Friday, November 18, 2011

The Looming Catastrophe

Iranian flag with the Bomb

The following article, which describes the looming danger of an Iranian nuclear bomb, would not be considered unusual in the American or British press. But this one comes from the Swedish daily Expressen, and is unusual in its straightforward presentation of the Iranian issue.

Many thanks to our Swedish correspondent Freedom Fighter for the translation:

Ulf Nilson: We have reached a point where all efforts must be made to prevent disaster

When will the explosion come?

How large a disaster? Tens of thousands dead? A partially poisoned and radioactive world?

Iran destroyed? Israel destroyed?

The questions above appear daily in the media in the U.S., where I landed a few days ago. In Sweden — peaceful, beautiful Sweden — we do not like to discuss any disasters, but this time, the anxieties are clearly justified.

Basic facts: Iran is led by fanatical Muslim clerics, mainly Ali Khamenei and the fanatical Ahmadinejad. Both belong to Islam’s Shi’a sect that celebrates martyrdom and irreconcilable struggle against the “infidels”, that is, us.

The Shi’ites believe that Israel must be destroyed, therefore, that every Jewish man, woman or child must be killed. Yes, they think so — though it’s hard for a Swede to understand — but they do think so. They seriously want to see a mountain of burning corpses ….

So the risk is that Iran will attack Israel with one or more nuclear warheads, carried by rockets that have been made with the help of China and Russia. An attack on London or Paris is less likely but not impossible. Stockholm will survive by being insignificant.

That Iran is close, very close, to making a nuclear bomb is confirmed by the UN nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, in Vienna. In maybe a year, maybe a little longer …

In short, we have reached a point where every effort must be made to avoid a catastrophe. Fanatics in Iran — I remember those awful days in Tehran when Khomeini came to power! — cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. That the Israelis agree is obvious. When a killer has a knife to your throat, it is natural to try to remove it.

So far, the Israelis, discreetly supported by the U.S., have accepted with the threat. But the Jews, whom Adolf Hitler (and later, Nasser, Saddam Hussein, and others) wanted to annihilate from the Earth’s surface, cannot help but be worried, maybe even anxious. Israel, with 22,070 sq. km., is much smaller than Småland (30,000), but has about 7.4 million people — it is a tightly-packed country, surrounded by enemies, and probably more vulnerable than any other people on earth. Can such a country quietly wait for the implacable enemies who are targeting them with nuclear weapons?

The answer is no.

An Israeli leaders who does not — by all means, let me stress by all means — try to prevent Holocaust #2 would betray his people. He would also, I personally think, betray civilization. The perception is undoubtedly controversial. To kill thousands of innocents — more or less inevitable if Israel strikes — is an abomination.

On the other hand: Negotiations have so far not brought the parties to an inch closer together.

What if Iran allows Hezbollah and Hamas to have a couple of nukes, relatively easy to smuggle into Tel Aviv? A simultaneous attack on two oil countries would quickly cripple — and perhaps silence — the Western world. What happens then?

All sensible people, like I myself, hope that the problem may be solved through negotiations. But is it at all possible in the reality that is the Middle East today?


Anonymous said...

Don't think that this article will go unpunished in Sweden. Ulf Nilsson has already been formally accused of "hets mot folkgrupp" = "hate speach".

The only reason why Ulf Nilsson can by outspoken like this is that he is way past the retirement age and have nothing to loose.

Do not for one minute fool yourself into thinking that we ha freedom of speach in Sweden.

/Elaka Farbrorn.

Lawrence said...

Most thinking nations realize that any attempt to Nuke Israel off the map will portend a similar consequence to whichever nation makes the attempt.

Same thing that keeps any given Islamist movement from attacking Israel with enough force to actually destroy them. ... they don't want to do it themselves, they want to talk someone else into doing it. Because they understand the nature of retaliation in kind that will be visited upon their own lands.

Right now Iran is using it's potential nuclear capability to dictate the public media discourse. This is greatest chance of defeating Israel, by guilting Israel's allies into abandoning Israel, or dismantling Israel themselves.

Simply stated. If Nato and the U.S. can be made to feel guilty about Israel being the problem, then maybe we'll remove Israel ourselves.

It's kind of like punishing the victim of bullying for fighting back. Which is what we now do in our public schools. Sadly, the principal who takes action against the victim is also being bullied themself in allowing the bully to control the serious of events. Bully stopps bullying one kid and just moves on to the next, laughing at the foolishness of the principal.

Think of Islam as the bully, Israel as the victim, and NATO-U.S. as the principal and it starts to make a bit of sense on the nature of Islamist versus Israel.

At what point do we in the west start feeling used, to the point where we stop allowing ourselves to be manipulated by Islamist bullies?

Nemesis said...

Anyone who is aware of the tinder box that Iran and its proxies have now made of the Middle East will most certainly agree with this article.

It's the 1930's all over again as the world fiddles while the fanatics arm themselves with the intention of carrying out their religious goal.

Steven Zoraster said...

My opinion is that the United States should tell the world that whatever rouge state makes a nuclear or chemical attack, we will respond by conventional means to destroy that country's engineering, technical, and military infrastructure.

