Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a freaky scary dude. He’s a true religious zealot who’s theology is likely to lead to world war if he gets his way.
I mean, liberals back in the 1980s often tried to portray Ronald Reagan–a mild Presbyterian–as if he were an apocalyptic visionary, but Ahmadinejad is the real deal!
He’s said and done things that suggest that he is a divine messenger who is preparing the way for the return of the Hidden Imam–Shi’ite Islam’s semi-Messianic child figure, who is believed to have been in hiding for the last thousand years but who will return in connection with an apocalyptic conflict.
The former executive editor of Iran’s largest daily newspaper (who now lives in Europe) has an interesting article spelling out Ahmadinejad’s religious vision and how it plays into the current Iranian nuclear situation.
EXCERPTS:
Last Monday [now the Monday before last], just before he announced that Iran had gatecrashed "the nuclear club", President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad disappeared for several hours. He was having a khalvat (tête-à-tête) with the Hidden Imam, the 12th and last of the imams of Shiism who went into "grand occultation" in 941.
According to Shia lore, the Imam is a messianic figure who, although in hiding, remains the true Sovereign of the World. In every generation, the Imam chooses 36 men, (and, for obvious reasons, no women) naming them the owtad or "nails", whose presence, hammered into mankind’s existence, prevents the universe from "falling off". Although the "nails" are not known to common mortals, it is, at times, possible to identify one thanks to his deeds. It is on that basis that some of Ahmad-inejad’s more passionate admirers insist that he is a "nail", a claim he has not discouraged. For example, he has claimed that last September, as he addressed the United Nations’ General Assembly in New York, the "Hidden Imam drenched the place in a sweet light".
Last year, it was after another khalvat that Ahmadinejad announced his intention to stand for president. Now, he boasts that the Imam gave him the presidency for a single task: provoking a "clash of civilisations" in which the Muslim world, led by Iran, takes on the "infidel" West, led by the United States, and defeats it in a slow but prolonged contest that, in military jargon, sounds like a low intensity, asymmetrical war.
According to this analysis, spelled out in commentaries by Ahmadinejad’s strategic guru, Hassan Abassi, known as the "Dr Kissinger of Islam", President George W Bush is an aberration, an exception to a rule under which all American presidents since Truman, when faced with serious setbacks abroad, have "run away". Iran’s current strategy, therefore, is to wait Bush out. And that, by "divine coincidence", corresponds to the time Iran needs to develop its nuclear arsenal, thus matching the only advantage that the infidel enjoys.
The author goes on to predict that Iran will feign just enough compliance with the U.N. to stave off a military attack for the next two years, so they can run out Bush’s term in office. Then, with a new, weaker-willed president in office, it’ll be full speed ahead.
We’ll have to see whether they pursue that strategy or whether they really are hell-bent-for-leather crazy on their nuclear program.
What the author doesn’t go into is something that we’ve brought up before here on the blog: Bush knows (or should know) that no matter what happens in Afghanistan and Iraq, if he leaves office without stopping Iran from getting the Bomb then his presidency will be viewed as a dismal failure. It doesn’t matter whether they get the Bomb after he leaves office or not. He will be viewed as someone who (like Clinton) allowed a horrible external threat to fester and grow due to his indecisive action. He’ll even be viewed as someone who hamstrung himself with a foolish venture into Iraq when the real threat was Iran.
It doesn’t matter whether that’s fair or not, that’s how it’ll be perceived.
So the question is: What will Bush do if the Iranian government tries a play-for-time strategy?
Will he drive the hammer into the nail?
Only time will tell. In the meanwhile,
Those wacky Iranians.
“I’d rather be a hammer than a nail…”
Paul Simon
This hidden Imam sounds like ripe ground for deception by the devil. How easy it would be for Satan to inpersonate a “hidden,” “secret” person, especially to the command violence which so many in the Muslim world seem to espouse.
the analysis of bush being the exception to most us presidents being cut and run types is eerily accurate. thanks, somalia bill clinton.
the devil is not without intelligence.
jimmy wrote: It doesn’t matter whether that’s fair or not, that’s how it’ll be perceived.
well, but, it still matters, of course.
did you see that Iran has offered “to share” its nuke tech with, God save us, Sudan. What are we waiting for?
