Resources for Global Threat

Imagine a Nuclear Iran... It’s easy if you try.

Imagine a Nuclear Iran

It’s easy if you try.

JULY 22, 2010

It’s been said that a diplomat is a gentleman paid to go abroad and lie for his country. Sometimes, however, diplomats slip up and tell the truth. In response to a question at the hopefully named Aspen Ideas Festival this month, Yousef al-Otaiba, the ambassador from the United Arab Emirates, said bluntly: “We cannot live with a nuclear Iran.”

Al-Otaiba went on to add that, if sanctions fail to stop Iran’s drive for nuclear weapons, military force will be the only option left and it should not be ruled out. “A military attack on Iran by whomever would be a disaster,” he said. “But Iran with a nuclear weapon would be a bigger disaster.”

Abd al-Rahman al-Rashed, director-general of Al-Arabiya TV, followed with an article for the English-language edition of Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, in which he not only agreed with the ambassador, he declared the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran “the most dangerous threat that is facing our region in a hundred years.” He called upon readers to “imagine what Tehran will do when it has nuclear capabilities!”

Al-Rashed then did a little imagining himself: Iran, he said, would soon “dominate . . . and perhaps take over” the Gulf states, the small, wealthy Arab countries so tantalizingly close to its borders.

Such an anschluss would not require tanks or troop deployments. As Ambassador al-Otaiba said at Aspen, the region’s leaders will “start running for cover towards Iran” once it becomes clear that Washington, having said under both the Bush and Obama administrations that it would be “unacceptable” for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, has accepted that after all.

One can only imagine that other nations will draw the conclusion that being America’s enemy is less risky than being America’s friend. The implications for Iraq — where the U.S. has invested so much blood and treasure — are obvious. Imagine you are an Iraqi leader. American troops have departed and the mullahs next door are stockpiling nukes and commanding death squads. What would you do?

In Pakistan, Islamists will advance, while democrats will retreat. That will further complicate matters in Afghanistan, where Iranian interventions (e.g. the supplying of roadside bombs to insurgents) will escalate in an effort to frustrate an already challenging American mission. If America does not respond, Iran wins the battle of Afghanistan. If America does respond — well, since neither the Bush nor the Obama administration responded to Iran’s interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan in the past, there is no basis to imagine a policy change once Iran’s rulers have their fingers on nuclear triggers.

Turkey’s Islamist government already has moved closer to Iran. Syria has long been an Iranian client. Hezbollah, Iran’s terrorist proxy, will be strengthened within Lebanon, within Latin America (where it has been making substantial inroads in recent years), and, of course, along the Israeli-Lebanese border.

In that regard: Four years ago this month, Hezbollah and Israel fought a 34-day war. It ended with U.N. Resolution 1701, which called for Hezbollah’s disarmament, prohibited Hezbollah from acquiring new missiles, and banned the group from operating near the Israeli border. International troops were dispatched to make sure all this happened. It didn’t. Hezbollah has not been disarmed, thousands of new missiles have been imported, and Hezbollah forces go where they like. One has to imagine this is instructive to those who lead vulnerable nations.

Hamas, too, is funded by Iran. Hamas’s leaders have never entertained the possibility of making peace with Israel. With a nuclear Iran supporting them, their bellicosity will increase. By contrast, the Palestinian Authority will become weaker than ever. A Hamas takeover of the West Bank is within the realm of possibility.

Israel will come under further pressure from both Hamas and Hezbollah, and perhaps Fatah as well. Military responses to terrorism and missile strikes will be denounced by Iran. The U.N. will agree. The Europeans will not disagree. The possibility of a direct conflict between Israel and Iran will rise. Could that escalate into a nuclear exchange? As Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis has noted: For those who hold the fanatical religious convictions of a Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, “mutually assured destruction” is not a deterrent — it is an inducement.

Is there a chance that Iran will give nuclear weapons to anti-American terrorists — or attack the Great Satan directly? That is hard to imagine — almost as hard as it was a few years ago to imagine that a stateless terrorist group based in southern Afghanistan would organize the hijacking of passenger jets and use them as missiles to attack Washington and New York.

Jim Woolsey, who served as CIA director under President Clinton, and Rebeccah Heinrichs, an adjunct fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, recently noted: “Iranian military writings show the mullahs recognize the potential” of launching a nuclear-armed missile from a ship near one of our coasts to create an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) that would destroy “the electric grid and electrical systems across a wide swath of U.S. territory.” The result: “unimaginable economic devastation” and tens of thousands of deaths.

At present, we are not building the missile-defense architecture that could prevent such an attack. Nor are we hardening the grid so that it could withstand such an attack. We are choosing to remain vulnerable.

