All indications are to the effect that the American Administration and its military brass are preoccupied with the situation in the Persian Gulf which is what you would expect of them given the times in which we live. The situation in that part of the world is a complicated one and much has been written about it; mostly by the side that advocates the start of a war against Iran. I expressed my pacifist view on the subject previously, and I do not have more to add to it but I am revisiting the subject at this time for a different reason. It is that a new article inciting war has brought to light a point I consider too important to ignore.
The article in question was written by Mark Helprin under the title: “The Mortal Threat From Iran” and was published in the Wall Street Journal on January 8, 2012. What distinguishes this article from the others is that its author is not known to be a frivolous, trigger happy warmonger who will shoot first and ask questions later. Rather, he seems to be a thoughtful individual that wrestles with the ideas before expressing them. Thus, when you set aside the possibility that frivolity is behind what he is expressing now, you are left to wonder what it is that brought about views which closely match those of the warmongering extremists.
The essence of the article is summed up in the subtitle that was chosen for it: “Iran can sea-launch from off our coasts. Germany planned this in World War II. If cocaine can be smuggled into the U.S. without interdiction, we cannot dismiss the possibility of an Iranian nuke ending up in Manhattan.” The idea here is to reinforce the point expressed in the title which is that America is facing an existential threat therefore must act preemptively and destroy Iran to remove the threat before it becomes a reality. And the question for which I seek an answer is this: “What could have gone on inside the heart, mind or soul of Mark Helprin to make him develop such views?”
In fact, it did not take me long to be hit with this question; it happened before I had the time to finish reading the first paragraph of the article. The reason why it happened is that Helprin begins the presentation by calling the Iranians “primitive religious fanatics” and describing them as being incapable of performing “cost-benefit analyses...” after which he tells us not to assume they will not close the Strait of Hormuz. But you ask: What got him to think this way? And you are surprised to discover what motivation was lurking behind it all. Look at this piece of wishful thinking: “If Iran does close the strait, we will fight an air and naval war derivative of and yet peripheral to the Iranian nuclear program...” In other words, he does not believe what he says; he only wishes that Iran close the Strait of Hormuz and thus trigger the war he craves.
But why would the Iranians contemplate closing the Strait of Hormuz in his calculation? Is it because they are not capable of doing cost-benefit analyses? Not so, he now says, ascribing to them a reason that is actually a reasonable thing, believe it or not. A reason? What kind of a reason could primitive religious fanatics have? Well, Helprin offers one that is so rational it would cause any nation to do what he believes the Iranians might do. Look what he says in that same first paragraph: “...especially if the oil that is their life's blood is threatened.” And that's not all because when he gets to the second paragraph, he lists nine (count them nine) other reasons why Iran would want to have a nuclear program in the first place. Looking at the way he discusses the matter, you realize that the reasons he describes are so rational and legitimate, he -- as an observer -- has deduced that the Iranians must have embarked on a program to arm themselves with nuclear weapons because they were duty bound to do so, therefore inevitable that it happened.
This is so confusing, what on Earth is going on? The answer to this question is to be found in the subtitle of the article. Let me reprint here for convenience: “Iran can sea-launch from off our coasts. Germany planned this in World War II. If cocaine can be smuggled into the U.S. without interdiction, we cannot dismiss the possibility of an Iranian nuke ending up in Manhattan.” Where -- in the not too distant past -- Mark Helprin used to project the image of a thoughtful individual who wrestled with the ideas before expressing them, he now betrays himself by showing his insane side. As you can see from that passage, he is fearful that an Iranian nuke will end up in Manhattan because of three impressions that gnaw at him. First, he feels that the Iranians have the capability to sea-launch from off America's coasts. Second, he remembers from history that the Germans planned something similar during the War. Third, he assumes that if cocaine can be smuggled into the U.S., so can a nuclear bomb. In fact, he later lists a few more impressions but let's not worry about them.
What is important at this juncture is to understand Helprin's insanity because it is a sample of the fuel that powers the Jewish think tanks which drive America's foreign policy today. The fact is that you can think up hundreds of scenarios, and you can make hundreds of movies about weapons of mass destruction being smuggled into America to blow up Manhattan or Pennsylvania Avenue. But nobody who is sane will recommend that America go around the world and blow up everyone who might develop the capability to do so. And this leads to the question: How then do Helprin and those like him convince themselves of the notion that the Iranians must be singled out and destroyed before they take the initiative and be the first to act?
Well, Helprin and the people of the think tanks have convinced themselves of such notion by questioning the ability of the Iranians to be rational human beings. Here is the passage that tells you this: “[Iran's] conceptions of nuclear strategy are ... looser … than those of Russia, China and … our own. And yet Eisenhower and Churchill weighed a nuclear option in Korea, Kennedy a first strike upon the U.S.S.R., and Westmoreland upon North Vietnam.” This says that he and those of the tanks believe in the evil nature of human beings because one Englishman and three Americans came close to committing an evil act. Thus, he and they would argue that the Iranians -- who are worse than the English and the Americans -- should not be trusted to restrain themselves but that they will go ahead and commit the evil act.