Dams, power plants, harbors,and airports.

And use ground penetrating bombs to dig down to where the leaders are hiding.

Everything it takes to put them back in the stone age.

Anonymous said...

Iran will get the bomb. Thx for unlocking the anonymous comments.

Chiu said...

"To kill thousands of innocents — more or less inevitable if Israel strikes — is an abomination."

I have to take issue with this statement. While it is true that killing thousands of innocents is an abomination, I have difficulty understanding how this has any real connection to an Israeli strike to disrupt Iran's progress towards a nuclear weapon. Any realistic strike would have to target sites where critical elements of the weapons themselves are being processed rather than locations that are not directly connected to the building of the weapons.

I do not hold that working on nuclear weapons is inherently evil in every circumstance, but surely those working on the Iranian weapon program are aware that the publicly avowed purpose of the program is neither deterrence nor pressing for peaceful coexistence. The avowed purpose of the Iranian nuclear weapon program is genocide, pure and simple. Those carrying it out can no more be considered "innocent" than the guards at a death camp.

Perhaps they can say that they are "just following orders". But that is a long way from innocence.

Indeed, from what we have been given to understand about international pressure applied through economic sanctions, it is sanctions rather than direct military action that will result in privation and death for innocent persons unconnected to the regime and its genocidal objectives.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

Anonymous said...

All sensible people, like I myself, hope that the problem may be solved through negotiations.
If you know Islam whose "holy" books call for the annihilation of the Jew - an enduring instruction to all Muslims for all time - how can any rational person "hope" that negotiations will ever work.

Genuine negotiators approach the table with genuine hearts for the common goal.

This does not describe the Muslim.

Anonymous said...

Everyone seem`s to be of the mind this coming attack will have enemies that will immediately claim responsibility and accept obvious annihilation.With multiple "dirty weapons" all parties can deny liability and although the originator/processor could be identified.The actual attacker might be a number of rogue states or groups.How do you respond (in a nuclear sense)too factions?

Anonymous said...

Iran with a nuclear weapon is a very frightening prospect.again and again they have let their intetions known. Are we going to let rogue states,take the world hostage. iran needs to be told in clear and simple terms ,you cause trouble you will be nuked.The usa as the world's remaining super- power should take this role.unfortunately we have no men brave enough to utter such words.

Sagunto said...

I reckon that Israel is perfectly capable of defending itself. If it needs anything from the US, it is a foreign policy that promotes some semblance of stability across the Middle East, not parading this "Arab Spring" around, using G.I. Joe to bring "democracy" for Jihad Moh.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

Anonymous said...

Muslims are being used as pawns again, just as they were during 9/11. Yes the Western culture is under threat, but who is engendering the threat? Muslims ? No, I don't think so for one minute, not that they are unhappy about it. Traitors (a person who betrays a friend, country, principle,) yes - much more likely.

Who is promulgating the idea that Iran as a rouge state? The Western media that keeps the views of the Gates of Vienna under wraps. So why believe them about Iran?

There is a bigger picture than that painted by MSN out there, after all their controllers are the manipulators whom introduced large numbers of Muslims for their own machinations: Does a great job of analysing much of how the media is spinning and manipulating us all through the news. It also sees sights like yours as leading the change on the internet reformation to counter the main stream media.

Sagunto said...

Anonymous - (got a nick? place it at the top of your replies plz)

Of course Muslims undermine Western culture. I can walk you through some neighbourhoods here in my city to provide you with a taste of that. Islam, and its doctrine demanding the subjugation of "unbelievers", is an existential threat to our way of life.

Having said that, may I remind the readers over here of the depressing fact, that the bipartisan block of neo-progressives (Libs/neo-conmen) are - by their own words, and I tend to believe them on this one - definitely not waging war on Islam ("a peaceful religion hijacked by a tiny minority of.." etcetera).

Instead, what they do is fighting this "War on Terror", like all of these "War on Drugs" schemes and what have you. And by all means, they're certainly not resisting islamization home and abroad (think of the incessant push to have Turkey enter the EUSSR, or the creation of "democratic", "Arabic Spring"(TM) sharia states: Egypt, Lybia, and the Islamic state of Bosnia in Europe).

In my opinion, the Wilsonian, neo-progressive and thoroughly PC/MC WOT-agenda, isn't really about fighting or resisting Islam at all. Me thinks some prudence is in order before presenting all of this along those lines.

In sum: this progressivist WoT does not equal Counterjihad.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

Chiu said...

My take on the idea of fighting "terrorism" is that it is a fine thing...if that's what actually is done. The idea of having laws of war was aimed at creating standards by which to judge whether combatants were targeting non-combatants, civilians and the surrendered. Why does this matter? It isn't just to make war less destructive...destruction is the point of war. It is to focus the destruction of war on those who are actually doing something to destroy you.

Of course, this same principle means that rules against assassination are not just pointless, but actively harmful to maintaining the dignity of individuals to bear the consequences of their own choices. But that is largely an aside.