Congress has passed, and President Obama has signed, legislation that would impose crippling sanctions on Iran. The questions now: Will Obama seriously enforce these sanctions? And will the Europeans help or hinder? If sanctions fail, there will be no good choices — only bad choices and worse choices. To figure out which is which will require imagination — more than most Western leaders have demonstrated in recent years.

The article was originally published here.

Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism and Islamism.

13 comments

Exclusive Iranium Clip

Former Ambassador Bolton interviewed about the Iranian nuclear threat for the upcoming movie Iranium. Brought to you by the makers of the critically-acclaimed documentaries "Obsession" and "The Third Jihad."

1 comment

FAQs

Iranium: Frequently Asked Questions

1. Where in the world is Iran?

Iran is situated in the Middle East, between Iraq and Pakistan, and is a southwest Asian country. It strategically

borders the Caspian Sea, the Gulf of Oman, the Persian Gulf, and the Strait of Hormuz.

2. What's the commotion?

The Islamic Republic of Iran, a repressive and uncooperative regime, is aggressively pursuing an illegal nuclear

program.

3. What are Iran’s nuclear capabilities?

There is much we do not know, but what we do know is of great concern. Inspection results from the International

Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are not encouraging. Iran is currently operating numerous advanced and well-

shielded facilities, including the Bushehr reactor, the uranium enrichment facility in Natanz, the recently

uncovered facility in the holy city of Qom, and a heavy water facility in Arak. It is recognized that Iran is in the

final hour of their nuclear weapon development.

4. What's the danger?

Iran has successfully tested the high-altitude burst of ballistic missiles. There is the obvious and unthinkable

damage, radiation, and loss of life that can result from an explosion of a nuclear warhead attached to a far-

reaching ballistic missile. A nuclear attack can be delivered via ground or sea transportation as well. There is

also the possible danger of an EMP (electro-magnetic pulse), known as an e-bomb, which can instantly render

electronic devices within a large radius totally out of commission, wreaking havoc on society and infrastructure.

In addition, a nuclear-armed Iran has intimidation powers and dangerously unsettles a volatile region predisposed

to conflict. It has set off a nuclear arms race as other Middle Eastern countries have already begun acquiring their

own nuclear weapons.

5. Other countries have nuclear capabilities, why is especially dangerous that Iran has them?

Iran is not like a Western country in principle nor rationality. Since the Iranian Islamic Revolution in 1979, the

regime has been sponsoring terror (Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Quds Force) and calling for a world

without its “enemies,” the United States and Israel (the only democratic and the most westernized country in the

Middle East).

6. What part does radical Islam play in this story?

Many within the top echelons of the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution are members of a minority

sect within Shiite Islam known as the Hojjatieh. There is the extreme view that the Hojjatieh can create the

preconditions that will expedite the revelation of their savior, which according to religious scripture, requires

up to two thirds of world population to die (one third by sword and one third by sword). They believe clerics

have a religious duty to dominate all state affairs even before their messianic savior arrives. Hojjatieh possess a

radical, anti-Western worldview and an intense commitment to advance religious causes by all means necessary,

even force. Combining holders of such a philosophy with a nuclear arsenal is a bleak doomsday scenario.

7. What has the world and America been doing about it?

The United Nations has passed four rounds of sanctions against Iran. The fact that there have been repeated

attempts suggests its ineffectuality. Diplomatic negotiations have thus far failed to restrain the Iranian government

that has made a mockery of the international community, insisting its nuclear program is peaceful but making

contradictory announcements each time a new production benchmark is reached.

Iranium: Frequently Asked Questions

1. Where in the world is Iran?

Iran is situated in the Middle East, between Iraq and Pakistan, and is a southwest Asian country. It strategically borders the Caspian Sea, the Gulf of Oman, the Persian Gulf, and the Strait of Hormuz.

2. What's the commotion?

The Islamic Republic of Iran, a repressive and uncooperative regime, is aggressively pursuing an illegal nuclear program.

3. What are Iran’s nuclear capabilities?

There is much we do not know, but what we do know is of great concern. Inspection results from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are not encouraging. Iran is currently operating numerous advanced and well-shielded facilities, including the Bushehr reactor, the uranium enrichment facility in Natanz, the recently uncovered facility in the holy city of Qom, and a heavy water facility in Arak. It is recognized that Iran is in the final hour of their nuclear weapon development.

4. What's the danger?

Iran has successfully tested the high-altitude burst of ballistic missiles. There is the obvious and unthinkable damage, radiation, and loss of life that can result from an explosion of a nuclear warhead attached to a far- reaching ballistic missile. A nuclear attack can be delivered via ground or sea transportation as well. There is also the possible danger of an EMP (electro-magnetic pulse), known as an e-bomb, which can instantly render electronic devices within a large radius totally out of commission, wreaking havoc on society and infrastructure.

