Apocalypse on August 22? Seriously.

[Overpaid Slacker]

OK, my last cut-and-paste today. I found this story very interesting when it began a few days ago, and it's accreting a little bit more substance as informed others comment on it and others' comments.

I alluded to the apocalyptic nature of Islam in Iran on another thread, and this issue is what prompted that comment. Interested to hear the opinions of (some of ) our Pelican brethren.

JP


Apocalypse Now?
Is Iran planning a cataclysmic strike for August 22?

By Joel C. Rosenberg

Is Iran planning an apocalyptic strike against Israel and/or the United States for August 22? If so, what should the U.S. do to protect Americans and our ally? Such questions are worrying a growing number of officials in the White House, at the CIA, and at the Pentagon, and for good reason.

As a devout Shiite Muslim, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is telling colleagues in Tehran that he believes the end of the world is rapidly approaching. He also believes that the way to hasten the coming of the Islamic Messiah known as the “Hidden Imam” or the “Mahdi” is to launch a catastrophic global jihad, first against Israel (the “little Satan”) and then against the U.S. (the “Great Satan”). What’s more, Ahmadinejad is widely believed to be pursuing nuclear weapons that would give him the ability to carry out his apocalyptic religious views. Some experts even speculate that Iran may already have several atomic bombs and the means to deliver them.

In recent days, Ahmadinejad and his advisers have said that Iran will answer the world regarding the future of its nuclear program on August 22. That happens to be a very significant date for Muslims: It is the anniversary of the supposed “night flight” by Mohammed from Saudi Arabia to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem to heaven and back again. There is a worry that Ahmadinejad is planning some sort of apocalyptic attack as his ‘“response” on August 22. If so, time is short and the clock is ticking.

It is hard for many Americans to imagine an Iranian leader (or any other world leader) actually trying to bring about the end of the world by launching a nuclear attack to destroy millions of Jews and Christians. But it is precisely this type of attack that I wrote about in my recent political thrillers, The Ezekiel Option and The Copper Scroll. One of my goals was to help people understand this brand of radical Islamic thinking and its implications for Western civilization. On page 358 of The Ezekiel Option, a fictional Islamic character insists that Israel is going to be “wiped off the face of the map forever.” Five months after Option was published last June, Ahmadinejad gave a speech vowing to wipe Israel “off the map” forever. In the novel, Iran forms a military alliance with Russia and starts buying state-of-the-art weaponry from Moscow to accomplish its apocalyptic objectives. Last December, fiction again became reality, when Iran signed a $1 billion deal with Russia to buy missiles and others weapons.

Muslims are not the only ones who have apocalyptic end-times views, of course. As an evangelical Christian from an Orthodox Jewish heritage, my novels are based on a number of “end times” prophecies that the Bible says will be fulfilled in “the last days.” For example, the Hebrew Prophet Ezekiel — writing 2,500 years ago — described a future Middle Eastern war to annihilate Israel that is known today by Bible scholars as the “War of Gog and Magog.” Jews and Christians who take Ezekiel’s prophecies seriously believe that at the last minute the God of Israel will supernaturally intervene to defeat Israel’s enemies in this war. By contrast, the Muslim version of the “War of “Gog and Magog“ found in the Koran concludes with Muslims winning. The Ezekiel Option and The Copper Scroll imagine how such prophecies could play themselves out in modern times. But suddenly this is no longer the stuff of fiction. Ahmadinejad actually seems intent on launching the “War of Gog and Magog.”

Bernard Lewis of Princeton University, arguably the world’s foremost expert on Middle Eastern history, wrote an essay for the Wall Street Journal last Tuesday warning that Ahmadinejad’s apocalyptic objectives could lead to a “cataclysmic” attack on August 22. Lewis observed that there it is not possible to say with any certainty that such an attack is planned, but he felt compelled to explain to Americans just how dangerous Ahmadinejad’s thinking is, especially in light of Islamic, Jewish, and Christian “end times” theology, such as the “War of Gog and Magog” and “Armageddon.” How, Lewis asked, can you negotiate with a man who believes it is his religious duty and mission to bring about the end of the world? How can you deter a man who wants to die and go to paradise, but believes he won’t actually die in such a war because Allah is on his side to kill millions of “infidels”?

Lewis’s warning was prudent and needed, as was his careful explanation of the apocalyptic thinking driving the Iranian leadership at present. But Lewis’s conclusion was puzzling. He writes:

“How then can one confront such an enemy, with such a view of life and death?” he wrote. “Some immediate precautions are obviously possible and necessary. In the long term, it would seem that the best, perhaps the only hope is to appeal to those Muslims, Iranians, Arabs and others who do not share these apocalyptic perceptions and aspirations, and feel as much threatened, indeed even more threatened, than we are. There must be many such, probably even a majority in the lands of Islam. Now is the time for them to save their countries, their societies and their religion from the madness of MAD [the Cold War policy of Mutual Assured Destruction].”

’This is indeed a wise “long-term” strategy, trying to win over Islamic moderates, but Lewis writes as if the danger posed by Iran is not an immediate one, as if we have the luxury of relying on far-sighted strategies. But ’Lewis himself is suggesting that Iran may be planning “cataclysmic” attacks to begin as early as August 22. That doesn’t leave a lot of time for long-term planning. We all hope and pray that August 22 is not the day Ahmadinejad has chosen to launch the apocalypse, but there is little doubt in the White House and at the CIA that the Iranian leader is feverishly trying to build, buy, or steal nuclear weapons, and that he will quite likely use them once he has them.

