Hi-de-ho To war we're going go

by liberal japonicus

Seems appropriate

Comments

[novakant]

Two nuclear powers attack a country based on unproven assumptions of the nuclear threat it poses, while they were in the middle of negotiations about nuclear issues. Now they urge Iran to negotiate with a gun pointed at its head. How can anyone ever trust US diplomacy or the NPT.

Meanwhile, not that it really matters, Starmer loses no time falling in line with the mad boy king:

https://aje.io/819lk2?update=3791397

[BigBadBird]

What evidence was there that Iran (the theocracy) was willing to forgo weapons grade enrichment? If the credible evidence is none or next to it, and if the theocracy having nukes is a true red line, then what were/are the options?

I don't like it but it does appear surgical and tailored to the specific threat. I am not warm to explicit threats to compel negotiation. The theocracy can't save face under these circumstances. The bunker busters sent a sufficiently clear message. Further tough talk is counter productive.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

Oh, a message was VERY clearly sent out to the world by Trump's Iran adventure:

"hurry up and get nukes, if you don't want to get bombed"

[CaseyL]

Snarki, the same message has been sent repeatedly over the last 20 years, most notably in 2003 (US war against Iraq) and 2021 (Russia invasion of Ukraine).

"Get nukes, or get destroyed."

Or, in Ukraine's case, "Keep your nukes and don't trust any treaty or treaty partner."

[novakant]

Just a public service announcement that this attack was completely illegal according to international law.

[Donald]

We had this functioning agreement which prevented Iran from enriching uranium to the weapons grade level.

If some country wants to be sure nobody has enriched uranium in Iran , at this point that country should send in ground forces.

I vote it be Israel.

Maybe the current bromance between Trump and Netanyahu will end the way it did between Trump and Elon. That would be so sad.

[russell]

What evidence was there that Iran (the theocracy) was willing to forgo weapons grade enrichment?

What evidence was there that they weren't?

Once upon a time, the IAEA monitored Iran's enrichment program. Those were the days when it was actually possible to answer questions like that.

Whatever happened to that?

The theocracy can't save face under these circumstances.

Between our actions and Israel's, I think it's fair to say the theocracy has been humiliated.

Who knows if they be able to remain in leadership. Who knows what will replace them if not.

Who knows what actions they will take in response. If they respond by attacking US personnel in the middle east, what will we do in response to that? If they can't muster a credible military response, what might they do instead?

So many questions. I don't have answers to any of them. Neither do you, most likely. Neither does Trump or his crew, most likely. It's not even clear who is running the DoD.

[GftNC]

Whatever happened to that?

Ha ha ha (sick laugh).

So many questions. I don't have answers to any of them. Neither do you, most likely. Neither does Trump or his crew, most likely. It's not even clear who is running the DoD.

No indeed, nobody does. Although, possibly due to my upbringing in what used to be called the Far East, I do believe that humiliating one's adversary is generally a very bad/dumb move.

On a vaguely related subject, somebody sent me this discussion of the difference between Italian fascism and German nazism, which fairly entertainingly talks about the "Jock/Creep Theory of Fascism".

A little while ago, I came up with the idea that the difference between Italian Fascism and German Nazism was that Fascism essentially had “Jock-Douche” vibes while Nazism had “Creep-Loser” vibes. Now, I’m going to try to develop this fancy into a full-blown (or rather, half-baked) theory.

I think/hope it's a gift link:

https://www.unpopularfront.news/?r=w2vx&utm_campaign=pub&utm_medium=web

[wj]

Just a public service announcement that this attack was completely illegal according to international law.

Perhaps more salient, it was illegal under U.S. law. Not only has Congress not declared war -- admittedly not a detail much observed in living memory. But neither has Congress provided the sort of figleaf that has served in the recent past.

Nope, all we have this time is "Trump decided to". Perhaps someone with more expertise in military law than I can speak to whether this constituted an illegal order.

