|
i dont think otto's post is a good entrypoint for thinking terribly coherently about islam.
to paraphrase elphaba--it's like reading the book of revelations to understand europe, or nostradamus to understand globalizing capitalism.
to answer the op: there would be nothing in the scenario you outline for iran.
that is why it is reasonable to assume that the scenario, while potentially an issue--in the sense that assume we move through a manifold of possibilities or potentials and only realize a few of them in the actual world--which can be an amusing parlorgame way of thinking about how human beings move through time, if you dont mind giving up the idea that we actually create anything---confusing it with a plausible scenario is the stuff of hysteria building, war marketing, the kind of nonsense that the bush administration (and many other weak-minded but power-obsessed regimes) use to legitimate themselves.
the bigger question--why are nuclear weapons necessary, why dont we--you know, human beings in general--decide that they are unnecessary and dismantle them--is separate. nuclear weapon systems are self-evidently cause for concern. that they exist is cause for concern. that they can be used is cause for concern. that they have been discussed not only as an option, but as a first strike option, by the bush administration--which actually controls really existing nuclear weapons, and a shit=ton of them--is cause for concern.
and strangely, because the americans actually have such weapons, and the iranians do not, it seems that if you want to panic about something, you'd be better off panicking about that than about imaginary scenarios concerning iran----if you're really worried about nuclear weapons, of course.
you might just want a reason to worry about iran.
choose your poison, i guess.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|