their lifetimes. But we should all accept that nuclear weapons will be used again, eventually. Discovery can't be undone, and there will always be persons in power who would happily watch the world burn.
Iran's leaders have publicly voiced belief in the coming of a 12th imam who will be preceded by chaos and desctruction. That certainly makes them an outstanding threat.
Feb '11
Re: Iran, Nuclear Weapons, and Wilful Blindness
Roberto...agree that the collapse of the Third Republic is a very important historical event with contemporary implications which is worthy of serious study. You might be interested on my post here about the campaign of 1940 and the political/social climate that led up to it.
HO..."so you're going to base your policy on the mighty Mahdi behind the curtain? Now, I ask you: who is more insane, the one who believes it or the one who bases his policy on it?"
If someone with a history of violence tells you his dog is ordering him to kill you, you'd better take it seriously, even if you know his dog actually likes you and indeed you're pretty sure that the dog can't actually talk..