Iran isn't the big, bad nuclear wolf it pretends to be

[Dover]

Iran isn't the big, bad nuclear wolf it pretends to be
By THOMAS M.P. BARNETT
January 11, 2007

Americans too often swallow enemy propaganda at face value, subjecting us to knee-jerking manipulation by fiery orators. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, with a few choice phrases, successfully elevates himself to the status of a Muslim "Hitler." But this populist windbag is already losing his grip in Tehran, giving Washington a strategic opportunity we don't yet appreciate.

While American neocons and Israeli hawks would bomb Iran today lest it continue enriching uranium, try viewing the situation less emotionally.

First, credible estimates say Iran won't field any nuclear missiles for several years. If and when such a time comes, Tehran will be no more difficult to deter with the threat of massive retaliation - as in, "wiping off the map" - than anybody else in history. Nuclear-armed Israel, backed up by ever-present America, faces no more strategic risk than Western Europe did during the Cold War.

Extrapolating suicidal nations from suicide bombers is compelling rhetoric, but unsupported by history, which says two-sided nuclear standoffs are inherently more stable than one-sided superiority (Israel's current advantage). As for sharing technology with bad actors, that's far more likely if Iran remains an unrecognized nuclear power - like Pakistan.

Second, Ahmadinejad is no fuhrer. Iran's president doesn't control the military (the Grand Ayatollah does) and has no say over Tehran's nuclear program (ditto). ..cont'd

http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/national/article/0,1406,KNS_350_5273063,00.html

[neoblues]

1. Seems Like Boastful rhetoric...

is the norm in that region of the world... but American's tend to take them literally. I suppose in a sense, that pleases them--meaning that what they say gets taken seriously.

I suppose that if they did get nukes, one might imagine they'd manage less security and fear that extremist elements might somehow get their hands on it... but that's a sort of catastrophizing (that we're so good at; then again, not all of our paranoid fears are groundless). True enough though, that it doesn't seem like the end of the world to a peaceful nation, but to the neocons dreams of restraining Iran's power in the region/in the world**, it would be a highly undesirable outcome (alas, I don't really have much sympathy with neocons--to say the least).

**fat chance of that anyway; with mammoth oil contracts with China among other things, Iran is becoming a world player whether our neoconage likes it or not.

[Cooley Hurd]

2. He got his ass kicked in the last elelctions...

...much like our own "Ahmadinejad." Of course, our "Mahmoud" does control the military, has nukes at his disposal, and he's quite possibly CRAZIER than Iran's Ahmadinejad.

[Briar]

3. Mr Barnett has his propagandists muddled

Iran doesn't claim to be a big, bad nuclear wolf. On the contrary, it claims to be a harmless little nuclear sheep. It is our propagandists who make the claim that it is seeking to build weapons to attack "the West" - as it is our commentators who publish fantasies deliriously imagining turning Iran to glass with our divine retribution should it dare to do so.