Anton La Guardia writes an article in The Telegraph outlining an argument I have discussed earlier: That Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is inspired by Shia Islamic "messianism" to provoke a confrontation with the west.
The most remarkable aspect of Mr Ahmadinejad's piety is his devotion to the Hidden Imam, the Messiah-like figure of Shia Islam, and the president's belief that his government must prepare the country for his return.
One of the first acts of Mr Ahmadinejad's government was to donate about £10 million to the Jamkaran mosque, a popular pilgrimage site where the pious come to drop messages to the Hidden Imam into a holy well.
All streams of Islam believe in a divine saviour, known as the Mahdi, who will appear at the End of Days. A common rumour - denied by the government but widely believed - is that Mr Ahmadinejad and his cabinet have signed a "contract" pledging themselves to work for the return of the Mahdi and sent it to Jamkaran.
First a cautionary note: Similar claims were actually made about Ronald Reagan by some western media, who stupidly believed that the most underestimated president to that date had an apocalyptic confrontation in mind, inspired by his evangelical Christianity, not a real victory in the cold war.
Yet, obviously Ahmadinejad is not worthy of mention in the same sentence as Reagan (well, except in sentences like the previous).
Since so much is at stake, we must at least consider the possibility, well supported by the extreme nuttiness demonstrated by Iran's new president, that the man is a total religious fanatic, like Jim Jones except that he tries to acquire nukes.
The prospect of such a man obtaining nuclear weapons is worrying. The unspoken question is this: is Mr Ahmadinejad now tempting a clash with the West because he feels safe in the belief of the imminent return of the Hidden Imam? Worse, might he be trying to provoke chaos in the hope of hastening his reappearance?
The 49-year-old Mr Ahmadinejad, a former top engineering student, member of the Revolutionary Guards and mayor of Teheran, overturned Iranian politics after unexpectedly winning last June's presidential elections.
The main rift is no longer between "reformists" and "hardliners", but between the clerical establishment and Mr Ahmadinejad's brand of revolutionary populism and superstition.
I am not convinced this is right, but then, we can't know it's wrong either. As I wrote earlier, it is not impossible that Ahmadinejad seriously intends to transform his country into the ultimate nuclear suicide bomb and attack Israel. This doomsday scenario may be unlikely, but if it is just possible, it is clear Iran must be stopped before that happens. Also, we must remember that Ahmadinejad is powerful only because "supreme leader" Ali Khamenei wanted him elected and supports him. The president gets lots of press, but nothing happens without the approval from Khamenei. If Ahmadinejad is an insane maniac, that doesn't mean Khamenei is, too.
There is currently a drive to take Iran to the UN Security Council. Unless somebody has come up with a really brilliant idea we haven't heard about, it is hard to see how the SC can do anything constructive about the situation. This is a game of chicken, where the EU and the US hopes Iran will blink first. But why should it? Sanctions cannot work, as far as I can see, against an oil-rich state like Iran (the mere mention makes oil prices jump). The latest political noise from the EU is so obviously a bluff that I can't see how it could work. In fact, if Iran kicks out the IAEA inspectors as a retaliation for referring the case to the UN SC, and no biting sanctions are put in place, we would be much worse off than we are now.
Military options are dubious at best. Surely, large parts of the US ground forces may be tied down in Iraq, but there is a devastating arsenal of air force and cruise missiles readily available. Iran's air force, air defences, military bases, offensive capabilites and every facility that might look like it could possibly be used in the nuclear programme would be effectively wiped out. Occupying the country is not necessary. However, I doubt European allies would agree to such a military strike before the situation becomes much more acute. Neither would the political opposition in the US.
Bush is not politically in a position to get wide support for a military strike. He is still Commander in Chief, and could do it and damn the consequences. Maybe that would be the correct choice. The problem is: we do not know. A massive strike on Iran would seriously damage the political stability of the region and the international standing of the US. It can only be justified as an absolutely necessary action to prevent nukes to fall into the hands of the Iranian extremists. After the failure to find significant WMD stockpiles in Iraq, US credibility is seriously damaged, and this reduces the possibility to form a substantial coalition of the willing to deal with Iran.
Update: History professor Niall Ferguson has a particularly pessimistic article in the Telegraph, The origins of the Great War of 2007 - and how it could have been prevented.
So history repeated itself. As in the 1930s, an anti-Semitic demagogue broke his country's treaty obligations and armed for war. Having first tried appeasement, offering the Iranians economic incentives to desist, the West appealed to international agencies - the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Security Council. Thanks to China's veto, however, the UN produced nothing but empty resolutions and ineffectual sanctions, like the exclusion of Iran from the 2006 World Cup finals.
As you can probably guess, this little peek into the darkest of crystal ball has no happy ending.
4:47:23 AM 
|