[wj]

Between our actions and Israel's, I think it's fair to say the theocracy has been humiliated.
. . .
Who knows what actions they will take in response.

Well, we might look at how Trump responds when he feels like he has been humilitated. I expect it won't be pretty.

I also won't be surprised if Iran does a "test" explosion of a nuclear device -- even if they have to secretly buy the device in order to do it soon. A test launch of a missile,** one with range to reach Tel Aviv, would also be no surprise. Because it is, apparently, the only way to be safe in the world Trump is building.

** Hmmm. I wonder if Iran might contemplate (overtly or covertly) changing sides in the Ukraine War. Cut support for Russia in exchange for some Ukranian drones. A navel drone attack on Israeli ports could cause Netanyahu problems, speaking of humiliation.

[Hartmut]

The Iranian foreign minister has flown to Moscow after the latest attacks.
I doubt though that Putin would sell them tactical nukes.
In addition: Should Iran do or fake a test explosion, this would serve as the permission slip* for Israel and/or the US to nuke Iran without any consideration for human losses "just to be sure".
Parts of the US Right have been on the record for decades with "what use are nukes, if we can't/don't actually use them?" and have wet dreams about wiping out some Muslim country by means of nukes.
Israel may be more reluctant though because it would hand out a permission slip to get nuked too that way.
Ruthless egomaniacs on all sides all in fear of losing power and then suffering the consequences for past deeds. Not ideal for a situation like this.

*read: pretense

[russell]

Well, if Iran decides to respond by carrying out or sponsoring acts of terror, at least we have Thomas C Fugate III on the job.

He's our new Director of the Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships in the DHS. He's also 22, graduated from U. Texas at San Antonio... about 12 months ago. His recent work experience includes gardening and working in a grocery store. He also worked on Trump's 2024 campaign and as an intern at Heritage. So, bona fides!

He will raise his left eyebrow and terrorists will flee.

We are goverened by such serious people.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

Iran is BIG, Israel is SMALL.

If Israel decides to use a dozen nukes on Iran, and Iran responds with 3 nukes on Israel, my guess is that 75% of Iran remains, and 5% of Israel. Better not to start a "tit-for-tat" in that situation.

[wj]

Should Iran do or fake a test explosion, this would serve as the permission slip* for Israel and/or the US to nuke Iran without any consideration for human losses "just to be sure".

Right. Just like we did to North Korea.

[GftNC]

EXCLUSIVE: The Onion calls out ‘cowardice’ of Congress in full-page NYT ad
The ad features a scathing editorial, a physical copy of which was sent to all House and Senate members.

https://www.thehandbasket.co/p/exclusive-the-onion-nyt-ad-congress-cowardice

[Michael Cain]

Right. Just like we did to North Korea.

North Korean nukes -- and more important, long-distance delivery systems -- are just frosting on the cake. Their primary deterrent for decades has been that Seoul (population >9M) is within artillery range of the border. Incheon (population >3M) is within artillery range of the border. South Korea is never going to support any sort of first strike against the North by anyone. A North Korean return strike with conventional weapons is going to kill tens/hundreds of thousands.

[Hartmut]

wj, I think North Korea is different. Someone sane in the WH when NK got nukes, NK has China as protector, NK is not the "Holy Land" where Armageddon is to be kindled and NK has no enemy that has tried to start a war with it for 30 years. Plus NK is not the location of a deep-seated humiliation of the US. NK is seen as a nuisance that would get nasty only if meddled with but mainly safe to ignore otherwise. Would probably be different, if it sat on or next to huge oil and gas reserves or within medium range missile range of Washington D.C.
Iirc I even read right wing commentary that NK attacking the US with nukes could even be seen as positive since it would hit the blue parts of California while Texas, Florida etc. would be out of range.

