Would Iran USE its nuclear weapons?

Per the authorized narrative, the answer to this question is “no doubt.” Once again, I’m skeptical of conventional wisdom.

The only deadly scenario that scares more people than this picture is a picture of a novel coronavirus.

A sample of posts after the Substack newsletter “Classy Thomas Massie” published a statement from Congressman Massie saying America should have gotten Congressional approval before bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities:

“Iran has ideologically brainwashed people just waiting to lay their lives down for Islam …”

***

“… The Iranian regime wants to be martyrs.”

***

“… Your arguments would make sense if we were dealing with rational people which sadly, we are not.”

***

“The Iranian regime are not rational actors the way we understand that. Iran's regime is theocratic. Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) has no meaning for them …”

***

“Hey classy Massie, fuck off, your honor. Asshole.”

***

“No! Deleting your posts! Traitor!”

***

My interest in the “Iran-Israel-America-nuke” issue is probably different than many other people. My interest stems largely from two themes or beliefs I’ve developed in my writing:

• Americans should never trust the experts.

• The authorized narrative (that has frightened and influenced the thinking of so many people) is probably … false.

The rationale for America bombing Iranian nuclear facilities has two parts:

1. A “terrorist” nation like Iran should never be allowed to have nuclear weapons and …

2. Unlike other nations with nuclear weapons, Iran’s leaders would very likely use nuclear bombs.

Today’s essay deals with my second point: Is it really true or credible that Iran would detonate nukes once it had them? (Per the authorized narrative, Iran would - probably quickly - use its nuclear weapons against either Israel, America or both nations.)

Ever the contrarian dissident (and at the risk of being labeled a “traitor” and losing even more subscribers), I must say I don’t think Iran would use its nuclear weapons even if this nation succeeded in building them.

In my opinion, the key narrative is - once again - bogus or highly dubious.

Of course, I acknowledge what I think doesn’t matter. As I’ve written often, once an authorized narrative is set in stone, perception becomes reality.

In fact, this reality is what bothers me. It’s still far too easy for bogus or dubious narratives to take hold and influence the thinking of almost all political leaders and most citizens these leaders rule.

That is, most people in the world still trust the same experts and authorities who have traded in and prospered from legions of provable lies.

Defining the Operative Narrative …

Per the key part of the current authorized narrative, Iran’s theocratic rulers want nuclear weapons not to deter “regime change” or attacks from nations like Israel and America, but because they want to kill (or seek revenge on) millions of infidels of “Great Satan” nations Israel and America.

The same rulers know they (and perhaps half of their nation) will be vaporized in the retaliatory nuclear strikes, but this doesn’t bother them because they will become martyrs who will live for eternity in bliss. Additionally, the people who do survive nuclear holocaust will usher in a world where everyone becomes a Muslim.

Using nuclear weapons would be national suicide and probably leave a nation of half the land mass of America uninhabitable for generations, but this would be worth it in the long term, as 50 years in the future, there would be no Christians, Jews or even atheists.

Allah, per the narrative, would be very pleased.

Why I disagree with the Narrative …

While I think I understand the operative narrative, this “logic” is not persuasive to me.

For starters, almost all of the nations that have nuclear arsenals and giant militaries are NOT Muslim nations.

Detonating one or two nuclear warheads on its enemies would, in my opinion, qualify as poor salesmanship for a religion trying to expand its numbers.

The message of fervent disciples - “We just started the first global nuclear war in history; see you at mosque on Friday” - will probably NOT resonate with the masses.

Indeed, such a peculiar marketing strategy would probably backfire and make the world’s remaining Muslims international pariahs.

After Iran’s sneak nuclear attack (which would probably be too limited to eliminate any nation, certainly America), the non-Muslim nuclear powers would still have their nukes and their same large militaries. Even the world’s more woke, globalist liberals would probably be extremely agitated at their former Muslim friends.

I also doubt Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Pakistan and the rest of the Muslim nations would throw a parade for their martyred Islamic brothers in the ashes of the former Iran.

Any program to convert the world to Islam would be set back by centuries.

In fact, the new narrative might quickly become: “We’ve got to exterminate the Muslims. We hate to do this, but we’ve got to kill them before they kill us.”

The current narrative also says the Iranian people - or at least their leaders - are simply too ignorant or brainwashed by religious indoctrination to recognize these common-sense outcomes.

Again, I’m not buying it. I think most citizens of Iran - even its government leaders - are geopolitically savvy, not mentally-challenged and actually want the nation of Iran to continue to exist for many centuries.

As evidence to support this belief, I point out that Iran could have ordered a major military retaliation against America after America bombed its three nuclear facilities.

Instead, Iran bombed a Mideast American military base, apparently after telling American officials what it was getting ready to do - so America had time to remove all of its troops.

To me, this is the action of military and government leaders who don’t want to get into a much-larger, Iraq-style military engagement with a nation with the world’s most lethal military.

For its part, “rogue” nation Iran seems to be depending on diplomacy and “international law” and has, perhaps naively, called upon the U.N. to condemn America’s act of aggression against their sovereign nation.

*** (It will be interesting to see if this column gets many, or any, shares.) ***

The Chant that Changed The Narrative …

Many Americans, previously terrified of a “deadly” spreading respiratory virus and now suddenly terrified of Iran nukes, have noted (correctly) that Iranian citizens and some Iranian leaders have repeatedly been caught on videotape, chanting, “Death to America!”

