In a brilliant essay at The Weekly Standard, Matthias Küntzel explains the deeper significance behind Iran’s recent Holocaust denial conference:
The Tehran deniers’ conference marks a turning point not only because of its state sponsorship, but also because of its purpose. Up until now, Holocaust deniers have wanted to revise the past. Today, they want to shape the future: to prepare the way for the next Holocaust.
In his opening speech to the conference, the Iranian foreign minister, Manucher Mottaki, left no doubt on this point: If “the official version of the Holocaust is called into question,” Mottaki said, then “the nature and identity of Israel” must also be called into question. The purpose of denying, among all the Nazis’ war measures, specifically the persecution of the Jews is to undermine a central motive for the establishment of the state of Israel. Auschwitz is delegitimized in order to legitimize the elimination of Israel–that is, a second genocide. If it should turn out, however, that the Holocaust did happen after all, Ahmadinejad explains that it would have been a result of European policies, and any homeland for the Jews would belong not in Palestine but in Europe. Either way, the result is the same: Israel must vanish.
Read the rest here.
The article highlights what has long worried anyone who thinks about Iran’s nuclear destruction program, which is Iran’s willingness to use a bomb against Israel, even though Israel, even as she is destroyed, will certainly push a button destroying millions of surrounding Muslims as well. Those of us raised in the “mutually assured destruction” era all assume that no country in possession of “the bomb” would ever aim it at another country that possesses the bomb too, since to do so would ensure the aggressor’s destruction too. People also naively think that, because Israel is so small (which again raises the question of why the surrounding Muslims are so insanely focused on her), Iran would be deterred from acting by the fact that any bomb dropped on Israel has the potential to immolate Palestinians, and to wrap Lebanese, Syrians, Jordians and Egyptians in a long-lasting cloud of radioactive poison.
In the mad, mad, mad world of the Mullah’s, however, the risk of destruction is irrelevant. The mullah’s are willing to sacrifice a few of the 250 million Arab and/or Persian compatriots for the surety that Israel will be utterly destroyed”
Five years ago, in December 2001, former Iranian president Hashemi Rafsanjani first boasted that “the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything,” whereas the damage to the Islamic world of a potential retaliatory nuclear attack could be limited: “It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.” While the Islamic world could sacrifice hundreds of thousands of “martyrs” in an Israeli retaliatory strike without disappearing–so goes Rafsanjani’s argument–Israel would be history after the first bomb.
It is precisely this suicidal outlook that distinguishes the Iranian nuclear weapons program from those of all other countries and makes it uniquely dangerous. As long ago as 1980, Khomeini put it this way: “We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.”
Westerners are truly incapable of grasping the apocalyptic fervor that drives the Muslim world. While American Christians (including, I’m sure, President Bush), are concerned by the coming End of Days, they do not see it as their responsibility to be the catalyst to bring about the end of days. Scarily, though, and in a way the West desperately wants to ignore, the Iranians, especially Ahmadinijad, believe it is their divine obligation to get the dominos going in order to bring about the return of the 12th Imam. These guys are not waiting for God to act in his own good time; they’re preparing to take matters into their own hands.
Hat tip: PowerLine
del.icio.us
digg it
Bookworm Room (ARCHIVES) 
Assuming this entry is accurate in its view of the threat from Iranian leadership (and I suspect it is) I’m especially interested in hearing from our more liberal friends and readers as to how America, and for that matter Israel, should react to this threat. Let’s discuss some positive ideas for dealing with the problem.
The West does not know the true nature of their enemies, because the West is unable to understand themselves. If you don’t know what your purpose is in your heart of hearts, and if you have not seen into the depths of your soul and mind, then logically how are you able to do so with enemies that wish your destruction?
Decadence and war fatigue have perhaps always been the bane of civilization. The more civilized a nation becomes, the less capable it is of defending itself, and the more frivolous activities it engages in. Wealth and prosperity gives people free time, time to use as they so choose. But the degradation of Purpose itself, prevents the unity of such folks into one design and one goal. Everyone is doing whatever they want. Like John Kerry and Jane Fonday for example. They no longer need civilization, because civilization has defended them against all their mortal enemies. They no longer need to band together to survive. Their personal power now protects themselves even without the continued survival of their civilizations. They can jump ship (Europe), they need not go down with it. This fragments community and unity, because when one segment of the population believes that it can work at cross purposes to the group and thrive, then they will do so out of love of themselves, rather than loyalty to any higher purpose.
Westerners think the Islamics are just as decadent as they are, given the long history of their collusion with Middle Eastern problems and riches. That is true to some extent, but the reaction of the ME to wealth was not the same reaction as the West to wealth. The Islamic Jihad became true believers, belief in a cause, in a higher goal than themselves or even their lives.
