• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Light Up the Sky

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Inactive
Reaction score
63
Points
530
Article by Army LTC Cucullu suggesting that we shouldnt wait for Iran to strike. Through its proxies in Lebanon and Iraq Iran has waged war against the US and Israel on two fronts. Our response in Iraq should be to utterly destroy the Sadr militia and arrest Sadr himself or kill him. As to Iran I am not ready to advocate launching an air campaig against it, yet. Their support of Hizbollah is very dangerous and at the very least we need to interdict the resupply of missiles through Syria.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23578
 
This is a very unique situation,  Iran I believe has been experimenting with uranium enrichment for use in power plants.  Now I'm not too sure what happened with that little bit excitement but we all know that enriched uranium will do as weapons grade.  The people over there have to concider that Iran knows that: if they "[illuminate the] the night sky over Jerusalem to rival the one that greeted the Prophet of Islam on his journey," then it is difficult to imagine anything other than a full-scale Iranian nuclear attack." they are risking tactical nuclear strikes on their home soil.  We'll just have to hold our breath, along with billions of other people that the "Illumination of the night sky" is nothing more than a really elaborate fireworks display.

Here's hoping no one does anything stupid.

I totally agree with you on the fact that Hezbollah's supply of missiles needs to be cut off.

Cheers :cheers:
 
GaelicSoldier said:
The people over there have to concider that Iran knows that: if they "[illuminate the] the night sky over Jerusalem to rival the one that greeted the Prophet of Islam on his journey," then it is difficult to imagine anything other than a full-scale Iranian nuclear attack." they are risking tactical nuclear strikes on their home soil. 

Maybe it's just a misunderstanding, but I doubt the response to any Iranian nuclear attack would be anything short of a full-scale strategic retaliation, the kind of which was expected during the Cold War should the Russkies attack the West. Nothing tactical about it.

I do think the situation in Lebanon will spiral out of control shortly unless an agreement is reached--which won't likely happen, thanks to Iran and Syria. I find it rather funny that the same community that claims we need to "stop this whole thing immediately," suddenly refuses when an agreement seems to be on it's way. I guess it just goes to show what they really want.
 
The leaders of Iran evidently think that a nuclear war will not only destroy Israel but also in the 12th Imam.If thats the case then the problems in the ME will not be resolved through diplomacy. Our EU friends have tried this tack in negotiating over their nuclear program for 3 years. The Iranians are definitely stalling. The current crisis in Lebanon is of their making. What is Iran's purpose do you suppose ? Distract the west ? Open a new front ? Rally the arab world ? Set the stage for the 12th Imam ?
 
tomahawk6 said:
What is Iran's purpose do you suppose ? Distract the west ? Open a new front ? Rally the arab world ? Set the stage for the 12th Imam ?

All of the above?

Let's study each point on it's own:

Distracting the West.

The West has been pushing Iran harder and harder so they would give up their nuclear plans. By engineering a conflict elsewhere in the region, it forces the West, particularly the US, to focus on something else, allowing Iran a little more leeway. The increased time and decreased diplomatic pressure could work both ways: with more "space," Iran might get less aggressive and be more open to negociations down the road—on the other hand, Iran might see the decreased pressure and international attention as an invitation to ramping up it's campaign. It also might let Russia, which wants to "pay back" the percieved encroachment of NATO on what it sees as it's rightful sphere of influence, negociate with Iran to provide materials, equipment and expertise in exchange for cooperation against NATO and, specifically, the US. I hate to quote movies in serious contexts, but as Captain Ramsey says in Crimson Tide, "we can count on the Russians to act in their own best interests." By forcing the West to focus on Lebanon and Iran, Russia assumes it can prevent NATO from expanding further towards it's borders.

I'm not saying the crisis in Lebanon was engineered by Russia, but Iran's behaviour is playing into the Russians' hands.

Opening a new front

As we know, Iran is already interfering with US-led operations in Iraq. We also know that US troop capabilities are fast approaching their limit. Putting two and two together, we can easily see that by opening a new front, Iran reduces the threat to it’s own territory—the US can’t invade if it does not have the troops—and also helps the insurgency in Iraq—the US has to keep troops ready in case the situation around Israel degenerates and it has to intervene.