Mr. (Dr.?) Peters,
Sudan wouldn’t get very far with the “nuke tech” that Iran has right now. Iran has enriched a very tiny amount of uranium to about 3%; that’s only enough for nuclear energy. If Iran wants a nuclear weapons program – I’m far from convinced that they do, and I certainly don’t intend to take this administration’s word for it – they would need to enrich a massive amount of uranium to over 90%. They are many years away from having a nuclear weapon, if that is indeed their goal. So, in my opinion, waiting at this point would be a very good thing indeed, especially given that we are already stretched thin in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Dear Dr. Peters,
What do you mean, “What are we wating for?”
Best,
Chris
Oh–Mr. Tope beat me to it. We must have been posting at the same time. Well said.
Chris
The Iranian President is a nutjob and I believe he is trying to provoke a fight with the US. However, the current regime has alienated just about every other group in Iran. Before 1979, the US and Iran were natural allies. If there ever was an instance to support an internal insurgency, either covertly or even openly, this might be it.
Chris –
Thanks!
Mrs. Tope 😉
American presidents since Truman, when faced with serious setbacks abroad, have “run away”.
What did he do, sleep through Reagan’s two administrations?
Waiting for? Almost anything. Surely people with access to info and tech can take these deadly items from the Iranian juveniles who are acquiring them. Also, even assuming 90% is minimum “weapons grade”, matter far less “powerful” can be used for a 21st century version of the Romans sowing salt in Carthaginian fields. The Sudanese would be happy to rake nuclear crude into towns and villages inhabited by “lesser tribes” and let nature take its course over the decades.
Some things, morons and maniacs should be allowed to have.
that obviously was “NOT” be allowed to have.
ps: thank you TOPe and CC for the kindness in “Dr.”, but my doctorate has nothing to do with this topic, so here i’m just ed.
Although very disconcerting the author discredits himself by using the information as a support claim for Bush’s actions in the Middle East. It comes off more as a political justification and pep rally than a word of warning.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary support. So this is an unfortunate article if true because I cannot take it at face value due to its obvious underlying political agenda. When a person presents something like this it is wholly important that careful language is used so as to present the facts absent of ‘adjective’ position.
This idea of the Mahdi (Hidden Immam in Shi’itism)with Isa (Jesus) praying behind him sounds an awful lot like the Political Antichrist (Beast) and Religious Antichrist (False Prophet).
Then again so does the Cosmic Christ of many New Agers. And then there are the incarnations of Shiva or whatever in Hinduism and the various incarnations of Buddha and similar in forms of Buddhism. And there is the World Government many liberals want. And there is a possiblilty of many Christians believing in a false Second Comming of Christ. I doubt any one of these will be the Anti-Christ(s). But it may be some sort of combination of all of these.
Don’t think I am a wacko that thinks Ahmadinejad is the Anti-Christ or working for him. I am just pointing out the long-term possibility for this idea.
Tope-
“I certainly don’t intend to take this administration’s word for it…”
No matter WHAT the evidence, eh?
And what if, while we are amassing the mountain of evidence required to satisfy the squeamish, Iran should lob a dirty nuke into Tel Aviv or London? Do we get to blame George Bush for that, as well?
So if he takes preemptive action he is a war monger, and if he acts too late to stop an Iranian first strike he is a bumbler who ignored the warning signs.
Very convenient for his detractors.
I’m not what you would call a fan of the Bush presidency, but his stand in the Middle East is one thing he has done right, even though it has cost him politically.
What would constitute “fixing the problem”?
