Saturday, July 18, 2015

Jerusalem Post Columnist Speculates on Attacking Iran

So the Obama Administration makes an agreement with Iran to verify with inspections that they are not running any covert program to make nuclear weapons and Iran's Supreme Leader made a fatwa in 2003 banning the possession of nuclear weapons as un-Islamic.

But despite these things some still think attack Iran militarily is a good idea seemingly heedless of the terrible pain and suffering such a move is certain to cause. The following is from a columnist who, through no fault of her own, is often quoted by PCG.
Here is the place to mention that Israel still may have the ability to attack Iran’s nuclear sites. If it does, then it should attack them as quickly and effectively as possible.

No, a successful Israeli attack cannot turn back the clock. Israel cannot replace the US as a regional superpower, dictating policy to our neighbors. But a successful attack on Iran’s nuclear program along with the adoption of a vigilantly upheld strategy of active nuclear defense can form the basis of a successful Israeli nuclear defense system.

And no, Israel shouldn’t be overly concerned with how Obama will respond to such actions. (Caroline Glick, Obama's Age of Nuclear Chaos, Jerusalem Post, July 16, 2015.)
Let's have another war, as though there are not enough in the Middle East already.

This sounds like a terrible idea.

There is no guarantee that such a move would even work. Will it make Iran bend to outside pressure or will they respond in kind?

Such a move is practically certain to cause much pain and suffering for everyone concerned. This pain and suffering should be avoided.

Shouldn't one at least wait for the agreement to fail to make one's side look justified rather then think of such things now?

I strongly hope no one in power acts on such an idea. 


  1. Yeah. I certainly hope that cooler heads will prevail on this, because destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities as an act of war would only set up the next round of hatred and retaliation. The problem with war is that it escalates until it reaches the point of total capitulation by one side or the other.

    Even the victors of a war become weakened by what they expend in their effort to win. There is no question that WWII spelled the end of the British Empire as a world-dominating power.

    The problem within the Armstrong movement is that geopolitical opinions expressed by their "leaders" are generally on the level one would expect from the "Joe Sixpack", man on the street. The quotes from their magazines which you present here do a fantastic job of illustrating their level of thinking. Sadly, ignorance is what generally resonates with the ignorant.


  2. In some ways, it is reassuring to know that there is a fatwa against building nuclear weapons in Islam. However, how binding is this, and is it something which could be reversed or modified, based in changing times, like a Supreme Court decision, or Talmudic law?

    Also, I have read on an Islamic site that Muslims decide whether to obey or disregard fatwas. Smoking was cited as an example.


  3. Sorry for not responding sooner. I certainly hope there will be no war with Iran over its nuclear program.

    In regards to the anti-nuclear fatwa I suspect that fatwa would be followed because it was issued by Iran's Supreme Leader, not just any mullah.

    Also I would argue that main problem with Armstrongism's view of political events is that they tend to view things in a simplistic black and white manner. So they have little interest in searching out for something hard to explain regarding an issue. They think they already know the facts and interpretation over such issues.