Iran wants to survive, like any country in the world. They know the US will not accept their behaviour for much longer, and they also know the US could easily move troops currently fighting in Iraq into Iran if Iraq became pacified—which is the reason for keeping that front open—however, they know limited operations would be possible if the US did not have to keep troops available for other fronts, real or perceived.

What all that means is that by having a prolonged war in Lebanon, Iran is buying itself time.

Rallying the Arab world

This is another rather easy question to answer, if we don’t look into the particulars. It is also tied to distracting the West and opening a new front.

Iran is undoubtedly helping Hezbollah in dispersing propaganda against Israel and the West. By showing “atrocities,” Iran makes Israel look bad and can convince moderate Muslims that Jews—and by extension, the West—hate Muslims.

This can cause grassroots terrorism in Western countries, increasingly violent demonstrations, (we haven’t seen much violence yet, I’ll admit) and various diplomatic nightmares the West will have to deal with. All this has the same aim as the two previous objectives: buying Iran time to prepare to fight against the US.

Setting the stage for the 12th Imam

I’ll avoid touching this one for now, because I don’t know nearly as much as I’d like to about the idea of the 12th Imam, but I’d say it’s likely a reason for Iran to get involved and to try and stir things up as much as possible.


In retrospect, Iran just wants to preserve it's own interests—it does not care about Lebanon or Syria or the Palestinians. The more time Iran can buy, the less likely a US invasion becomes, and an invasion is exactly what Iran wants to avoid, quite obviously.
 
The US does not need to invade Iran, a "headshot" to decapitate the leadership and Revolutionary Guard will suffice. The long term results of this sort of action are not predictable, but it will prrovide the West with some breathing space, since the Hezbollah and the various other "insurgencies" will be deprived of leadership, money and logistical support for the short term. (Of course the Ba'athists or Wahhabi's could attempt to pick up the pieces as well).

BTW, a headshot can be achieved without our "lighting up the sky".
 
While I agree the US doesn't necessarily need to invade Iran, I'm going to disagree over the "headshot" idea you proposed.

There is a whole structure in Iran, based on the various religious leaders, of which Ahmadinejad is only a figurehead. Besides, like with Syria, the US probably will be better off with "the devil they know" vice "the devil they don't know." Ahmadinejad is crazy, but at least we know just how crazy he is. If we take him out, who knows what personality the next leader will have.

Yes, killing off Iran's leadership would be productive in the short term, but in the long term it could make things a lot more difficult. Also, you have to think of the consequences outside of Iran. How do you think the Arab world would react to the US decapitating a country? It wouldn't be pretty, and would probably be worse than leaving Iran as it is. I'm also not quite certain how easy this would be--it would undoubtedly require less troops than a full invasion and could possibly even be done mostly through bombing, but the operational planning would be insanely complicated. (Mind you, I don't know that for certain, but it seems logical.)

I definately hope we don't end up having to light up the sky.
 
Any "decapitation" or such thing that is going to change the major motivators of the Arab world, is going to have to come from within. I don't know how, but I think changes will come.
 
GAP said:
Any "decapitation" or such thing that is going to change the major motivators of the Arab world, is going to have to come from within. I don't know how, but I think changes will come.

On a lighter note, they do practice public execution by beheading in some countries in the ME.  Maybe we'll get some help that way.

The above is post is for humor only.

Cheers :cheers:
 
The following article provides some insight into President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's - and the "Twelver" sect's - possible religious motivations in this conflict:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/14/wiran14.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/14/ixworld.html

Divine mission' driving Iran's new leader
By Anton La Guardia


(Filed: 14/01/2006)



As Iran rushes towards confrontation with the world over its nuclear programme, the question uppermost in the mind of western leaders is "What is moving its President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to such recklessness?"

Political analysts point to the fact that Iran feels strong because of high oil prices, while America has been weakened by the insurgency in Iraq.