Bombing and sending in some teams of special forces wouldn’t do that–it would only put the schedule off a bit and make the hornets mad as hell. And that’s IF the raids were successful in getting everything that’s there and if we KNOW about everything that’s there…
Sending in an invading army would overthrow the government, no prob. But putting together a successor might be even more of a challenge than in Iraq. Iran, too, is ethnically fragmented (actually much more than Iraq), with dominant Persians only a plurality. Will the Kurds (yup, Iranians have ’em too!), the Azerbaijani Turks, the Arabs of the south, the Baluch, the Turkmen, etc., use this as the time to try to split off?
And, of course, the government–though unpopular–has fanatical support from a large and powerful minority. It was the old, unpopular Baathists who went underground and fought us as guerillas who constituted most of the “resistance” in Iraq. You can bet they’ll be even tougher to beat in Iran.
Of course, Iranians are Indo-Europeans like us! ‘Jungle’ means ‘forest’ in Persian; ‘baradar’ is ‘brother’; ‘madar’ is ‘mother’; ‘padar’ is ‘father’. And ‘qand’ is ‘sugar’, whence, ‘candy’. So maybe we’ll get along a little better, who knows?
Look, I’m game, but I’m a warmonger, i.e., I think war is a sad but common necessity in the world and trying to do without it usually makes for bigger wars in the end (or defeats.) But will America go along with it? I’m happy to wait out the forces of opposition in Iraq and plug away for ten or twenty years–sometimes things take a while to solve and I think and always have thought that Iraq is going GRAND despite what our impatient press seems to tell us.
Bush will get blamed if he DOES or if he DOESN’T invade Iran. And we’ll be told that his ‘error’ (if it was one) about Weapons of Mass Destruction (pbut) hamstrung him in Iran; or that he made a similar error in judgment about Iran, which may be discovered to have grossly overstated its nuclear capacities (Let’s LEARN from Iraq that intelligence is GUESSWORK and can be wildly WRONG!)
I think Bush (my MAN, a truly GREAT President), fortunately, knows that there’s no ‘political’ solution for him on this one and is simply trying to cut through the conundra and decide what the best thing to do is. And we will be faced with more and more nations “nuking up” over time. Will we invade all of them? Will smashing Iran help or hurt in that process?
Maybe war won’t be the solution to this one. (DRAT!) Maybe war won’t solve the problems of nukes and we need to work on defensive measures and converting the Muslims to Christianity instead!
Barabara Said—
What did he do, sleep through Reagan’s two administrations?
If we were talking about Lybia or Panama I might agree but considering this is Iran this statement is funny on so many levels.
Dear Ed–
I liked your insights, btw, in the IHS Press volume regarding Bishop Botean. In any case, when you said, “What are we waiting for?” I took that to mean that we should stop waiting and do something. What is it you want done. Bear in mind that we dropped bombs on Iraq for a decade plus, but that, apparently, did not negate the need for a massive land invasion.
Some people should not have nukes? Harry Truman?
Mrs. Tope–sorry I thought you were a man, but you remarks were so well reasoned! 😉
Chris
Tim,
I don’t recall saying that I don’t care about the evidence. I simply said that I won’t take the Bush administration’s word for it on this matter, which I think is the safe thing to do, given their track record thus far. Those aren’t quite the same thing.
I have no intention of blaming Bush if it turns out that Iran is willing to use the small amount of enriched uranium it now has to attack its neighbors. I am in favor of military action taken after deliberation, after compiling incontrovertible evidence, and building an international consensus. If Iran happens to attack one of its neighbors before the US manages to build a strong case for going to war a third time, then I hardly see how George Bush could be blamed for that. Caution isn’t squeamishness, especially when it comes after being burned once.
In any event, I don’t think it is America’s job to protect the world from every single possible instance of danger (though if it is, I have a few suggestions about places which are in imminent need of our intervention).
Chris –
Uh, thanks? :-p
CC; thx for kind words. again, i can’t guess WHAT we are waiting for, i simply don’t have access to that info. but it seems to me everyday that goes by lets those lunatics get closer to nukes.
re harry: you’ll get no argument from me about the OBJECTIVE moral evil of the action, and before anybody trots out the “We’d have lost 1,ooo,ooo invading Japan”, i am well familiar with the arguments pro. that said, i’m no manichean either, nukes are not inherently evil, nor is their use AUTOMATICALLY illicit.
full disclaimer: i’m from missouri and i still think “America needs you, Harry Truman, Harry you’d know what to do.” and there is statistically signifcant chance that i would not be here had Japan been invaded.