[Michael Cain]

Proliferation is not just warheads, but also delivery systems. Japan has messed with jumped-up solid-fuel sounding rockets for years, including three-stage versions that can deliver small payloads to LEO. Two-stage versions with specs remarkably like IRBMs or ICBMs. The most recent set of improvements announced were a wheeled mobile launcher and reducing the ground crew size to eight. Quite similar numbers overall to Israel's Jericho missiles, which also started out as jumped-up solid-fuel sounding rockets.

[liberal japonicus]

What evidence was there that Iran (the theocracy) was willing to forgo weapons grade enrichment?

We still don't have evidence

https://www.businesstoday.in/world/story/did-iran-move-centrifuges-before-us-strike-satellite-images-show-trucks-lined-up-at-fordow-481338-2025-06-22

I'm sure that Mission Accomplished banner is in some storage room, waiting to be reused...

[wj]

I expect that we will soon see a Presidential photo-op in front of a couple of B-2s. No Mission Accomplished banner, because that would focus on the troops, rather than Trump. But something tacky for sure.

If Iran wanted to be really nasty, they would use a couple of drones to drop horse shit and bull shit on the ceremony. That would be the worse kind of retaliation: nothing to inflame the (non-MAGA) American public, but it would hit Trump where he lives.

[russell]

Iran's stockpile of 60% enriched uranium is apparently still intact in Isfahan. As far as anyone knows.

From the NYT report about this (which I am sadly unable to link to):

“We are going to work in the coming weeks to ensure that we do something with that fuel and that’s one of the things that we’re going to have conversations with the Iranians about,” Vice President JD Vance told ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday

Also:

The Iranians have made it clear they are not interested in having conversations with the United States

Ya think?

I'm always amazed at the apparent belief on the part of Trump, Vance, et al that the entire world is waiting with bated breath to do whatever it is they tell them to do.

[wj]

Iran's stockpile of 60% enriched uranium is apparently still intact in Isfahan.

As always, the current administration's utter lack of operational security awareness is on display. And the reason why the military cares about such details is there for all to see. Idiots!

Iran had plenty of warning from President Bigmouth about where the strike would be. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together (which the Iranians have, even if our current administration doesn't) would know to relocate any critical stuff. No surprise that they did.

[liberal japonicus]

Just crazy leftie talk.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2025/jun/23/world-war-3-whose-idea-was-that

[Donald]

People worried about stockpiles of enriched uranium should either negotiate a treaty whete outside inspectors can keep a close watch— or wait, we did that and sone very stable genius withdrew— or they can take physical possession of it. Which might require boots on the ground, kicking in doors, a few firefights here and there, maybe some of that enhanced interrogation I am sure Trump is dying to do, perhaps an occupation lasting as long as it takes, etc…

His MAGA cultists pretty much adopt whatever position their messiah takes from day to day, but I think an occupation of Iran might be pushing the limits, especially since some of their children would get shot.

Anyway, every country in the world should look at how the U.S. acts and just assume we are unpredictable and unstable, because we are.

[Donald]

Being sarcastic, of course. I haven’t seen anyone so far suggesting that we occupy an enormous country with 90 million people. Now we could, of course, incite a civil war.

But I don’t think anyone in Trumpland has thought through what happen to enriched uranium when you can’t keep track of it.

[wj]

But I don’t think anyone in Trumpland has thought through ...

You could just stop there. "Thought through" just isn't their thing. Whether it's immigration, FEMA, or going to war. Not sure whether they are just incapable or simply don't care.

[nous]

Foreign policy by blame shifting ELIZA with a masculinity crisis.

Don't plan, only react. If something good happens after you react, claim credit. If something bad happens, blame it on Obamabiden.

But whatever the case, talk tough and glower.

[GftNC]

We'll have to wait on the location and fate of the enriched stuff. But who's prepared to bet that we might shortly find out that "completely obliterated" does not mean exactly what the average person (or dictionary) thought it did?

p.s. What does ELIZA stand for?

[wj]

bet that we might shortly find out that "completely obliterated" does not mean exactly what the average person (or dictionary) thought it did?