In addition, a nuclear-armed Iran has intimidation powers and dangerously unsettles a volatile region predisposed to conflict. It has set off a nuclear arms race as other Middle Eastern countries have already begun acquiring their own nuclear weapons.

5. Other countries have nuclear capabilities, why is especially dangerous that Iran has them?

Iran is not like a Western country in principle nor rationality. Since the Iranian Islamic Revolution in 1979, the regime has been sponsoring terror (Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Quds Force) and calling for a world without its “enemies,” the United States and Israel (the only democratic and the most westernized country in the Middle East).

6. What part does radical Islam play in this story?

Many within the top echelons of the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution are members of a minority sect within Shiite Islam known as the Hojjatieh. There is the extreme view that the Hojjatieh can create the preconditions that will expedite the revelation of their savior, which according to religious scripture, requires up to two thirds of world population to die (one third by sword and one third by plague). They believe clerics have a religious duty to dominate all state affairs even before their messianic savior arrives. Hojjatieh possess a radical, anti-Western worldview and an intense commitment to advance religious causes by all means necessary, even force. Combining holders of such a philosophy with a nuclear arsenal is a bleak doomsday scenario.

7. What has the world and America been doing about it?

The United Nations has passed four rounds of sanctions against Iran. The fact that there have been repeated attempts suggests its ineffectuality. Diplomatic negotiations have thus far failed to restrain the Iranian government that has made a mockery of the international community, insisting its nuclear program is peaceful but making contradictory announcements each time a new production benchmark is reached.

1 comment

Special Clip from The Third Jihad about Europe

Third Jihad Clip about Europe

In this special clip from The Third Jihad you will learn about the growing threat of radical Islam in Europe.

8 comments

Faisal Shahzad, Jihadi, Explains Terrorism

Faisal Shahzad, Jihadi, Explains Terrorism

by Daniel Pipes

National Review Online

June 25, 2010

Jaw-dropping court testimony by Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square bomber, singlehandedly undermines Obama administration efforts to ignore the dangers of Islamism and jihad.

Shahzad's forthright statement of purpose stands out because jihadis, when facing legal charges, typically save their skin by pleading not guilty or plea bargaining. Consider a few examples:

Naveed Haq, who assaulted the Jewish Federation building in Seattle, pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.
Lee Malvo, one of the Beltway Snipers, explained that "one reason for the shootings was that white people had tried to harm Louis Farrakhan." His partner John Allen Muhammad claimed his innocence to the death chamber.
Hasan Akbar killed two fellow American soldiers as they slept in a military compound, then told the court ""I want to apologize for the attack that occurred. I felt that my life was in jeopardy, and I had no other options. I also want to ask you for forgiveness."
Mohammed Taheri-azar, who tried to kill students on the University of North Carolina by running over them in a car and issued a series of jihadi rants against the United States, later experienced a change of heart, announced himself "very sorry" for the crimes he committed, and asked for release so that he can "re-establish myself as a good, caring and productive member of society" in California.

These efforts fit a broader pattern of Islamist mendacity; rarely does a jihadi stand on principle. Zacarias Moussaoui, 9/11's would-be twentieth hijacker, came close: his court proceedings began with his refusing to enter a plea (which the presiding judge translated into "not guilty") and then, one fine day, pleading guilty to all charges.

Shahzad, 30, acted in an exceptional manner during his appearance in a New York City federal court on June 21. His answers to Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum's many inquisitive questions ("And where was the bomb?" "What did you do with the gun?") offered a dizzying mix of deference and contempt. On the one hand, he politely, calmly, patiently, fully, and informatively answered about his actions. On the other, he in the same voice justified his attempt at cold-blooded mass murder.

The judge asked Shahzad after he announced an intent to plead guilty to all ten counts of his indictment, "Why do you want to plead guilty?" a reasonable question given the near certainty that guilty pleas will keep him in for long years in jail. He replied:

I want to plead guilty and I'm going to plead guilty a hundred times forward because – until the hour the U.S. pulls it forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and stops the drone strikes in Somalia and Yemen and in Pakistan and stops the occupation of Muslim lands and stops killing the Muslims and stops reporting the Muslims to its government – we will be attacking [the] U.S., and I plead guilty to that.

Shahzad insisted on portraying himself as replying to American actions: "I am part of the answer to the U.S. terrorizing [of] the Muslim nations and the Muslim people, and on behalf of that, I'm avenging the attacks," adding that "We Muslims are one community." Nor was that all; he flatly asserted that his goal had been to damage buildings and "injure people or kill people" because "one has to understand where I'm coming from, because … I consider myself a mujahid, a Muslim soldier."