I have no wish to stigmatize or denigrate Islam, only to put Muslims on the same footing as anyone else. If there are people going to Christian churches or Buddhist temples where the clergy preach that they have a religious responsibility to carry out acts of mass murder against innocents, I certainly want them investigated and watched closely (and I want those clerics investigated for possible conspiracy to commit such acts).

But I want the standards to be the same. I don't want people trying to "equalize" things by raising the bar on one religious group and lowering the bar for Islam just to make sure that there is some kind of parity between different groups. Let the individual cleric and believer bear the consequences of their individual actions. This is all I ask.

Is this not enough? Are you determined to play into the judgment of people by category rather than individual actions? Then we must be enemies on this point, because I cannot ever accept the subordination of individual dignity to group identity. It is a simple impossibility for me.

Why should this be so? Hard to say, but it is the case. Insects are not individually responsible for their actions, and I treat them accordingly. If humans are not considered personally accountable, I see no reason to treat them as persons anymore than I would insects.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

P.S. This doesn't mean that I discount the evident difficulty that certain circumstances (i.e. being born into Islam) may impose on a given individual...but the way I see it, either they take responsibility for themselves or they can be treated like an insect. Of course, the same holds just as true for someone who is not under great handicaps in regards to moral autonomy.

Anonymous said...

Malum In Se

Egghead said...

Chiu: "I have no wish to stigmatize or denigrate Islam...."

Islam is a Satanic religion that undermines EVERY human goodness.

I fully intend to stigmatize and denigrate Islam.

Adam Neira said...

French FM Alain Juppe's comment last week that an Iran attack would drag world into 'spiral' is correct. Time is reaching a critical juncture. The divine timetable will trump all others. These are the options re. Iran...

(a) The Israelis/Americans launch a preventative strike against the nuclear facilities, Osirak fashion. The Iranian public will rally to nationalistic cries and a war will break out in the Middle East, whether via proxies in Syria, Lebanon or via Iranian troops spilling into Afghanistan and/or Iraq. Iranian sleeper cells will also be activated around the world and terrorist acts will be carried out. Pro-Iranian lone terrorists will also be motivated to launch attacks. The Straits of Hormuz will be closed and oil will skyrocket. This will dramatically affect the global economy. Whatever the extent of the war thousands will die. Even if the ratio of dead Israelis and Westerners compared to Iranian losses is 1:100 it will still be a travesty of justice.

(b) Further sanctions are imposed to squeeze the Iranian leadership clique. The economy in Iran stagnates or collapses. In desperation the Iranians respond with counter measures. Nothing really is solved and the impasse continues. Paint an enemy into too tight a corner and reap the whirlwind.

(c) Israel and the West allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon and hope for the best. Either the Iranian leadership clique joins the nuclear club in a non-belligerent manner or they are aroused to attack other nations in a pan-Persian/Arab/Muslim plan for regional domination. In either case it goes against the vision presented below. No more new members are needed for the “Missile Envy Club”.

(d) Supreme efforts are made at employing the sefirotic tools so that diplomacy prevails. The Iranians are persuaded to attend a reconvened NPT conference in Jerusalem on April 23rd, 2012 with all other nations in attendance. A twelve year track for nuclear disarmament is agreed to and followed. A "Committee to Oversee the Dismantlement of Nuclear Weapons by 2025" is established with its HQ in Jerusalem. The IAEA or similar agency is boosted in manpower to facilitate the plan. Even if its budget is $5 Billion p.a., with all nations contributing, it will be worth it. This overarching global "Peace Initiative" becomes the fulcrum/umbrella/pivot/template from which other international co-operation and trust building moves are made. As the right moves are made at the right time and in the right order peace unfolds in the Middle East and the World. Isaiah’s “Swords into Ploughshares” prophecy becomes a reality. It becomes possible to drive on a road from Jerusalem to Tehran by 2019. Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the USA play off in Group D of the 2022 Qatar World Cup. An Iranian and Israeli compete in a play off for a gold medal at the 2028 Israel/Palestine Olympic Games. Children from 2025 grow up in a world free of the threat of the ultimate weapon of violence hanging over their heads. They applaud the vision, courage and trust building shown by certain people in late 2011/early 2012.

Obviously (d) is the divinely mandated scenario. Why is such a biblical scene as this, i.e. two ancient proud nations at loggerheads presenting itself at this time ? Divine intervention peut etre ?

Which narrative should prevail ?

Uplifting thermals or a downwardly spiralling satanic vortex ?

Prayers for the Middle East.

Adam Neira
World Peace 2050
(Founded April 2000)

Franklin said...

Lemme tellya, if Pakistan nuked India...India could sustain it and keep on truckin'...if Iran nuked Israel...Das ist alles! However, this does not mean MAD...Iran would be destroyed by other means...the greatest threat in the mix...The Russ!

Chiu said...

That was...a very imaginative scenario, Adam. Should it come to pass, you will deservedly be recognized as a prophet more than equal to Isaiah.

On the other hand, I think it only prudent to prepare for events that may be slightly less felicitous.

Chiu Chun-Ling.