I doubt you'll be winning any sucker bets here. I trust you don't have your hopes up. :-)

[Hartmut]

ELIZA (named after the girl from Pygmalion/My Fair Lady) was the first program that one could have a (pseudo)conversation with. It was quite simple and used stock phrases combined with inversions of input ("Maybe this has something to do with you [portions of previous input]?"
The author was quite shocked how many users attributed intelligence to those few hundred lines of code. In a sense it was an inverse Turing test.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA

[Donald]

Oh, the NYT and others have already said “ completely obliterated” didn’t mean that. It is just Trump speak. Nobody knows anything about the uranium.

[wj]

Not only does nobody know about the uranium. While it's clear that multiple bombs dropped, that hardly proves that they reached the buried facility.

The Iranians could be furious at the insult. And using that emotion to give the impression that there was far more damage than actually occurred. Thereby reducing the chances of a second strike.

[russell]

To recap:

We've gone from a situation where Iran's nuclear program was monitored by IAEA inspectors on the ground and we had a basic, reliable level of visibility into what, exactly, was going on, to one in which there may or may not be something like 400kg of uranium enriched to near-weapons grade stored... somewhere in Iran.

And, through a clear act of war, we have made it that much less likely that Iran will enter into any kind of diplomatic process for restoring the status quo ante. Which was not perfect, certainly, but was at least basically transparent and accountable.

And, through a clear act of war, we have either strengthened the political position of the theocracy, or undermined it, it's unclear which. And should it be the latter case, it's completely unclear what will take it's place, how any transition of power will come about, and what the consequences for the region and the world will be.

There are many downsides to war, but not least of them is that it opens the door to chaos and chance. Once you pull the trigger, you set in motion a series of events whose outcome you can neither predict nor control.

Trump has, historically, been a remarkably lucky guy. Which is to say, he's gotten away with a lot, which is a form of luck, I guess, although one that in his case depends on shamelessness, bluster, and a lot of money. I'm not sure those qualities and advantages will be helpful here.

The dice have been rolled, now we wait to see what numbers come up.

[CaseyL]

There's so much to hate about both regimes, it's hard to decide what a "good" outcome would be.

I mean, aside from the fundamentalism and misogyny in Iran*, scuttling their military capability might help Ukraine, since Russia relies on Iran for drones and rockets.

*...as opposed to the fundamentalism and misogyny in the US, which differs from Iran's mostly in the name they give the deity they pray to.

[novakant]

A very smart person on the unlawfulness ot Trump's Iran strikes and why it matters:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/23/opinion/international-world/trump-iran-strikes.html?unlocked_article_code=1.RE8.HceP.f5DeZs5NnoJD&smid=url-share

[novakant]

Meanwhile:

Republican House speaker dismisses efforts to check Trump’s military power against Iran

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2025/jun/23/donald-trump-us-politics-maga-iran-israel-latest-news-live?CMP=share_btn_url&page=with%3Ablock-6859a4918f08e30f42e0e96d#block-6859a4918f08e30f42e0e96d

[GftNC]

Trump has announced a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. Let's hope that for once he is telling the truth.

[BigBadBird]

Disregard of the War Powers Act and the Congressional remit to declare war or not is a bipartisan thing.

The sky most likely isn't falling. More likely, the Theocracy is functionally disarmed and toothless and therefore will give Trump and Israel the win.

If you thought Trump was insufferable before, just wait for what follows if he pulls this off.

[wj]

More likely, the Theocracy is functionally disarmed and toothless and therefore will give Trump and Israel the win.

And here I thought that I was the resident optimist!

It may be true that Iran's nuclear capability is disarmed. I certainly wouldn't bet the ranch on it, but that's possible. However that is an enormous way from the theocracy being disarmed and toothless. I don't know that Iran will unleash a variety of asymmetrical warfare attacks. But the ability to do so is absolutely there.

