Such considerations affect the timetable for a possible ” soft kill” or illustrate the possibility of formenting or exploiting strife between Mahdist radicals and the larger Khomeinist establishment among the clergy. This is a point of possibilities. The existence of Mahdism also impacts assumptions about containment of a nuclear-armed Iran until it can mellow or crumble under its own internal contradictions. While Rafsanjani or Khameini might follow Khomeini’s teachings to preserve the jurisprudent state at all costs, a convinced Mahdist leader might welcome the risk of nuclear annihilation. He might even seek to provoke that kind of apocalyptic scenario. This ideology is simply millenarianism on steroids.
All avenues need to be considered when dealing with Iran. Different values tend to imply different premises than our own.
ADDENDUM:
Strongly recommend checking out Austin Bay’s review of Luttwak. Colonel Bay also has a second article for your perusal as well.
Page 2 of 2 | Previous page
Anonymous:
April 20th, 2006 at 11:33 am
Where is the evidence to support the claim that Luttwak makes that a large segment of the Iranian population is “Pro-American?” What percentage of the Iranian population are hard core supporters of Ahmadinejad? 30%? What percent of Germans were hard core supporters of the Nazis?
Where is the discussion of the consequences of Iran developing nuclear weapons? Why is it assumed that once they get the infrastructure in place that they would stop at a handful of nukes? How do you deal with an Iran that has 50-100 nukes?
Barnabus
mark:
April 20th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
You don’t have to convince me Barnabus – I think Ahmadinejad is a complete loon and that Iran with a bomb is bad news even if Ahmadinejad doesn’t have direct control over it