And why are the Iranians worse? Because they make absurd claims with which “we” prefer to dance, says Mark Helprin. To illustrate his point, he asks: “...why spend $1,000-$2,000 per kilowatt to build nuclear plants instead of $400-$800 for gas, when you possess the second largest gas reserves in the world?” He does not answer the question but the answer is that like everyone else, the Iranians are in the process of diversifying their sources of energy. In addition to oil and natural gas, they have uranium ore which they extract and put to use for the betterment of their society. It is their right to do so as a sovereign nation; it is the duty of their leaders to do it for the nation.
You then encounter an argument that is meaningless but one that is frequently used by people who know little about the subject of reserves in the natural resources yet use the numbers to bolster their argument. Helprin writes this: “In 2005, Iran consumed 3.6 trillion cubic feet of its 974 trillion cubic feet of proven reserves which are enough to last 270 years.” This is a long time, therefore a very impressive number to use in an argument. But what is 3.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in terms of barrels of oil equivalent (boe)? To find out, you divide by 6,000 to obtain 600 million barrels a year which you divide by the 365 days of the year to find that it only amounts to 1.64 million barrels of oil equivalent a day.
To appreciate the meaning of this result, you need to put it in perspective both in terms of the passage of time and in terms of the development envisaged for the nation. The population of Iran is now close to 80 million people and growing at the rate of 2.5% a year. If this rate is maintained for two generations, the population will double in 28 years and double again in another 28 years to reach 320 million people, the same as that of America today. Judging by the rate of development in the emerging nations, the standard of living in those countries will equal if not surpass that of today's America in less than two generations. Thus, Iran will by then consume energy at least at the same rate as America consumes today both on a per capita basis and in absolute terms.
So we ask: How much energy does America consume today? And the answer is a little more than 92 quadrillion BTUs a year which (I spare you the math) comes to about 42 million boe a day. Thus, if America were to convert all its use of energy into only natural gas, it would consume all of Iran's reserves not in 270 years but in 10 years and 7 months only. Wow! That's not even half a generation! And this is without counting what Iran will need to export in order to pay for the development it has envisaged for itself. Now you know why these people need to have a nuclear program that will contribute to their demand in energy.
Having overlooked these facts deliberately or by ignorance, Helprin now relies on his fantasy to come up with the semblance of a mathematical argument which he hopes will sound scholarly and compelling. In fact, there is no math in what he does because plucking a number out of thin air and calling it probability is not math at all. Here is what he does. He randomly chooses a 1-in-20 probability of something happening and applies it to 3 possible scenarios: breaking a leg; or one person dying; or half a million people dying. And he argues that: “Cost drastically changes the nature of risk, although we persist in ignoring this.” Whatever that means, there is something worth noting here. It is the use of the word persist because it is the most assertive way in which you can make a point. And what is he asserting? He is asserting a probability he plucked out of thin air, nothing more than that. And this is a sleight of hand that only the insane would use to con a gullible audience.
He then uses the following sentence to begin the buildup toward a finale: “Assuming that we are a people worthy of defending ourselves, what can be done?” And he answers his own question by playing the role of military commander, laying out a war plan that is supposed to show how Iran can be destroyed. I must admit I have no idea if the plan will work but I know math, and I tell you if this guy is as backward in military matters as he is in math, God help those who will take up his suggestion and try to implement it.
With Iran destroyed in his mind's eye, there remains the question of the consequences. He sees them materializing in two areas which he quickly dismisses as minimal. The first consequence he cites is the loss of oil production from Iran which, he argues, can easily be offset by Saudi Arabia. The second is that Iranian proxies, as he calls them, “would attempt to exact a price in terror … we would brace for the reprisals … they would then subside.” What is wrong with this approach is the myopic nature of the argument. The way I see it, you can be so efficient at committing an evil act, there can be little or no consequence in the immediate aftermath but there will be plenty to worry about in the future. To wit, no one today cares much about the efficiency with which the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor or the efficiency of the Nazis as they embarked on a project to exterminate the Jews. But look what history is now saying about these two events. By the same token, will the American people want to brew the cup of shame today from which their children will be forced to drink tomorrow? I doubt it.
Mark Helprin then does something that reduces him in a single instant from the thoughtful individual who was thought to wrestle with ideas before expressing them, into something that is even worse than a frivolous, trigger happy warmonger who shoots first and asks questions later. To paraphrase an Iranian saying, he is reduced to a mucus secretion fit only to be blown into a handkerchief. As to what he did to deserve this designation, he wrote this: “Any president of the United States fit for the office should … say … that … Iran … must be deprived...” Let be known that an insane little snort such as Helprin is never in a position to judge the fitness of a president elected by the American people to hold office. What should be said to a character like this is the following: Go play with yourself somewhere else, kid, war is a serious business to be dealt with by grownups.
He lets out one last bark that is not worth discussing.