All of this raises very serious questions for the president and the nation. How much time do we have to pursue a diplomatic track with Iran? At what point do we have to conclude that negotiations are going nowhere? Are we prepared to live with a nuclear-armed Iran? If so, how? If not, what is the president prepared to do to protect Americans and our allies from an Iranian nuclear-strike, or nuclear blackmail?

In his famous “axis of evil” speech on January 29, 2002, President Bush made the following case:

“We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation’s security. We’ll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons.”

Today, the country is deeply divided over whether using military force in Iraq was the right thing to do. But the Iranian nuclear threat is now far worse than the Iraqi threat of having or obtaining weapons of mass destruction was then. President Bush has a decision to make and precious little time to make it. For let’s be clear: should Iran go nuclear on this president’s watch, all the gains made to date in the War on Terror will be wiped out overnight. That is not a legacy this president wants, nor one this nation can afford.

EDIT: Here's a link to the Bernard Lewis piece referenced above. It's a clearer statement of the thesis than this was, upon re-reading.

JP

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Unless they've bought a whole bunch of fissible material on the black market or something, they're months away from having anything close to a bomb.

They also have no means of delivery. Israel might need to be worried; personally I'm more worried by some jihadist with a suitcase dirty bomb than phantom Iranian nuclear strikes.

[red-beard]

They might use the same style SCUD launchers that Iraq used in Gulf I

[red-beard]

Iran does have significant missile capability with the Shahab-3. The 1300 km range allows it to hit virtually anything in the middle east.

http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iran/Missile/3367_3395.html

[Overpaid Slacker]

Jeff -
I'd like to believe what you're saying. However, Western intelligence has had a spotty record in determining what is going on behind fascist borders.

OK, today, a plot to blow up a number of airliners was uncovered. Thank freaking God. British, Pakistani and American intelligence worked and averted mass murder.

But, look at the surprises the IDF has had in its battles with Hezbollah -- they're much better trained and equipped than previously believed. They've got longer-range and more accurate weapons, etc. And that's right next door to Israel, which has one of the best intel-gathering reputations out there.

I don't share your confidence that Iran isn't further along. And by the time we find out if you're right, or I'm right, it doesn't matter who was right. It's too late.

Just MHO.

JP

[Porsche-O-Phile]

You make a good point and I certainly DO believe Iran is up to no good, but in wake of the blatant lies, misinformation and (at best) eff-ups over Iraq, the bar is going to be all that much higher to build any sort of case for sanctions, a coaltion or military moves against Iran.

Errors in intel can work both ways. It's a bell curve, not a "half-bell curve". They might be further along and they might be further behind than we think.

I'm still more worried about one or two crackpot jihadists getting some uranium in here strapped to a conventional bomb than an Iranian nuke going off here though. Were I in Israel, my views would probably be different - I certainly believe that if/when Iran gets the bomb it'll be on its way to Tel Aviv within hours.

The point is that the onus of responsibility (based on threat) is on Israel in this one - not the USA.

[techweenie]

Interesting. A novelist with a doomsday theory.

I have to discount the editorial a bit -- partly because it's from a fiction writer, but also because the writer doesn't seem to know that Ahmadinejad is not the leader of Iran. He's just president -- a position with largely symbolic power in Iran.

[dtw]

Originally posted by techweenie
Ahmadinejad is not the leader of Iran. He's just president -- a position with largely symbolic power in Iran.

Historically, yes. Ahmadinejad is changing that. There was a pretty in-depth article in the WSJ a few weeks back about how he has been reinventing the position quite a bit, and endowing himself with quite a bit of authority, under the tacit approval of the 'true' clerical leaders of the country.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by dtw
Historically, yes. Ahmadinejad is changing that. There was a pretty in-depth article in the WSJ a few weeks back about how he has been reinventing the position quite a bit, and endowing himself with quite a bit of authority, under the tacit approval of the 'true' clerical leaders of the country.

Is it really a matter for 'clerics' to decide? The leader of Iran is called "The Supreme Leader." If he is ceding power to Ahmadinejad or having it taken, that's very interesting news, and probably on balance, more positive for us. Can you point me to the article?

[dtw]

Tech,
IIRC, the article was speculative on the "usurpation" of power from the big cleric - ie, does he have their approval, or is he being viewed as a threat to the traditional leadership structure. Either way, he's very aggressive and controversial. Article seemed to conclude it was a bit of both.

I read the communal copy of the WSJ here, sorry, I don't have a link to the WSJonline version. I'd say it was in the last 4-6 weeks though if you have access.

[JSDSKI]

So the Iranians are going to create fissionable material, weaponize it, create a gadget to explode it, test the gadget, and then miniaturize their new gadget design to fit on the top of a small payload missile, test the missle and gadget as a unit, build enough missiles and bombs, and then launch a strike all before August 22 ?

And they've managed to do all this without ANY intelligence or inspection agency discovering any of the above listed activity other than the attempt to produce fissionable materials in a research engineering lab !?!

Hell, if they were that freaking good they would have taken over the world years ago.

[charleskieffner]

note to self.............build thicker aluminum foil helmet! sooner rather than later the entire middle east will be one sheet of molten glass!

[techweenie]

Originally posted by dtw
Tech,
IIRC, the article was speculative on the "usurpation" of power from the big cleric - ie, does he have their approval, or is he being viewed as a threat to the traditional leadership structure. Either way, he's very aggressive and controversial. Article seemed to conclude it was a bit of both.

I read the communal copy of the WSJ here, sorry, I don't have a link to the WSJonline version. I'd say it was in the last 4-6 weeks though if you have access.

No, I find the WSJ to be too right wing wacko politically. I don't find it credible, so I don't subscribe.

I'll see if there is anything in the world media that talks of a power shift. Thanks for bringing it to my attention!