As an addendum, I think part of Israel's success to date flows from Iran having assumed that the US and Israel were negotiating in something approximating good faith. And therefore didn't pre-position drones to strike Israel from multiple directions. Does Iran have a naval drone which could attack Israeli ports from the sea? I wouldn't be surprised. The fact that Israel hasn't been hit by such YET may not be assurance that it won't happen. As good as the Iron Dome defense may be, it's an air defense, not a naval one.

[BigBadBird]

Conventionally disarmed and toothless. Unable to defend against air attack. Defenseless.

Sure, the Theocracy can terrorize, but at the risk of significant maybe massive loss of infrastructure.

[Hartmut]

Sure, the Theocracy can terrorize, but at the risk of significant maybe massive loss of infrastructure.

Is there any indication that they care?
Shia Islam has a streak of martyr complex since its beginning. On the other hand the current leadership tends not to be suicidal per se. But if they think that they are doomed in any case, they will see no reason NOT to take the country with them into the abyss.
Btw, I think that would also be the only case where they would use nukes, if they had them. They know that it would be their end, so that would be their parting gift, if they saw no way out.
And, unfortunately, neither the Israeli nor the US leadership care about Iranian civilians except as a personal legal liability. But they see that as a low risk. As opposed to sending ground troops, which would be hugely unpopular at home.

[liberal japonicus]

Sure, the Theocracy can terrorize

Just curious what (who?) the object of terrorize is. Hartmut assumes it is other Iranians, I'm thinking it's not.

Always good to know what hill one wants to die on.

[novakant]

It might be helpful to consider the immense wealth the Iranian leadership has amassed. Chameini is thought to be worth almost 100 billion for instance. Seen from that angle, Iran's rulers are better compared to those of Russia and the religious aspect is to a an extent a facade used to control the masses.

All this talk about medieval religious fanatics is inaccurate at best and would probably get you a fail in Iranian studies. Iran is a very wealthy and sophisticated country, we're not talking about Afghanistan here.

[Hartmut]

Hartmut assumes it is other Iranians

That's not what I intended. I think that the leadership does not care what the US and Israel will do in retaliation for Iranian actions (abroad) or could even welcome it since indiscriminate violence by a foreign actor tends to lead to solidarity with even a vile domestic regime.
Of course the usual terror against perceived domestic enemies will be kept up but it does not usually involve 'massive loss of infrastructure' (at least I am not aware that the regime bulldozes the homes of the families of its (violent) opponents as certain other entities do as an official means of deterrence.)

[Hartmut]

No disagreement with novakant there.
Just that I think the facade will be kept up even in the violent finale. If they know that there is no way out for them (they have even less reason to believe in any offer of safe exile than Saddam Hussein), they will likely put up a big show of fake religious fervor.
What's Farsi for »unser Führer [...] in seinem Befehlsstand [...] bis zum letzten Atemzug gegen den [...] kämpfend für [...] gefallen ist« ?

[BigBadBird]

Maybe the Theocracy is really one of the great scams of all time, and the mullahs really are quite sophisticated. One would think, were that the case, they might have managed their affairs a bit more deftly.

However, if you are referring to the general population, I agree. By the Theocracy, I mean the current leadership.

By terrorize, I meant the one of the few apparent remaining offensive assets the regime retains. The objects would be the US and Israel, maybe not in that order.

[Hartmut]

The US are* the easier target. And His Orangeness essentially closing the department dealing with such threats doesn't help.
But cynical me is of the opinion that some in the administration actually want another 9/11 because it will further foster their authoritarian plans.

*I again refuse to partake in the particular American exceptionalism of defying grammar rules by using the singular form.