But listen carefully to the utterances of Mr Ahmadinejad - recently described by President George W Bush as an "odd man" - and there is another dimension, a religious messianism that, some suspect, is giving the Iranian leader a dangerous sense of divine mission.

In November, the country was startled by a video showing Mr Ahmadinejad telling a cleric that he had felt the hand of God entrancing world leaders as he delivered a speech to the UN General Assembly last September.

When an aircraft crashed in Teheran last month, killing 108 people, Mr Ahmadinejad promised an investigation. But he also thanked the dead, saying: "What is important is that they have shown the way to martyrdom which we must follow."

The most remarkable aspect of Mr Ahmadinejad's piety is his devotion to the Hidden Imam, the Messiah-like figure of Shia Islam, and the president's belief that his government must prepare the country for his return.

One of the first acts of Mr Ahmadinejad's government was to donate about £10 million to the Jamkaran mosque, a popular pilgrimage site where the pious come to drop messages to the Hidden Imam into a holy well.

All streams of Islam believe in a divine saviour, known as the Mahdi, who will appear at the End of Days. A common rumour - denied by the government but widely believed - is that Mr Ahmadinejad and his cabinet have signed a "contract" pledging themselves to work for the return of the Mahdi and sent it to Jamkaran.

Iran's dominant "Twelver" sect believes this will be Mohammed ibn Hasan, regarded as the 12th Imam, or righteous descendant of the Prophet Mohammad.

He is said to have gone into "occlusion" in the ninth century, at the age of five. His return will be preceded by cosmic chaos, war and bloodshed. After a cataclysmic confrontation with evil and darkness, the Mahdi will lead the world to an era of universal peace.

This is similar to the Christian vision of the Apocalypse. Indeed, the Hidden Imam is expected to return in the company of Jesus.

Mr Ahmadinejad appears to believe that these events are close at hand and that ordinary mortals can influence the divine timetable.

The prospect of such a man obtaining nuclear weapons is worrying. The unspoken question is this: is Mr Ahmadinejad now tempting a clash with the West because he feels safe in the belief of the imminent return of the Hidden Imam? Worse, might he be trying to provoke chaos in the hope of hastening his reappearance?

The 49-year-old Mr Ahmadinejad, a former top engineering student, member of the Revolutionary Guards and mayor of Teheran, overturned Iranian politics after unexpectedly winning last June's presidential elections.

The main rift is no longer between "reformists" and "hardliners", but between the clerical establishment and Mr Ahmadinejad's brand of revolutionary populism and superstition.

Its most remarkable manifestation came with Mr Ahmadinejad's international debut, his speech to the United Nations.

World leaders had expected a conciliatory proposal to defuse the nuclear crisis after Teheran had restarted another part of its nuclear programme in August.

Instead, they heard the president speak in apocalyptic terms of Iran struggling against an evil West that sought to promote "state terrorism", impose "the logic of the dark ages" and divide the world into "light and dark countries".

The speech ended with the messianic appeal to God to "hasten the emergence of your last repository, the Promised One, that perfect and pure human being, the one that will fill this world with justice and peace".

In a video distributed by an Iranian web site in November, Mr Ahmadinejad described how one of his Iranian colleagues had claimed to have seen a glow of light around the president as he began his speech to the UN.

"I felt it myself too," Mr Ahmadinejad recounts. "I felt that all of a sudden the atmosphere changed there. And for 27-28 minutes all the leaders did not blink…It's not an exaggeration, because I was looking.

"They were astonished, as if a hand held them there and made them sit. It had opened their eyes and ears for the message of the Islamic Republic."

Western officials said the real reason for any open-eyed stares from delegates was that "they couldn't believe what they were hearing from Ahmadinejad".

Their sneaking suspicion is that Iran's president actually relishes a clash with the West in the conviction that it would rekindle the spirit of the Islamic revolution and - who knows - speed up the arrival of the Hidden Imam.

 
I am glad to see religion brought in the ME debate. Indeed, religion is the root cause for war in Palestine.