Per the narrative, if a group of people say they want to kill your people, it’s probably wise to take them at their word.

I just read a post from a reader at Classy Massie’s Substack who told me that Iran has killed 1,000 Americans and injured 100,000. (If I didn’t believe him, I could go look it up on Duck Duck Go).

For argument’s sake, I stipulated these “facts” are correct. I then asked my debating partner if he would stipulate that America’s military has directly killed at least 500,000 Muslims in recent decades and probably “injured” 10X this figure - which would be 5.5 million Muslim casualties. (In the past 15 years, America has bombed eight Muslim nations).

If some Muslims chant “death to America!” it’s hard to fathom why they might say such a terrible thing.

I also question the “martyr complex” argument

Don’t get me wrong. The world is full of now-deceased Muslims who perpetrated suicide attacks on Americans and American service members.

That is, one has to acknowledge that plenty of Muslims are willing to die to inflict pain and misery on their enemies.

However, I’ve noted that Muslim martyrs are never the leaders of Muslim nations or terrorist groups.

For most Americans, the most infamous Muslim is the late Osama Bin Laden, who allegedly helped coordinate and green light the 9-11 attacks.

It seems to me Bin Laden wasn’t eager to be a martyr as he went to great efforts to get out of his cave in Afghanistan and then hide out in a Pakistan compound for a decade.

The dictator of Muslim nation Libya was hiding in a hole when his countrymen found him. Even Saddam Hussein didn’t go down with a fight before he surrendered, was tried and hung.

It seems to me even Muslim dictators want to remain alive, enjoy the perks of their positions and watch their grandchildren grow up.

It’s fine for the foot soldiers and the peons in the organization to occasionally perform a suicide mission, but the leaders never strap the bombs onto their own vests.

Still, when it comes to joining the nuclear weapon fraternity, we’re told that “Iran is different” … their leaders will use nukes in a Tehran minute.

Thirty years ago, I can remember George Will warning me in his Newsweek column about the perils of North Korea getting nuclear weapons.

At the time, Mr. Will told me: “Be afraid; be very afraid.”

I can remember thinking, “But I’m not afraid, Mr. Will. I’m sorry, but I’m really not.”

Skip forward a few decades and North Korea did get its nukes.

Just as I’d thought in 1990, North Korea hasn’t used them. Today, I worry about a North Korea nuclear strike about as much as I worry about dying from a lightning strike or one of my children dying from Covid - another scenario, per the experts, I was supposed to be terrified about.

So far - for 75 years - the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction has resonated with political leaders and four-star generals.

But, per the new Fear Narrative (sponsored by Lockheed Martin and the MIC), this logic or safeguard won’t apply to Iran’s leaders, who don’t mind killing their own children and grandchildren if this advances Allah’s will.

According to the authorized narrative, Iran is to nation states what Jim Jones’ People’s Temple was to religious cults.

Think about it … Why would Iran have to use its nukes?

The irony is that once Iran gets nuclear weapons and quickly opts to use them, this voluntary decision would effectively bring about the end of the nation of Iran (and the proud Persian Empire).

However, if Iran got the nukes it apparently wants and, then, didn’t use them … this, no doubt, would guarantee that no nation invades Iran, which seems to be the primary reason for wanting nukes in the first place.

For decades to come, Iran could focus on building its economy, educating its children and even try to proselytize the spread of its preferred religion.

If a Muslim nation had nuclear weapons and didn’t use them - and refrained from invading other nations (which Iran has actually done) - its leaders could say: “See; we are a nation and religion of peace.”

(If Iran wanted to be a tad more provocative, its leaders could point out that it is Christian and Jewish nations that keep bombing other nations and have killed and wounded millions of innocent citizens. While such a “counter narrative” won’t get much air time in the Christian and Jewish media, one assumes this message plays quite well in most Muslim cities.)

If Iran, like Israel, possessed an arsenal of 200 nuclear bombs, Israel would probably stop bombing Iran, the Neo-cons would take this nation off their Regime-Change Wish List and life would just … go on.

***

Per the authorized nation, everyone says Iran has a death wish.

Ever the contrarian, I say “No they don’t.”

I also always ask Who benefits? And my answer continues to be The Usual Suspects - the Military Industrial Complex and the Neo-cons.

Again, what troubles me is that all the dubious narratives seem to be accepted by the masses and, in the end … work.

In conclusion, my real worry …

As you can probably tell from this contrarian essay, I’m not really worried about Iran nuking Troy, Alabama. I’m really more interested in projects that might stop the mRNA vaccines, proven weapons of mass destruction that are being deployed every day.

If the Military Industrial Complex and Neo-cons can easily capture President Trump, my guess is that Big Pharma and the Vaccine Industrial Complex must be supremely confident they can do the same thing.

It’s becoming increasingly clear to me that the change in regime policy I want to see happen in America probably isn’t going to happen.

My main take-away from the past 12 days is that the same narrative manipulation ops that worked in the past still work today.

“We just saved millions of lives.”

Heard it before.

“Mission Accomplished!”

Same thing.

“The Fear Narrative, almost certainly, is bogus. Don’t trust the government or experts.”

I must have written these sentences 200 times. For some reason, I don’t think today will be the last.

***

(As always, dissenting opinions to my dissenting opinions are welcomed and appreciated. Subscriptions and gratuities are also greatly appreciated.)

Writer gratuities via Ko-Fi.