[GftNC]

novakant: wow, it had never occurred to me that Khamenei (or Khomeini before him) or any of the others of that type were siphoning huge sums of money for themselves. Wikipedia says this:

A six-month investigation by Reuters has said that Khamenei controls a "financial empire" worth approximately US$95 billion that the Iranian Parliament does not oversee, a figure much larger than the estimated wealth of the late Shah of Iran Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. According to the Reuters investigation, Khamenei uses the assets of a company called Headquarters for Executing the Order of the Imam or "Setad" in Farsi to increase his grip on power.[105] Reuters "found no evidence that Khamenei is tapping Setad to enrich himself", but did find that he used Setad's funds, which "rival the holdings of the shah", for political expedience – "Setad gives him the financial means to operate independently of parliament and the national budget, insulating him from Iran's messy factional infighting".

Fascinating.

[hairshirthedonist]

Now I shall quibble!

From novakant's unlocked NYT piece:

Most presidents since have distanced themselves from the Bush doctrine.

Most presidents since GWB?

[Donald]

I will gove Trump credit for lashing out at both Israel and Iran for violating a ceasefire he apparently invented. In general Trump just lashes out and makes a fool of himself but perhaps by chance he did something right. I am not even being sarcastic there.

But we will see if the ceasefire holds.

In the meantime, Israel keeps slaughtering people in Gaza. I gathered they bombed Lebanon the other day, but just saw that on Twitter and didn’t try to check to see if it was true.

[wj]

What's Farsi for »unser Führer [...] in seinem Befehlsstand [...] bis zum letzten Atemzug gegen den [...] kämpfend für [...] gefallen ist« ?
In English (approximately): "our leader [...] in his command post [...] until his last breath against the [...] fighting for [...] the fallen

You have only to ask
rayabar ma [...] dar past farmandehi khod [...] ta akharin nafsesh dar barabar [...] mobarzeh baraye [...] saghoot kard
(I refrain from rendering in the Arabic script.)

[Donald]

I have the dumbest spellcheck in the world. It will sometimes act like a miniature ChatGPT and invent entire phrases for me and other times it lets a nonexistent or obsolete spelling like “ gove” slip by.

[wj]

It might be helpful to consider the immense wealth the Iranian leadership has amassed.

They may have gotten control of immense wealth. But the mullahs remain religious fanatics. The Revolutionary Guard, which also has immense wealth in the upper ranks, perhaps not so much. But to assume that the mullahs themselves (specifically the Assembly of Experts, the senior clerics) care more about the money than their particular religious beliefs is nonsense.

[hairshirthedonist]

But to assume that the mullahs themselves (specifically the Assembly of Experts, the senior clerics) care more about the money than their particular religious beliefs is nonsense.

Two things to consider:

...Khamenei uses the assets of a company called Headquarters for Executing the Order of the Imam or "Setad" in Farsi to increase his grip on power.[105] Reuters "found no evidence that Khamenei is tapping Setad to enrich himself", but did find that he used Setad's funds, which "rival the holdings of the shah", for political expedience – "Setad gives him the financial means to operate independently of parliament and the national budget, insulating him from Iran's messy factional infighting".

and (bold mine)

...the religious aspect is to a an extent a facade used to control the masses.

The point being that they (or, at least, he) don't necessarily care more about the money than their religion, but they aren't blinded by their supposed religious fanaticism to the usefulness of money as a means of holding onto power. And none of it means that there isn't some element of using religion to control the masses to hold onto power.

One more thing to consider (again, bold mine):

All this talk about medieval religious fanatics is inaccurate at best and would probably get you a fail in Iranian studies.

The word "medieval" is important here. The point being that they are adapted to the modern world and understand, to put it in very general terms, how the world works today.

[Donald]

I feel like I wasn’t sufficiently cynical about Trump’s ceasefire. Based on two previous cases, it means another attack on Iran is coming. Some claimisrael was running low on interceptor missiles, so maybe there is need for a pause.

Meanwhile, the Palestinians in Gaza are still starving and still being shot. This has all gotten perfect normal, which I think is part of the reason for the Iran war.

[russell]

I feel like I wasn’t sufficiently cynical about Trump’s ceasefire.

Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize, so of course Trump should get one, too. Otherwise it's not fair.