Now, about lighting up the sky, the Shia know it is coming, but in the wrong country. From the Wikipedia page on the Mahdi:

The 6th Shi'a Imam, Jafar al-Sadiq, is reported to have said:
"Before the appearance of the one who will rise, peace be upon him, the people will be reprimanded for their acts of disobedience by a fire that will appear in the sky and a redness that will cover the sky. It will swallow up Baghdad, and will swallow up Kufa. Their blood will be shed and houses destroyed. Death will occur amid their people and a fear will come over the people of Iraq from which they shall have no rest."


A note for Christians: depending on the Muslim source, the Immam Mahdi will appear soon before the second coming of Jesus, will fight alongside him against the antichrist, or is Jesus himself. This is incompatible with prophecies in the Hebrew Bible and the Gospel stating that Jesus (the Messiah) will come back to save the nation of Israel from destruction (by who else but Muslims?).
 
joaquim said:
I am glad to see religion brought in the ME debate. Indeed, religion is the root cause for war in Palestine.

Now, about lighting up the sky, the Shia know it is coming, but in the wrong country. From the Wikipedia page on the Mahdi:

The 6th Shi'a Imam, Jafar al-Sadiq, is reported to have said:
"Before the appearance of the one who will rise, peace be upon him, the people will be reprimanded for their acts of disobedience by a fire that will appear in the sky and a redness that will cover the sky. It will swallow up Baghdad, and will swallow up Kufa. Their blood will be shed and houses destroyed. Death will occur amid their people and a fear will come over the people of Iraq from which they shall have no rest."


A note for Christians: depending on the Muslim source, the Immam Mahdi will appear soon before the second coming of Jesus, will fight alongside him against the antichrist, or is Jesus himself. This is incompatible with prophecies in the Hebrew Bible and the Gospel stating that Jesus (the Messiah) will come back to save the nation of Israel from destruction (by who else but Muslims?).
I don't even know where to start with this... ::)
 
AH!......Yet another wikipedia quote.  Should we file that away in Radio Chatter with the other Wiki posts?
 
From the Wall Street Journal....

WSJ: Scholar Warns Iran's Ahmadinejad May Have 'Cataclysmic Events' In Mind For August 22
Tue Aug 08 2006 10:22:35 ET

In a WALL STREET JOURNAL op-ed Tuesday, Princeton's Bernard Lewis writes: "There is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other governments with nuclear weapons. This difference is expressed in what can only be described as the apocalyptic worldview of Iran's present rulers."

"In Islam as in Judaism and Christianity, there are certain beliefs concerning the cosmic struggle at the end of time -- Gog and Magog, anti-Christ, Armageddon, and for Shiite Muslims, the long awaited return of the Hidden Imam, ending in the final victory of the forces of good over evil, however these may be defined."

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "and his followers clearly believe that this time is now, and that the terminal struggle has already begun and is indeed well advanced. It may even have a date, indicated by several references by the Iranian president to giving his final answer to the US about nuclear development by Aug. 22," which this year corresponds "to the 27th day of the month of Rajab of the year 1427. This, by tradition, is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to 'the farthest mosque,' usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back (c.f., Koran XVII.1).

"This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world. It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind."

Developing...
 
Since we're discussing religion and its implications on foreign policy in the Middle East, let's not forget that it comes from both sides, as the article I posted here highlights:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/47607.285.html

The Christian right is also solidly behind Israel. White evangelicals are significantly more pro-Israeli than Americans in general; more than half of them say they strongly sympathise with Israel. (A third of the Americans who claim sympathy with Israel say that this stems from their religious beliefs.) Two in five Americans believe that Israel was given to the Jewish people by God, and one in three say that the creation of the state of Israel was a step towards the Second Coming.
 
Hehe both sides are only doing what they think God wants. ::)
 
Killing for a God that tells you to love everybody.  ::)  Religion is the only subject on which I whole-heartedly agree with Messrs Marx undt Engels.
 
Alot of wars have been fought through the centuries in the name of one god or another.
 
tomahawk6 said:
Alot of wars have been fought through the centuries in the name of one god or another.
there've been a lot of idiots throughout history
 
Well, August the 22nd should prove to be an interesting day.  Does Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad go wacko and nuke the place or does he have some other plan up his sleeve?
 
Back
Top