Aug 14, 2006

Who Self-Fulfills Whose Prophecy First?

Here's a truly creepy piece. It's not creepy because we believe in any promises of prophecy per se, such as those suggestively presented by Joel Rosenberg below. Of course when employed as an action plan by zealots or cynics pandering to frothing snake kissing cretins, prophesy can take on certain aspects of relevance in the domain of politics. Otherwise, it is best left to the coddlings of the Taleban, Mormons, and full-service bookies. I'm certain Steve Forbes and his fortune would agree.

Joel's piece is creepy because he, with flaccid Limbaughesque authority, embarks on a rigorously opportunistic treatment of prophetic claims that he perfectly twists to either suggest the wisdom of a preemptive strike on Iran or, and much more likely so, aid in setting up the dramaturgic framework with which we are to interpret developments should we launch a pretexting false flag operation designed to provide casus belli and wag us justifiably into war as Iran is made to appear as if they were first strike hasteners of prophecy.

God forbid Hannitized Joe ain't just up to wishful and quixotic speculation as usual but is indeed a contracted stagehand tasked to pen a provocative piece that conditions the audience to swallow a narrative and its leading plot points that lie in pregnant wait to be unleashed upon us and Iran.

Suffice it to say, Iran can't touch us unless we reach out and touch Iran first. Iranian President Mahmoud Chad Ahmadinejad knows that all too well, despite his dismal taste in cardigans and hair cuts. Chad might secretly jerk off in the presidential john while listening to pirated Britney Spear's ballads and leafing through confiscated back issues of Stern, but he isn't insane or irrational. Rochau's Realpolitik translates quite nicely into the Farsi of this particular Islamist and he has shown ample proof of that to date.

So the question begs to be asked, "Does your handler pay better than Tyndale House or Hannity, Joel baby?"

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”).

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) [Oh really?!] actually trying to bring about the end of the world by launching a nuclear attack to destroy millions of Jews and Christians.

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”?

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?

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.

A Jumbled And Tumbled Excerpt Of An Article By Joel Rosenberg For The National Review

Joel C. Rosenberg
, a one-time aide to former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Deputy Prime Minister Natan Sharansky, is a New York Times best-selling author of Middle East-based political thrillers.

As a communications strategist, Mr. Rosenberg has helped clients in national political campaigns, political conventions, economic conferences and the Middle East Peace Summit at Camp David.


Anonymous said...

There is only one prudent course of action.

The U.S. must strike Iran first.

If there is even a "one-percent-chance" that the story is true, we must act as if it is a certainty.

Meatball One said...

Well then, OK.

Meatball One said...

BTW, why be risk tolerant at all and draw the line at a loft 1 per cent? Why not 0.5 per cent. And while we're at it, how does one calculate these percentages - and are they to be weighed against other sources of risk?

Let me in on the science behind the spin of the one per cent doctrine.

Anonymous said...

Its the operative calculus in national security circles in Washington.

In November, 2001, Suskind writes, Vice-President Dick Cheney announced that if there was "a one percent chance" that a threat was real "we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response."

Meatball One said...

Thanks. Yes I am familiar with Suskind's revelation.

However calling it a calculus is rather brave if not misrepresentational.

I read the "1 per cent chance" silliness as Cheney's brainstorm baby. It was a brilliant sales pitch slogan to employ to justufy and sell an agenda based on much more realistic assessments and goals...namely the aggressive pursuit of markets with might.

An in fact, I know that this is the ontology of the his "doctrine". It was his brilliant way out, devising a Jack Baueresque rationale to pitch as cover for their much more practical, albeit revolutionary in approach per extreme reliance on violence and coercion, goals.

Dude, I've on occassion crossed his path in informal and business settings. I hunt with boys in that crowd. I attend BBQs when they bring along their butt ugly wives.

And anyways, the 1 per cent doctrine, if taken seriously, would ruin the nation and the world. We obviously live in a reality of limited resources and betting on 1% horses will ruin a man and a country. You can't chase 1% threats for long before you're bled dry. (But perhaps that's the best they can do with the intelligence these hucksters produce.)

1 % doctrine - dude, can't you differentiate between a successful businessman's sales pitch and real national security doctrine? That's babytalk tuff shit for the likes of Segal and van Dam to utter. Dick ain't dumb. He suckered you.