The Jewish Press


RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. So basically , Barry Rubin disagrees with Bernard Lewis, a scholar of Islam, who says :
    Particular importance should be attached to the policies, and perhaps still more the attitudes, of the present rulers of Iran, who seem to be preparing for a final apocalyptic battle between the forces of God [themselves] and of the Devil [ the Great Satan–the United States]. They see this as the final struggle of the End of Time and are therefore undeterred by any level of slaughter and destruction even among their own people . "Allah will know his own" is the phase commonly used, meaning that among the multiple victims God will recognize the Muslims and give them a quick pass to heaven.
    In this context, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, namely M.A.D. (Mutual Assured Destruction) , would have no meaning. At the End of Time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter is the final destination of the dead– hell for the infidels, and the delights of heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, M.A.D. is not a constraint; it is an inducement…

    Why are Bernard Lewis's views on MAD ignored?

    Barry Rubin also disagrees with Raphael Israeli, Professor of Islam at Hebrew University, who says:

    According to Shi'ite eschatology, the end of the world will come with the return of the Imam, whose arrival will be announced by violent pangs, unrest, wars, injustice and misery; and all the more, the more imminent his coming. Namely, mad leaders like Ahmadinejad, who are full of hatred and bellicosity, and imbued with messianic zeal and unimpressed by any worldly circumstances or restrictions, might very well, especially when controlling nuclear powers, decide to use them regardless of the costs or the consequences, as long as it will hasten the return of the Imam. For then, even the worst errors made by human leaders would, in their view, be redressed in an instant by the omnipotent Imam in the new post-apocalyptic world.
    MAD Deterrence and Mad Leaders
    Barry Rubin also disagrees with James Woolsey, former director of CIA who says
    We were, in a way, lucky with our opponent in the Cold War because they were thugs with a cover story. They were not, on the whole, sociopaths. Unfortunately, the Castro model, the Hitler model, the model of the sociopath is one we may well need to deal with in Iran.

    Comment by Mladen Andrijasevic — October 7, 2013 @ 1:44 PM

  2. It is difficult to undestand, the big investment to make a nuke and send to Israel, Iran will have the nuke like it or not like it, only we have to be used, Pakistan, India, they have, the problem is here that the Persian and the Arabs they don't like each other, is not to forget the arabs invaded Persia and forced to the Islam, what is now the Shia Islam, different to the Sunnie Islam, but both are agresive, they will kill each other, only to look in Syria, Irak, Bhanrein, etc:. what the end will be?, no one knows.

    Comment by Esteban Sperber Frankel — October 7, 2013 @ 6:22 PM

  3. Whatever it takes, we do not want.

    Comment by Deborah Mgedzi — October 8, 2013 @ 6:21 AM



    As a majority of Middle East analysts predicted, Iran was able to develop nuclear weapons. And by spring of 2014 Iran had somewhere between 5 and 10 operational weapons. {Delivery of these weapons was never a problem. Aircraft delivery had been solved in 1945. Trucks and ships were always possible. Missile range had been adequate since 2012. Warhead development may have been completed undetected. Iran and Hezbollah had violated Israel's territory with drones.}

    At that point, bombing Iran would be fruitless since it would not destroy Iran's nuclear capability, but would invite retaliation.

    Whether through concern about retaliation (assured mutual destruction theory) or rational calculations“ or for some other reason, Iran had not struck Israel.

    Regime change which had been a US and Western objective now appeared to be happening and the ruling Iranian regime appeared isolated and likely to be overthrown.

    The question on everybody's mind became: “ If the Iranian regime is in danger of being overthrown, will they use their nuclear weapons against Israel?"

    The temptation had always been there, but now the logic of such a strike—a jihadist Hail Mary—might become persuasive.

    If the mullahs struck Israel would Israel strike back with its own nuclear weapons:? … Or would the United States and the rest of the world say to Israel: “Whom would you be killing, except millions of Iranians also struggling to topple the regime? " [And wouldn't this statement be correct?]

    Comment by Ltc Howard — October 8, 2013 @ 8:20 AM

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Close this window.

0.168 Powered by WordPress