They look at such folks as Saddam and say that “Saddam was bad but”, what they mean is that the US created Saddam and had dealings with him. That means Saddam is bad, because everything the US creates and touches is bad. Therefore Saddam is bad, but if we blame the US we can solve the problem…
Would they be having these inner guilt trips and projection psychologies if they were crawling on the ground in Darfur without legs? Not really. But they aren’t in Darfur, they are in the United States. Protected. They are buffered from the consequences of reality, by the men and women of the United States. They are even protected by the children of Iraq, for every suicide bomber that kills an Iraqi child, is one that the aristocrate elites in the West does not have to deal with. Except for worrying about how the actions of the US and Europe are “guilty” in creating “more” terrorists. People die and they celebrate with slaps on the back for their self-righteousness. That has always been the case for those in power and for those without it.
They enact laws, refering to the employment thread, and people suffer. But so long as it feeds their fake self-righteousness, do they really care who suffers so long as it isn’t them?
The point is, people in the West aspire to something greater than themselves, but their grubby little slime slicked fingers cannot reach beyond the bars of their cowardice, frailty, and cynicism. They do not believe. They want to believe, that is why they march, they Feel the Power, but they do not believe in it. They believe in nothing but themselves, for with their limitations, their emotions will not allow them to believe in anything truly greater than themselves. That requires will, it requires sacrifice, it requires independent action and thought. Materialism vs spiritualism. Has that not always been the criticism of America back even in WWII, that Americans are too materialistic? Ha.
The Islamic jihad is different from the decadence of the West, yet it is there precisely because of the weakness and decadence of the West. For the money that empowers the greed of men derives not from Saudi Arabia, but from Europe. The industrialized world. It is our wealth, our prosperity, and our comfortable lives that give breed to the conditions by which others will be corrupted. And the Arabs see this corruption for what it is, a weakness of heart and soul, and they rebel. They resist. They will not believe in the West, for the West no longer believes in itself. So what will they believe in. The Islamic Jihad.
People have heard about draining the swamp and Bush talking about offering the folks of the ME a better alternative. To the Western elite decadents, what better alternative is there? To them the West is the problem, and they are right, but not in the way that they think. They think the West is the problem because they think that the aristocrats were meant to rule and that they are the elites of humanity. The real truth is that the aristocrats are the problem, and not the common folks in Europe and America.
This internal cancer would have already been present even without our foreign enemies achoppin folks.
In the mad, mad, mad world of the Mullah’s, however, the risk of destruction is irrelevant.
If a genius has the insight into some better theory that produces real world weapons and propulsion technologies, is he then actually mad? Because Iran believes that they can win, and they base their reasoning on everything I’ve written about here. The weakness of the West, their inability to comprehend the motives of the mullahs, and so forth. So since their chances for success are real and pretty good on a realistic objective background, then are they really mad? Or is genius and madness two sides of the same coin with a hole burning through.
While American Christians (including, I’m sure, President Bush), are concerned by the coming End of Days, they do not see it as their responsibility to be the catalyst to bring about the end of days.
BW,
You’re wrong! Other than the terrorists who executed the 9-11 attacks, the Bush Administration has been the #1 catalyst in the world for trying to spur on the End of Days. They’ve made threats to North Korea and Iran since the day this administration took office (even before 9-11). This, combined with their attacking of Iraq based on false premises and exaggerated evidence, has been directly responsible for creating an atmosphere of fear in the world. This fear of being attacked or invaded by the USA has greatly contributed to spurring on a new era of nuclear arms races. Sadly, I would have to admit that Putin’s comments over the weekend were fairly accurate and probably the sentiment of a huge chunk of the world’s population.
The most blatantly obvious example is the way the Bush Administration took a Sunni controlled Iraq out of the equation in the middle-east. From the beginning, it was clear that if you took the Sunnis out of power in Iraq, you would embolden and empower Shiite controlled Iran–who has almost always been considered more dangerous than Iraq.
It’s easy to see that by taking out Iraq, the Bush Administration significantly increased the likelihood of a larger, regional war with Iran.
Another clear sign that war is inevitable with Iran is the way we won’t talk to them face to face.
Did we learn anything from Ronald Reagan and the way he handled the Cold-War by talking to the greatest enemy we’ve ever known?
Reagan helped to avoid END OF DAYS by TALKING and USING DIPLOMACY.
It’s almost as if the Bush Administration WANTS MORE WAR(oh wait, they do)
more no-bid contracts
more military bases (built by military contractors)
more unbelievable profits for Halliburton and others
more US soldiers die (not their kids, someone else’s kids)
Give me a freakin break!!!!!
Judging by their actions, the Bush Administration wants End of Days to happen as much as any other radical religious regime in the world.
“Let’s discuss some positive ideas for dealing with the problem.” DQ, in all honesty, do you really think you are going to get any response other than the scurrilous crap posted above?
Big Al,
Bush was hated in Europe before he took the oath of office. I remember people (Europeans) talking to me as if his election meant the end of the world. At the same time, the plotters in Hamburg had completed their plans. A plot to blow up the Christmas market in Strassburg had been foiled. Islamistic vets of Bosnia and Afghanistan had returned to Europe to establish cells and take over mosques. Do a little reading about what was happening in Europe before you lay all the blame on Bush.
” how America, and for that matter Israel, should react to this threat.”