When Cedarbaum pointed out that pedestrians in Times Square during the early evening of May first were not attacking Muslims, Shahzad replied: "Well, the [American] people select the government. We consider them all the same." His comment reflects not just that American citizens are responsible for their democratically elected government but also the Islamist view that, by definition, infidels cannot be innocents.

However abhorrent, this tirade does have the virtue of truthfulness. Shahzad's willingness to name his Islamic purposes and spend long years in jail for them flies in the face of Obama administration efforts not to name Islamism as the enemy, preferring such lame formulations as "overseas contingency operations" and "man-caused disasters."

Americans – as well as Westerners generally, all non-Muslims, and anti-Islamist Muslims – should listen to the bald declaration by Faisal Shahzad and accept the painful fact that Islamist anger and aspirations truly do motivate their terrorist enemies. Ignoring this fact will not make it disappear.

Mr. Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.

This article was originally published here.

8 comments

Die Hard World Cup Fans in Somalia

Die Hard World Cup Fans in Somalia

This week we saw the launch of the World Cup. The World Cup is basically the Olympics for soccer and it is the most widely viewed sporting event in the world. Fans around the world have been waiting four years to witness this monumental sporting event. Cheering on teams from countries around the world, the World Cup provides nations with the opportunity to express nationalism and patriotism while engaging in healthy competition.

Recently in Somalia, radical Islamists have gained control and imposed extremely strict rule that is unparalleled in the West. This week, two soccer fans were shot dead solely because they were watching a game, by the hands of Islamist militants from the rebel group, Hezbal Islam. Their house was stormed and fire was opened, two were immediately executed and 10 others arrested. Another local militia group al Shabaab, which has been recruiting Americans recently has banned the viewing of the World Cup, as they deem it "un-Islamic."

But what does the World Cup represent? Peace, perhaps? Doesn't it include friendly competition that extends beyond conflicts between borders and religions? Apparently people in Somalia should be raising arms against the government to support al Shabaab instead of wasting time watching a game. But is this reason to murder?

This is as clear of an example as any that radical Muslims will not be reasoned with. The group routinely bans music and dancing, and now with sports, basically all fun is prohibited.

It is said that the two victims had broken a law. What happens when the world ceases to live by a set of laws that are universally acceptable? With the increasing popularity of Shariah law in different enclaves in places like France or even regions of the United States, how can we uphold universal rights? The right to watch a sports game without fear of death is something that everybody should agree to. But clearly they don't.

Is it not the responsibility of bodies like the United Nations to implement human rights laws that stress across the globe? Is there no organization that can say as soon as Shariah law impinges on the health and safety of human beings it is unacceptable? As long as we continue to witness sports fans murdered, honor killings and child brides we have a problem. And so far it looks like that problem is Shariah law.

This is as clear of an example as any that radical Muslims will not be reasoned with. The group routinely bans music and dancing, and now with sports, basically all fun is prohibited.

Click here to read about a personal story about a radicalized Somali American.

1 comment

Over 900 People Arrested in Tehran on June 12

Over 900 People Arrested in Tehran on June 12

This article was originally posted on Planet Iran.

June 13, 2010

According to Human Right Activists News Agency (HRANA), Over 900 people were arrested on the one year anniversary of protests against the fraudulent Iranian Presidential election.

According to HRANA reporters, at least 300 of the detainees are women and their families are unaware of their situation.

Security forces prevented gatherings by families of the detainees by closing “Shohada ye Jandarmery” and “Kargar Jonoubi” intersections located in front of the Tehran police headquarters.

It is worth mentioning that so far the family of at least 15 women detainees who did not have identification cards at hand were asked to submit their documents. The families of the male detainees were told by authorities to refer to the security police office today to inquire on the situation of their loved ones.

This morning at 2:00am, 30 detainees ranging from 20-25 years old were driven with a van to Enghelab Square and released there.

June 13, 2010

According to Human Right Activists News Agency (HRANA), Over 900 people were arrested on the one year anniversary of protests against the fraudulent Iranian Presidential election.

According to HRANA reporters, at least 300 of the detainees are women and their families are unaware of their situation.

Security forces prevented gatherings by families of the detainees by closing “Shohada ye Jandarmery” and “Kargar Jonoubi” intersections located in front of the Tehran police headquarters.

This morning at 2:00am, 30 detainees ranging from 20-25 years old were driven with a van to Enghelab Square and released there.

Click here to read the original article on Planet Iran.

Learn more about the threat of a nuclear Iran and what Clarion Fund is doing to raise awareness.

What is clear is that on the Iranian front, there is never a dull moment. How do you think the next year will play out? Any predictions? Discuss below!