HomeFeaturesDailyBriefingsRapidReconSpecial ReportsAbout Us

InBrief Archives

Ahmadinejad: ‘We Don’t Give a Damn’ About UN Resolutions

With the IAEA report on Iranian non-compliance due potentially within minutes of this posting, Iranian defiance has not abated. It has, in fact, become more intense. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismissed the UN Security Council and the IAEA out of hand while addressing a rally orchestrated by the regime. Said Ahmadinejad, “Those who want to prevent Iranians from obtaining their right, should know that we do not give a damn to such resolutions.”

Yet, to date all UN resolutions and/or statements have been gentle on the Iranian regime with an IAEA leadership reluctant to step forward and a UN Security Council fielding two veto-wielding member states – Russia and China. Both states oppose any sanctions against Iran, let alone military action. Russia and China are major trading partners with Iran and adversarial to most American policy wishes, and both states have contributed significantly to the clandestine Iranian nuclear program currently under international scrutiny.

For these reasons, it is not unreasonable to conclude that any IAEA and/or UNSC statements or resolutions will fail to have any real affect on the Iranian program or the regime’s economic or military status.

The parallel universe occupying the synapses of Ahmadinejad’s mind is plainly visible through his statements. However, those same statements are a refreshing dose of directness and honesty historically shrouded by the Iranian regime. For that, the West should be appreciative. Speaking in the northwestern Iranian city of Zanjan, Ahmadinejad declared the state sponsor of terrorism a fountain of world peace when he said, “We call for peace and tranquility for all states. We have not attacked any country and are not regarded as a threat to the world. The Iranian nation is independent.” His defiance was echoed by former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, often misrepresented by Western agencies as a ‘moderate’.

Israel, of course, is not a state by Iranian definition. So the calls for the destruction of the illegitimate gaggle currently occupying Palestinian Territory do not count against the calls for tranquility for ‘all states’ and absolves Iran and its surrogates – Iranian funded terrorist groups Hizballah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, et al – from being counted in any attacks on any ‘country’.

The Iranian nuclear advances were said to be the property of all Muslims by Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir. Iran has previously stated that it intends to share its ‘peaceful’ nuclear technology with all Muslim nations. To that end, the Sudan Tribune reports that a cooperation agreement was signed by the two states Wednesday in Tehran.

It remains uncomfortably clear that the only way to stop the Iranian sprint towards nuclear arms and their proliferation throughout the world is to physically stop the regime. Resolutions are conspiracies to be ignored. Sanctions are economic attacks by Zionists and Zionist supporters to be endured and counter-attacked. Negotiations are vehicles through which meek Western leaders, wittingly or unwittingly, buy the regime precious development time.

Air strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities are a declaration of war. That much is agreeable.

But, to those wandering through their comfortable days waiting in line for their Happy Meals or demanding investigations into evil oil companies seeking a gouging cause to rising gas prices, please understand that there is already a war on.

It doesn’t look like what you think wars look like, but it is declared in the minds of the antagonists and the combatants are wielding their weapons with varying degrees of success and persistent degrees of non-recognition by Western observers.

Note to Washington politicians: Gas is at record levels because crude oil is at record levels. Oil is at record levels because of Iranian threats to close the Strait of Hormuz.

There’s a war on.

The weapons are words, terrorism, oil, and religion. All are accurately and effectively targeting the inherent weaknesses of Western tolerance and conflict avoidance.

As evidenced by American reaction to the price of gasoline and Washington’s inexplicable joining in the dance, the West is more apt to rip itself apart rather than confront the aggressors.

Feedback

One of the problems we continue to face in dealing with Iran (and other non-westernized societies, for that matter) is that we somehow keep expecting them to react in a manner that we would consider rational. And when they don't, we act as though they are nut-cases, or that they simply didn't understand the message that we tried to convey. Unfortunately, it appears that the Iranians in particular are all too rational, but in a way that does not fit our Western thought paradigm.


For example, we keep ignoring that the Iranian leadership has an extremely apocolyptic view of the world, and would seem to welcome an end-of-world scenario in which we all end up quite dead (e.g. general nuclear conflict around the globe). On the other hand, the Islamic fate/determinism model could prevent Iran from taking direct steps to initiate such a conflict (that is, such a conflict must be the will of Allah, and that if they initiate that conflict they will have broken the rules... and so, will have lost their ticket to paradise), but not prevent them from taking steps to provoke the conflict. While we in the West might consider this to be an unthinkable "rationality," we can do so only at our peril. For example, it might be entirely proper in the Iranians thinking to place sophisticated assets (ranging from terrorist hit-teams to pre-assembled WMDs) in key locations around the world, but they would not unleash those assets until they see proper justification (a direct attack against Iranian nuclear processing facilities, for example). Also, in this mindset, they would not be prevented from provoking an attack by the West through such things as abrogation of treaties and transparent pursuit of nuclear weapon capabilities.


An imperfect parallel is the vicious sociopath that we all too often find within our own society. While many of us consider the sociopath to be "crazy," the worst of them are coldly rational thinkers who will stop at nothing to achieve their goals of personal gratification. For example, a sociopathic bully, who gets off by inflicting brutal physical punishment on others, could well realize that he can't easily get away with directly attacking someone in the schoolyard. However, he could rationalize that if he provoked his target to attack, then he would be justified in his "response." And so, the bully prepares himself (a knife, a set of brass knuckles, or simply martial arts training), then proceeds to provoke the intended victim. "Accidental" bumps in the hallway... playground taunts... slurs against family/friends/lovers... whatever it takes to get his victim to take the first swing. And then all the restraints are off and the bully can inflict the pain that will give him gratification. And when the destruction is over, even if the authorities take action because he has reacted disproportionally, his own conciense is clear: he was only defending himself.


I grant that the sociopath model is imperfect in providing a basis of understanding for our dealings with Iran. However, the point is that we deny the rationality of their thought (however twisted that rationality might be) at our own peril. Unfortunately, if we grant that the Iranians are in rational pursuit of apocolyptic goals, we may also discover that there is no good way to thwart that goal... only really awful choices.

Thats just my $.02


DRK