Tim –
Just one more thing – I guess I feel like we should think very long and hard before we undertake military action that will further destabilize an already volatile region. Governments can’t be rebuilt overnight. Can you imagine the chaos that could ensue in the Middle East if there were not one, but two nations attempting to patch themselves back together in the face of an insurgency? If there’s anything we can learn from the immediate aftermath of the invasion of Iraq, it’s that even an evil government is far better than anarchy. I simply fear that an invasion of Iran, especially without an international consensus, will plunge the entire Middle East into an unstable situation. It certainly won’t win us any fans in the Middle East . . .
Sorry for the triple posting . . .
Christopher-
“Some people should not have nukes? Harry Truman?”
You would prefer that maybe Hitler, Stalin or Tojo had beaten Truman to the punch? They were all trying hard enough.
Tope –
“I am in favor of military action taken after deliberation, after compiling incontrovertible evidence, and building an international consensus ”
I hope you realize that what you are saying, in a practical sense, is that you are never in favor of military action, as there is no such thing as incontrovertible intelligence, and waiting for international consensus is the same as waiting until hell freezes.
“If there’s anything we can learn from the immediate aftermath of the invasion of Iraq, it’s that even an evil government is far better than anarchy.”
I just don’t think you could be more wrong, here. Anarchy is not a good thing, but surely you don’t actually prefer Pol Pot’s killing fields, Saddam’s mass graves, or the Soviets’ gulag? The tragic policy of Stability At Any Cost was what got us here in the first place.
Besides, much of the anarchy in Iraq is the wish-fulfillment dream of the mainstream media. There is a great deal of order and social progress happening in Iraq, but that doesn’t sell papers.
If Iran wants a nuclear weapons program – I’m far from convinced that they do,
Reason #11687168676187268716286221 to homeschool.
Ed–
You and I both know that your existence (even though it was not foreseen!) does not justify the dropping of the bomb on Japan. And I must be asking my question badly, because you haven’t said what you want us to do about the alleged threat that Iran poses to something (I’m not sure what). Do you want us to drop a nuclear bomb on Iran? (And aren’t those lyrics from a Chicago song?)
Jim–I don’t follow you. You believe that dropping the bomb on Japan was a moral course of action.
Mrs. Tope–you do know that I was making a joke, don’t you. Your posts on this thread are excellent. There is little I can add to them.
I don’t understand, it wasn’t like they were all running to grab the only Easter Egg. If we would have built the bomb 20 years later it wouldn’t have had an effect on any of these people’s development of the Bomb – well Russia may have developed one much later….
I am not sure if Truman did right in dropping the two bombs. If he hadn’t Japan probably would have been a providence of Russia. Russia was moving at breakneck speeds through China in order to get Japan.
I haven’t crunched the numbers but I would be willing to wager that more people died in America’s fire bombings than in the two atomic blasts.
The Bible reads something to the extent…
“Take up the sword, die by the sword.”
We made them and we used them and now we will forever be trying to defend ourselves from those ramifications.
Sorry my comments were in regards to this statement.
You would prefer that maybe Hitler, Stalin or Tojo had beaten Truman to the punch? They were all trying hard enough.
cc- we must be missing each otehr here. i keep thinking i’ve answered your qq, you keep thinking i haven’t or have suggetsed things i never suggested. and my “full disclaimer” was t-i-c. oh well, back to real life (as oppose d to cyber life)…best, edp.
It is my understanding that attacks that do not distinguish between civilian and military targets are intrinsically evil. Thus the atomic bombing of Japan, the fire bombing, the German blitz, were all wrong.
It does not matter that it would save more lives, or prevent a country from being controled by the Soviets, or anything else. I also would likely not have been born if Japan had been invaded. It doesn’t matter. You can not do evil so that good will come of it.
