Iran: Nuclear Arms...This Does Not Compute

"Since (Stephen) Harper was elected as prime minister, foreign policy has shifted to be very much supportive of Israel's position ... and I think it brought public opinion with them.
"Many people I think were assuming that this government was somehow out of step with public opinion when it comes to its very hawkish, hard-line stance on Iran.  When in fact, I think they're both shifting public opinion but they're also being led by public opinion.
"You could then ask 'What's that going to do to the Arab Spring?  What's that going to do to the price of oil?  What's that going to do to any kind of hope of a rapprochement between the West and the Islamic world?
"I think those are pretty compelling arguments for people to maybe take a second look at this."
Rudyard Griffiths, co-organizer, moderator, The Munk Debates

The question posed to a group sampling of Canadians and Americans, conducted by Ipsos Reid on behalf of The Munk Debates elicited a nine-out-of-ten response in agreement with the statement: "the world cannot tolerate an Iran with nuclear weapons capability".  The result of the survey - that 92% of respondents were in agreement reflected the same response both north and south of the border.

The result seemed to come as a surprise for Mr. Griffiths, preparing for a semi-annual contest of debates on issues currently facing Canada as well as the international community.  According to Mr. Griffiths, Canada has moved away from its traditional role as 'honest broker' between conflicting sides in the Middle East.  Mr. Griffiths appears to be uncomfortable with the government's unequivocal stance reflecting reality.

Some eight percent of Americans, nine percent of Canadians, stated their disagreement with the statement, "the world cannot tolerate an Iran with nuclear weapons capability".  A clear and unequivocal minority.  British Columbians and Albertans were most strongly opposed to a nuclear-capable Iran, with 94% agreeing with the statement. 

And surprisingly Quebec hosted the next most strongly opposed to Iran having nuclear weapons, at 93%.

Following was Atlantic Canada at 921%, Ontarians at 90%.  The relatively weakest response came from Saskatchewan and Manitoba, at 87% agreeing.  Mr. Griffiths' interpretation is that in all likelihood those who support the argument finding a nuclear-capable Iran intolerable, would also support a pre-emptive strike to destabilize and prevent Iran's nuclear plans.

And it is that conclusion that he finds troubling, asking, what's next, how would that impact the price of world oil, how might that lead to better relations between the West and the Islamic world?  How indeed?  The thing about the Arab world and Muslim societies within that world is that they seem to respect power, equating power with might, military might.  They look askance at those who seek peace first and foremost.

These are traditional tribal mentalities, aggressive bully mentalities, and bullies always make the cardinal error of believing implicitly that those who advocate for peace are inherently weak, lacking self-respect and a sense of honour, and therefore both respect and honour should be denied them.  They believe that those lacking self-respect and honour will not fight to defend themselves.

That seems to encourage the jihadist mentality that urges those inclined to ride roughshod over those whom they identify as adversaries.  Accommodation and co-operation are utterly foreign concepts in these situations; the impulse is to gain advantage by means of violent action and reaction.  And this is a society that does not seem to learn by experience, by and large.

One that is so deeply mired in aggression, the concept of honour, of honourable jihad and the sacred necessity of advocating for the spread of Islam throughout the world, a mission that was embarked upon in the 7th Century and has never accommodated itself to the impression of honouring their own sacred scriptures which sometimes urge respect for others, and sometimes insist on warring with others, they remain conspicuously conflicted.

But it is the ordinary people among them wishing to live in harmony with others whose voice cannot be heard over the bellicose din of the bullies among them clasping the primacy of Islamist conquest at all costs, including the lives of insufficiently pious Muslims who suffer.  Until they awaken from their slumber of submission to the oppressive predations of Islamists among them, nothing will change from their end.

Which doesn't mean that the other side of the equation, the West's response to the deadly turmoil existing within and exiting from the Middle East with its most current manifestation of social dysfunction optimistically named the Arab Spring and realistically recognized as the opportunity that has led to the Islamist Springboard, need not be awake to the threat that continues to emanate from that corner of a very volatile world.

The world cannot, should not and will not tolerate Iran with nuclear arms.