Home  |  About Us  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy policy  |  Site map

« Centanni-Wiig Kidnappers: What Do They Want? Competing Theories | Main | Iran's Ties with ElBaradei »


August 25, 2006

Former Israeli Security Advisor: ''Ahmadinejad would 'sacrifice half of Iran' to wipe out Israel'

AhMADinejad.jpgGiora Eiland, Israel's former national security adviser, told The Jerusalem Post today that Ahmadinejad would "sacrifice half of Iran" for the sake of eliminating Israel:

... At present, Eiland stressed, the ultimate decision maker in Iran was Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, 67, whom he said was "more reasonable." But, Eiland went on, "if Ahmadinejad were to succeed him - and he has a reasonable chance of doing so - then we'd be in a highly dangerous situation."

... The 49-year-old Iranian president, he said, "has a religious conviction that Israel's demise is essential to the restoration of Muslim glory, that the Zionist thorn in the heart of the Islamic nations must be removed. And he will pay almost any price to right the perceived historic wrong. If he becomes the supreme leader and has a nuclear capability, that's a real threat."

... In facing up to Iran's nuclear ambitions, Eiland said the United States had three possible courses of action, "all of them bad," and that a decision could not be postponed for too long, "since delay, too, is a decision of sorts."

... The first option was "to give up" - to accept that Iran was going nuclear and try to make the best of it.

... Washington's second option was to launch a last-ditch effort at diplomatic action.

... The third option, said Eiland, was a military operation - born of the sense that the diplomatic process would not work and that there could be no compromise with an axis-of-evil power.

Eiland's warning brings to mind Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's "sixth option" for Israel regarding the recent conflict in Lebanon, an option that is rapidly becoming the only option left for Israel and the West:
The sixth option was to re-establish deterrence by striking Hezbollah's suppliers and patrons, Syria and Iran. Neither country wishes a war with militarily superior Israel (Syria's sabre-rattling notwithstanding). If Hezbollah's missiles into Israel produced Israeli retaliation against Syria, and possibly Iran (including its nuclear production sites), then Syria and Iran would be compelled to force Hezbollah to stop. Obviously, this was a last-ditch strategic option that was unattractive and carried its own risks. It would escalate the conflict enormously, as well as the international pressure on Israel to desist. This option, however, had the virtue of being the likeliest to re-establish the deterrence critical to Israel's long-term survival and, perhaps counterintuitively, stability in the region, by demonstrating Israel's enduring power of compellence. And it might have prevented the otherwise certain widespread devastation of Lebanon.
Any way you look at it and whatever number you want to give it, be it Eilands 3rd option or Goldhagen's 6th option, Israel and the U.S. have only one option, and the time to make a decision is, as pointed out by Eiland, six months or twelve months from now is going to be too late - and Ahmadinejad will have his Armageddon that he so desparately seeks.

The U.S. intelligence agencies are being far too conservative, and they are wrong. Ahmadinejad is accelerating Iran's develpment program and it is fully in the hands of the Republican Guards. It is not peaceful use of nucear technology that Iran is interested it - it is racing toward the development, and then thewide dissemination to terrorist groups - atomic bombs.

Again: Six to twelve months is too late. The West can't fall for the "Iran's bomb is years out" scenario. World War III could be imminent, less we act very soon and extremely forcefully. We have in Ahmadinejad and the mullahs, radical religious ideologues who would not hesitate to sacrifice much if not all of Iran, in order to destroy Israel and the West. Mutually Assured Destruction doesn't apply here - these people seek an Islamic caliphate, or death. Either way, for them it's win in both cases.

Related:
On August 13, 2006 Ahmadinejad declared, "If you want to have good relations with the Iranian people in the future, you should acknowledge the right and the might of the Iranian people, and you should bow and surrender to the might of the Iranian people. If you do not accept this, the Iranian people will force you to bow and surrender."

Thomas Sowell's piece at Real Clear Politics when he asked if we're approaching the point of no return.

Cross posted from Hyscience



Posted by Richard at August 25, 2006 10:54 AM





Helpful Sites