Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Matt 24 watch, 175: Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi of Iran, on the importance of setting the red line with Iran, and the consequences of crossing that line . . .

Drawing the Red Line at the UN
Last weekend, I noted how Israeli PM Netanyahu marked the red line that, once crossed by Iran -- by Spring next year -- would irretrievably put the world in the face of a global confrontation with a nuclear-armed mahdist totalitarian, global conquest ideology-driven state with a declared intent of genocide.

(In case you wonder: yes, the Iranian regime quite openly envisions global conquest under the 12th Imam of Shia Islam, who is to emerge from 1,200 years of seclusion as the end of days all-conquering Mahdi who they expect to establish a global government (under Islamic Law).)

Way back, one of my Physics profs had headed an Iranian research nuclear reactor, but had fled for his life in the aftermath of the uprising led by Khomeni. At that time, the programme was indeed a research initiative, based IIRC at Tehran University. But then in the mid 1980's the totalitarian Mullahs decided that they wanted to go for nukes.

Now, in the Autumn of 2012, the clock has all but run down.

Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi, daughter of an imprisoned Iranian journalist and dissident (and a writer, film producer and human rights activist in her own right), now warns us what it means for Iran to cross the red line, and calls on the people of the world to make it plain to their political leaders, that they expect them to stand up firmly and make it clear to Iran that there is a red line short of being next to building nukes, and that to cross it will lead to certain, swift destruction of the Iranian capacity to develop nukes, by all necessary means. 

The hope is, that the Mullahs and their cat's paws such as Mr Ahmadinejad will understand that they credibly will not be able to get to the point where they have built nukes and will thus be deterred from crossing a threshold that would only result in having what they have built destroyed. And, if they refuse to heed reason, it will be clear to all (save the willfully obtuse -- of which, unfortunately, there will be all too many in any case . . . ) where they are going and that intervention at this point would be far less costly than confronting a nuke armed terrorism sponsoring regime controlling the world's oil jugular vein.

Let us watch and listen to what she has to say:

Then, let us ponder the consequences of a nuke-armed Iran sitting on the Straights of Hormuz, and backing a global terrorist movement in light of what she warns of; and, the fate of the Iranian people themselves at the hands of the zealots who are their totalitarian masters. In so pondering, understand that ballistic missiles -- which BTW can be developed in a form where they can be launched from what looks to all intents and purposes like a simple cargo ship -- are not the only forms of such nukes. A nuclear truck bomb is very possible, or even a backpack or "suitcase" demolition nuke similar to what the Spetznaz commandos of the Soviet Union and similar forces of the US had.

A carrying case for a US Mk-54
"back-pack" demolition nuke
(Source: Wiki)
Think about a suicide terrorist with delusional visions of "martyrdom" in the cause of Allah and expectations of 72 virgins in paradise, wearing or conveying one of those backpack nukes and walking or driving down a street in London, or Paris, or Manhattan, or Tokyo, or Buenos Aires, or Durban, or Lagos, etc. (And if you think that is nonsense, understand that the nineteen terrorists who crashed planes full of ordinary people going about the ordinary business of life into the WTC buildings and the Pentagon on Sept 11, 2001, were fired by exactly the same delusions and were led by a man, bin Laden, who seemed to be fishing to be a candidate to be Mahdi. Also, take time to read a little bit on the end-times Black Flag armies of Islam. Then, ask yourself why you were not seeing this on CNN or History Channel or Discovery Channel or whatever, or on the major mainstream informational web sites, etc.)

Then, after you have thought about what is all too possible, I ask you to think hard, twice, about twisting this concern about into any one of a thousand dismissive or distractive talking points.

The time for rhetorical finger-pointing talking point games is over; we face a terrible threshold on the Persian Gulf.

That is why, at minimum, I join with Ms Zand-Bonazzi, to ask you to share this video with at least ten other people personally, through FaceBook or the like, and ask them to also think and act on it. If you can rise to her request of making a brief ten second video yourself, do so. 

If you are able to write a well-researched letter or petition to appropriate national, media or regional or International leaders politely but firmly expressing concerns and requesting that such leaders examine the fast-approaching red line and act positively to dissuade Iran's leaders before it is too late, do kindly consider doing that. Make it an open letter and see if it can be published.

In the 1930's, most normal people recoiled in understandable horror from the mutual ruin of the First World War. As a result -- as Churchill so aptly documents in his multi-volume history on the Second World War -- they (and the key national and international leaders) did not face down Hitler before he got utterly out of hand. And by the time they did try to stop him in 1939 - 40 it was too late to prevent an even more destructive world war that left a whole continent in shambles and cost sixty million lives. This time around, nukes are almost in play already. 

So, will we learn the lessons of history, or are we -- again -- doomed to repeat its worst chapters?  END