Posted on

Why Mehdi is correct.

Mehdi Hasan penned an interesting article yesterday about the perfectly reasonable thought processes percolating through the minds of the Iranian leadership (and indeed its populace) as regards the nuclear issue.  No doubt for western readers baby fed the Iranian Nuclear Bogeyman line that the MSM has been pushing now for decades,  Mehdi’s title is rather provocative.

But it is only that way, if you are ignorant of the realities of the region and indeed Iran’s history, which is a history that involves suffering a CIA backed coup and a devastating war bankrolled by the US, all within living memory.  Also as Mehdi highlights, the fate of non-nuclear regimes in the region isn’t exactly an advertisement for the benefits of lacking such a deterrent.

This very simple and understandable thought process, that there’s less chance of your state being aggressively attacked by another/others if you have a nuclear deterrent in your hip pocket, appears to have escaped the rather rudimentary thought processes of some of Mehdi’s critics on Twitter.  In particular this rather snide remark from a guy named Luke Bozier, who takes dodgy photos of Labour Leader Ed Miliband at the Labour Friends of Israel shindig

Apparently Nuclear deterrence is an irrational ambition

I have asked Mr Bozier on twitter, to explain his rationale here – alas to no avail.  He also tweeted that it would be good if Mehdi ‘just buggered off to Tehran’ – would he have made this remark toward a white British person?  Other, shall we say, more experienced commentators take a differing view from Mr Bozier, a view its difficult to argue with…

1. Iran’s efforts are not irrational. America invaded Iran’s western and eastern neighbors in quick succession, while putting Iran on notice that it, too, was on the list of George W. Bush’s “Axis of Evil.” Decades of history tell Tehran: Get the Bomb, and the U.S. will never invade. Iran’s logic here is unassailable.

To clarify, nowhere in his article does Mehdi support or endorse Iran joining the nuclear club, but to highlight the perfectly reasonable thinking behind Iran’s considerations is not a crime, nor is it wrong.  Indeed Iran getting the bomb is viewed by some as the more reasonable and rational outcome compared to the alternatives being considered.

Who is at fault however, are those people who claim Mehdi has done something wrong here…like our Mr Bozier.

Update* – As Ramzi points out below, a top Israeli official can even bring himself to acknowledge the logic behind Iran’s Nuclear ambitions.


4 responses to “Why Mehdi is correct.

  1. Ramzi Nohra ⋅

    Indeed. In fact Ehud Barack said in an interview a few days he understood why Iran would want the bomb. So what Mehdi was saying was hardly bat-shit crazy.

  2. Dan ⋅

    I don’t see a nuclear armed Iran as a threat or a reason to intervene; if the DPRK can be contained and hasn’t struck south Korea clearly the hysteria is overblown but to support a regime’s nuclear program because theocrats are stressed is obscene. First your claim about the events of 1953 are inaccurate, the shah had been in power since the 40s he had every right to dismiss Mossadegh whose removal was supported by the clergy and the middle class, thus the predecessors of the IRI were anti-Mossadegh. So the CIA and MI6 merely supported what the clergy, the shah and the middle class wanted, the idea of the CIA overthrowing Mossadegh is a fantasy, the events of 1953 mainly benefited British, not American, interests. Besides the IRI persecuted followers of Mossadegh, so that myth is very stupid to say the least.

    The war was not “bankrolled” by the US, Saddam’s weapons “came overwhelmingly from the Soviet Union & other Soviet Bloc countries (69% during this period), followed by France (13%) and China (12%) and a string of smaller suppliers. (For example, according to a 1984 SIPRI report, “During 1982-83, Iraq accounted for 40% of total French arms exports.”) The figure for the US is 1%.”

    One could argue that any goal for a nuke is rational and not a threat but to support the regime’s goals due to a false narrative is silly especially since Iran is a heavily anti-Arab state. Surely if you support the Palestinians you support the Ahwazi Arabs?

    • repstones

      I think any decent person would object to a constitutional monarch removing their nations democratically elected leader, in order to serve the interests of the clergy/middle class and foreign powers, and that monarch becoming an authoritarian one. You don’t, fair enough. Mossadeq nationalised Iran’s oil by near unanimous vote in Iran’s parliament.
      Your claim of the CIA overthrowing Mossadeq as a fantasy, is itself a fantasy.

      And the coup may have benefited Britain more directly (financially) but the US had its eye on the USSR as well and would do anything to prevent the spread of communism in such a strategically vital region.
      Also the war was indeed bankrolled by the US, which includes lots of things aside from weapons, which you rely on to try and refute this fact.

      Did you even click on the links?

      • Dan ⋅

        So because I’m not in tears over something that happened in the 50s I’m not a decent person? What a crock. Sure the CIA had a role but my point was that to hear most people tell it you’d think that a few CIA agents entered and outed Mossagedh in a matter of days; it would be accurate to describe them as taking the side of Iran’s head of state, clergy and middle class during a crisis. Iran was not a democracy but a monarchy thus Mossadegh’s overthrow was not illegal the shah had every right to dismiss him, the Shah was not installed by the CIA or MI6 apologists who use the ‘coup’ card apparently don’t even know the basis about the head of state at the time.

        “And the coup may have benefited Britain more directly (financially) but the US had its eye on the USSR as well and would do anything to prevent the spread of communism in such a strategically vital region.”

        So? Anti-communism was a key component of the IRI’s ideology; they probably killed more socialists than Franco.

        “Also the war was indeed bankrolled by the US, which includes lots of things aside from weapons, which you rely on to try and refute this fact.”

        Ah wikipedia how cute actually most of saddam’s funding came from gulf states, in billions to be precise the “the US role was relatively minor.” As weintraub points out “everyone else that just about the whole world more or less actively backed Saddam Hussein (and let him get away with anything, including massive war crimes and a other crimes against humanity). I mean almost everybody–the Soviet Union, the EU countries, the Arab world, India, China, etc., etc. Turning a blind eye to Saddam Hussein’s crimes was justified in the name of “realism” (by the same people who later condemned the 2003 Iraq war on the same grounds), but it turned out to be closer to what C. Wright Mills called “crackpot realism.””

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s