By embracing the threat! (DQ) Take Diane Sawyer on 12Feb. Iranian Di(e) anointed the new imam today on Arab Broadcasting (abc). Ms. Sawyer, whose ties to Iran are now explicit, was charming with the genocidal maniac, as befits one who sees Iran as saving the world.
SAVING THE WORLD!?– is this poor excuse for a civilized journalist simply insane?
Or does Iranian Di(e) not mind the hideous lies from this blood-soaked monster? (I stopped the interview after this opening paragraph. No real journalist serves as a conduit for totalitarian propaganda.) The American press serves as mouthpieces for Islamic guilt and terror.
“We shy away from any kind of conflict and any kind of bloodshed, and we will be sad by such. We are opposed to any kind of conflict and as we have said repeatedly we think the world problem can be solved through dialogue, the use of logic and a sense of friendship. There is no need for the use of force.”
Hi BigAl,
That wasn’t exactly what I had in mind. You managed to answer my plea for positive ideas with a several hundred word rant against Bush and not . . . one . . . single . . . positive idea. Now that you’ve gotten the rant out of your system, how about some positive ideas on what we should be doing (and, perhaps, a little bit on why you think your plan of action would work)? Thanks, DQ
DQ, you either wear a halo or a ‘kick me’ sign. I can’t decide which.
It’s a halo, Zhombre, a halo. DQ’s single minded devotion to truth and intellectual honesty makes him one of the best lawyers I’ve ever met.
Didn’t they say the same thing about Bush that they did about Reagan?
I concur with that guy’s view on Iran.
Btw
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/02/dr_gillian_mckeith_barred_from_calling_self_doctor/
There’s something to the thing that people get fooled for a reason. People who look at Iran and what not, and think that the invasion of Iraq empowered the Iranians/Shia is thinking that you can split the ME into factions called Sunni vs Shia. But that isn’t true, that isn’t how the faction/clans in the ME play out.
Thanks, Bookworm, and I completely agree I can be very single-minded (just ask my boss). But I’m still waiting on Big Al’s (or any liberal’s) positive ideas. Heck, it would be nice if some of the liberal presidential candidates came up with a few.
Don,
I’m back with the positive ideas you requested. I’ve said these things in a previous post and no one commented. I really don’t know enough about effective war tactics to say that my ideas are perfect…but I think a sincere listener knows what I’m saying (especially compared to the current strategy).
I just know that Sun Tzu said that the biggest key to victory in any war is the use of spies.
I hate any and all wars, but if I were a war mongerer, and truly believed the Iranians are going to kill us all if we don’t stop them..I would do the following:
1) Remove the US military from the population centers (cities and towns) of Iraq to military bases in sparsely populated areas and on the borders. This will allow us to maintain a serious military presence and be ready to guard against interference from Iran, Syria or any one else in the ME who may try to mess with the situation.
AND it removes the bulk of the members of the military OUT of the middle of a civil war but still in a position where they can help if help is needed (in Iraq or anywhere in ME). This will reduce the number of deaths and/or casualties significantly.
2) Use the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, and the elite special forces to conduct the brunt of the war–in an undercover/stealth fashion. If the special forces/CIA/FBI/ Special Forces is not equipped to handle fighting the brunt of the war–then we need to change that quickly.
They should receive the full support of the Air Force, Navy, and Army for anything they need at any time. But do everything possible to limit the combat missions–along with intelligence gathering to members of special forces/CIA/FBI, etc.
No more US military members driving around or standing around (in uniform) in the cities to be used as target practice for insurgents and/or terrorists.
Also, I know special forces are a part of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. I am just saying that ONLY special forces –with help from and along side of the CIA, FBI, NSA, ETC should be used to conduct combat missions.
To win this war (especially the propaganda war), we need to keep a low-profile in the middle-east.
3) Talk to the enemy (Iran). Face to Face. Show the world we are the ones playing fairly and not being deaf to what everyone else is saying.
4) At the same time, send in special forces, CIA, FBI, to Iran, if necessary–and start making sure they will never develop nuclear weapons that threaten everyone (especially Israel). Publicly deny any and all claims by Iran, Syria or anyone else that we are conducting secret military operations. Keep the war small by pretending like there is no war going on.
Maybe all of this stuff would already be happening if Halliburton wasn’t making $30 per meal–per soldier–3 meals per day.
When was the last time you went out for a meal that cost $30 (all by yourself–no alcoholic drinks)?
Who’s making sacrifices for this war?
Clear, Hold, and Build is not working.
Bush said today that the part we need to work on is the “holding”–and that is the new strategy..improving the “holding”.
That is not a new strategy, that is just trying to make the same old strategy work by trying harder.
A new strategy would mean trying something other than “Clear, Hold, and Build”
Maybe something like I’ve described above would be an example of a NEW strategy….although I will be the first to admit my strategy certainly has holes in it. And since I’m not in charge of a new military strategy, I don’t have to fill in the holes in my strategy.
I just think there are better ways of handling (and improving) the situation we find ourselves in the middle east than almost anything the President has tried (that I know of).