A nuclear Iran means a nuked American city

A nuclear Iran would lead to a nuclear attack on the US because it makes sense according to realist and ideologically based assumptions. Let's say Iran gets nuclear weapons. Then, let's pretend Iran is not run by suicide bomber supporters, whose eschatology holds that the Mahdi will come only after the Muslim world is purified by fire and that the stated role of Ahmadenajhad is to bring the Mahdi. In other words we are running a scenario with a "rational Iran". If Iran gets nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia and Egypt follow. Already these countries have responded to Iran's boasts, it "civilian" nuclear program, and open ICBM program with their own "civilian" nuclear programs. Saudi Arabia home of and exporter of the Salafist Wahhabi movement and the decadent Saudi clan is a spark away from revolution. Egypt is home of the Muslim Brotherhood, Egyptian Islamic Jihad (now part of Al Qaeda), and Gamaat Islamyia (the folks who assassinated Nasser). Hosni Mubarak is not healthy and the dictatorial regime only slightly more so.
An immediate result of Iran having nuclear weapons would be the retreat of the US from Afghanistan and Iraq. Our position would be untenable as Arab states would lose the will to go along with us. Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups would launch attacks through out the region to overthrow the regimes and there would be terrorism against American targets. (I'm not even touching Israel's situation here.) In a few years, emboldened by American retreat from the Near East and after a string of "conventional" terrorist attacks, nuclear war on America, Israel and Europe become rational. An attack though proxy is hard to trace and the regime in Tehran or an Islamist one in Cairo could easily decide that given their ability to respond, the destruction of Middle East oil facilities in a war, and the difficulty in proving culpability, the US may not respond with nuclear war.
This may sound far fetched, but is it any less rational than the belief of Japanese militarists that they could cripple our fleet in a surprise attack, and then conquer and secure most of the Pacific rim to such a degree that the US would enter peace negotiations in 1942? Is it less reasonable than Saddam Hussein's gamble that the US would not intervene in Kuwait? For 6 years, Iran has been arming our opponents in Iraq and Afghanistan. And we have sat idly by trying to negotiate. Why wouldn't they think us a paper tiger or hollowed empire ripe for destruction?

And this is assuming rational actors, not the Jihadists in Tehran. Assuming that the Islamists in Iran are serious, they've already stated their intent to destroy the US. The question isn't why a nuclear Iran would lead to a nuclear attack on America. The question is how long will it take and what will the consequences be?

Support for the Cordoba Initiative/Park 51 Mosque amongst non-Muslims boils down to four incorrect beliefs:

1. Rauf et all are moderates and this initiative will help build bridges.
Actually Imam Feisal Rauf is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and their stated goal is a new Caliphate, restoration of lands seized from Muslims, and eventual world-wide Sharia. They share the goals of Al Qaeda, differing only in tactics. And even that is debatable. Egyptian Islamic Jihad comes from the Muslim brotherhood and Merged with Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was an outgrowth of Maktab al-Khadamat (MaK), founded by Abdullah Azzam, who was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and a cofounder of the Islamic Resistance Movement, better known as Hamas. Of course it is the same Hamas that the purportedly moderate Imam Rauf refuses to condemn and for whose benefit the recent flotilla was started. It is no surprise given that Imam Rauf refuses to denounce Hamas, since he is a member of the Malaysian Islamist Perdana Global Police Foundation, which took part in the pro-Hamas flotilla.


2. Opposing this will inflame the Muslim world giving terrorist support.
Weakness also makes Bin Laden stronger. If being nice to Muslims and giving in worked, we would not have been attacked after fleeing Somalia and helping Muslims in the Balkans. They hate us anyway. The proper policy for those trying to subjugate you is "oderint dum metuant" or "As they hate, let them fear (us)".

3. If the government acts against Radical Islam it will go after all religions. This belief is found among the left, libertarians, paleoconservatives, and many religious.
Preposterous. In the late 19th century, we were a very tolerant nation towards most religions. At the same time, we put down the Ghost-Dancing movement among the Indians. We did so because we saw it as a call for war. In World War 2, we did not let Nazis in the Lutheran Church or neopagans operate protected by the rubric of Freedom of Religion.

4. Regardless of merit this is private property and we cannot interfere.
Actually, the group behind this lied on their forms stating that they owned two properties instead of a single one. Thus, we should automatically revoke their permits. Moreover, they committed perjury. And even if they hadn't lied, NY City and the MTA put the breaks on private construction all the time. St. Nicholas Church, the Greek Orthodox Church wrecked on 9/11 remains in ruins because of municipal and MTA interference.


Sedition is not covered by property rights or the First Amendment. In so far as the Cordoba Initiative is part of the Muslim Brotherhood project to overthrow our legal system, we have the right to stop it. We have an obligation to do so. This is a defining issue. Any politician who does not lead on the issue deserves no support. Any politician on the wrong side of it must never be trusted with the security of this country.