That said, nuclear weapons are much more precise these days, so there are probably legitimate uses for them in war today.
Chris –
Yes, I realized you were joking 😉 I’m a little sensitive about jokes like that myself, but of course you couldn’t have known that.
Tim –
I hardly see how we could know anything about how long it would take to get international consensus, since we’re not really in the habit for waiting for it, are we?
Re: incontrovertible evidence, fine, let’s say a mass of solid evidence corroborated by international intelligence. Better?
Re: Pol Pot et al vs. anarchy, of course I prefer *neither*. My point is simply that no one is served by anarchy, while even an evil government can provide services to its citizens. Also I realize that Iraq isn’t in complete chaos (I thought I was rather specific in mentioning that I was speaking of the immediate aftermath of the invasion, when there was no government in place at all). It’s worth waiting to invade Iran (if that proves necessary) so that we have a better plan for how to minimize destabilization and provide a reliable interim government – something we did NOT do in Iraq.
BillyHW –
Your comment is just oozing with Christian charity, thanks! 🙂
He’s said and done things that suggest that he is a divine messenger who is preparing the way for the return of the Hidden Imam
Don’t worry, we’ll all be raptured before that happens.
🙂
Oh wait, Catholics won’t be..
🙁
Question, what is a khalvat?
Shibboleth –
Our aquisition of nukes certainly put an end to any possible Japanes development of “the bomb”, as well as providing a crucial counter-balance to Russia’s nuclear capability. Had Stalin developed the bomb ahead of the U.S., he would assuredly have used it early and often for strategic advantage, as well as to subjugate or destroy enemies of the Soviet Union.
Contrary to what Christopher assumed, I NEVER said that bombing Hiroshima or Nagasaki was a moral course of action, and I don’t believe it. Not because we used nukes, but because we targeted civilians. You are correct that as many, or more, people died in the firebombing of Tokyo than in both atomic blasts.
We were the first to develop a practical atomic bomb, but the genie was already out of the bottle. Nothing we did could have stopped its development. Aquiring it first was the next best thing, though using it against civilian populations was wrong.
“I hardly see how we could know anything about how long it would take to get international consensus, since we’re not really in the habit for waiting for it, are we? ”
Waiting for international consensus (i.e., the UN) was precisely our biggest blunder in the Iraq war. We gave Saddam luxurious months in which to get rid of WMDs, as well as prepare an armed insurgency.
Bush should never have asked for the UN’s permission in the first place. Bill Clinton didn’t.
Can’t we all just get along?
Tim –
I’m sorry, what you’re saying makes little sense to me. Saddam had months to “get rid of WMDs”. This could mean: a) he destroyed his WMDs, which sounds like a good thing to me. Since you could hardly have a problem with that scenario, I assume you mean b) he hid them. Ok, so Saddam had months to hide WMDs, but we’ve had years to find them. Where are they? Given that we know our intelligence was faulty, and that sanctions on Iraq were working fairly well in limiting Saddam’s potential to acquire or build WMDS, and that Saddam’s own scientists were lying to him about how advanced their weapons programs were . . . isn’t it far easier to believe that there were no WMDs in the first place?
I don’t see how you can say that Saddam organized the armed insurgency when it’s absolute fact that the first year or so of the insurgency was primarily led by people coming across the border into Iraq, not by Iraqis themselves.
The fact that Bill Clinton didn’t wait for UN support for his military endeavours is hardly a good argument for Bush to do the same. Since when did we start taking moral cues from Clinton? :-p
Look, I’m not a Bush hater. I voted for Bush in 2004 (with serious reservations, but I did it anyway). All I’m saying is, at this point in Bush’s presidency I find it incredibly difficult to trust anything he says, especially about potentially going to war, without some sort of outside corroboration and some indication that any new war we engage in will happen only after a great deal of consideration and planning (not to mention firing inept Cabinet members like Rumsfield, who should have been gone first thing after the 2004 election). I don’t see that happening, so I’m more than a bit skeptical. I just think this administration really stretches the limits of credibility.
Ed–okay. TIC? Tongue in cheek? But what action do you want us to take against Iran? (and more importantly, since you live in San Diego, when was the last time you went to Rubio’s or In and Out Burger? Oh, I miss my USMC days at Camp Pendleton.)
I’m glad you are not defending Truman’s action. I am inclined to the possibility (likelihood) that there is no moral use of nuclear weapons, but I do not think that would make me a Manichean. There is no moral use of artificial contraception, for example. I have a little learning about the kinds of nuclear weapons that some on this thread are suggesting have limited application. Tactical nukes. We had them in the USMC artillery (not any more). The least of them would fry the entire contents of a grid square (a square kilometer). Assuming that they could be deployed with confidence that the target was justly military, the long term effect of the radiation still makes them terribly problematic in the same way that minefields deployed by artillery (we still use these) are.
Concerning the accuracy of modern weapons, I assure you this is a nostrum. We need only count the bodies of the wars of the 20th century to know the devestation of modern weapons, and as a famous moral theologian I know once observed on the matter, there is nothing more accurate than the tip of a sword.
Mrs. Tope–sorry for the chauvanism! That is one of the serious problems with the internet. It breeds a familiarity, really familiarness, that probably violates the boundaries of good manners. you have been the recipient of such posts on this thread, even. Again, your comments are excellent.
Chris
On a side note, after going through the relevant wikipedia articles it seems like I should read up on Islamic eschatology this summer. Interesting that Christ seems to have a big role in a few of the takes (in one taking on the anti-Christ!). Perhaps Muslim-Catholic dialogue should start with eschatology.
I’m not sure that would be a good idea, just because we would disagree which of us would ultimately be on the side of Christ and which the anti-Christ. It seems to me that would bring out tensions real quick, or else lead to a sort of relativism.
Well, conversion has to start somewhere, though you may be right.
Wow, this is scary. As Mark Shea’s fond of saying, “Sleep well!”
And I didn’t know anything about the Hidden Imam. I’m with Ryan, I’ll need to read up on it. It’s very interesting. I’m in agreement with the poster above who said it reminds them of the way Christ is used in the New Age. It’s interesting & not a little bit frightening that Iran’s president believes he’s in communication with this Hidden Imam & that these *visions* (for lack of a better word) are guiding his actions as Iran’s leader. Sorry, but as with the New Age belief I can’t help but see Satan or his demons in on this. The father of lies in control of nukes. Sleep well, indeed.
And, just to lighten things up a bit – I think my checkbook is in some sort of “grand occultation” – if anyone’s seen it . . . lemme know, willya?
More stuff stolen from Judaism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamed_Vav_Tzadikim
Tsaddiks are supposed to be humble, dependable, everyday great saints, not bombast merchants. (Stephen Billias’ fantasy novel _The Quest for the 36_ dealt with this.)
Honestly, what a maroon.
“Ok, so Saddam had months to hide WMDs, but we’ve had years to find them. Where are they? Given that we know our intelligence was faulty, and that sanctions on Iraq were working fairly well in limiting Saddam’s potential to acquire or build WMDS”
Saddam may very well NOT have hidden or destroyed WMDs, but sent them into Syria. He had plenty of time to do what he liked.
The sanctions in Iraq, as should be WELL known, were NOT working well at all, unless you count impoverishing millions of people (especially those Saddam hated). Saddam’s regime grew fat off the bribes paid by the same international body (the UN) from which you think we should have sought permission to invade.
I am also a sceptic, but my scepticism is weighted much more toward the UN than the Bush administration.
He had disappointed in a number of ways, but not in the area of the War on Terror, no matter what the press would have us believe.
Hi Tim,
Interesting site. But you must remember that in the Qur’an it says that the closest to the Muslims are the Christians, instead of us bashing the brains out of each other, wouldn’t it be better if we both joined forces and brought people to God? There are pagans and Hindus and Buddhists who just don’t beleive in God. let the Muslims
and the Christians unite against their common enemy:
unbelief