Trump said the war was over. It's all peace now, he said so. Because he's a peace maker!! But those stupid countries keep shooting at each other.

It's not fair!! They're gonna ruin his shot at the Nobel!! It's not his fault if they don't listen to him.

I'm waiting for the "Mom, make them stop!!" Truth Social post.

[BigBadBird]

"Medieval" fits. Christianity prior to the Reformation, Renaissance and Enlightenment wasn't all that different then from cultural Islam in Iran and elsewhere, generally speaking. Westerners can speculate as to what moves the mullahs. My money is on religion being, by far and away, the main driver with money being more of a means to an end.

[liberal japonicus]

I want to push back a bit from the notion of 'religious fanatic'. I'd note that Khamenei also survived an assassination attempt

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1981/06/27/today-whenA-bomb-planted-inside-a-tape-recorder-in/5746362462400/

I'm not sure how that affects one's personality, but it seemed to make Khamanei much more cautious and lots of descriptions of him describe him as a "survivor", which seems like a non-fanatical sort of thing.

He also issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons (which I'm sure that will be dismissed, but am trying to think of an equivalent gesture of Netanyahu and I'm coming up blank) He also only became Supreme Leader after the constitution was modified because he wasn't an ayatollah. So he's a peculiar kind of fanatic, if judged by his religious fervor.

[Donald]

“ Christianity prior to the Reformation, Renaissance and Enlightenment”

The Enlightenment was in part a reaction to the religious fanaticism and wars kicked off by the Reformation. People got sick of killing each other for religious reasons and the West we switched over to killing people for other reasons instead. The Protestants hatred the Catholics, the Catholics hated the Protestants and I think they all hated the Anabaptists, both the violent ones and the pacifist Mennonites.. Luther initially thought the Jews would be on his side and then he wrote some horrific rant against them when they didn’t convert. And on top of the religious wars, the witch burning craze reached its peak during the 1500s and early 1600’s.

Though I think the religious reasons for killing people still play a significant role for some. I know rightwing Christians often mix their Christianity in with a load of bigotry for people outside their group— these days, Muslims are a leading demon figure. My ex friend always somehow thought that the Muslim denial of Christ’s divinity was the underlying cause for the Israeli- Palestinian conflict.

As for the mullahs, I would guess most are sincere fanatics. I wonder if Luther and Khamenei are similar. There were some old posts by Khamenei that recently surfaced where he said some nice things and Luther could be nice too, when he wasn’t ranting like a maniac.

[Hartmut]

I believe to remember reading that Khamenei got the job mainly because of a fallout between Chomenei and his originally intended successor (possibly engineered by Khamenei) and not because of his theological merits but because he was the supreme yes-man to his master.
As for not personally enriching himself, that imo should not be overrated. Being the leader is materially comfortable enough and the main thing is the power. I would not be surprised, if he was disgusted about the corrupt Gulf monarchies not just for religious reasons but also their noveau-riche vulgarity (something His Orangeness can only aspire too,although he is trying hard).
If I had to bet, I'd say Khamenei has more genuine religiosity than many a US televangelist or megachurch pastor. But a craving for power also plays a part (it's good to be the king'), so his ideology is both conviction and tool of power for him.
As for opposing nuclear weapons, I am not fully sure. Hitler had a personal aversion against poison gas as a military tool probably due to his war experience, so it could be personal for Khamenei too. Or it could be calculated: If we get them, our unfriendly neighbours will too and they will have no scruples to use them on us, so better to condemn them and appear virtuous. Or it could have been a ruse (like the superpowers offcially abolishing bioweapons while in secret developing new ones under the disguise of developing countermeasures).
At the moment he is probably disputing with himself, whether he would be better off with or without them. In the past it would have been 'he who has them will not get attacked' but now going for them could be suicidal (but could at least give him the option of taking-you-with-me, if his doom was sealed).
Admittedly, I could understand such a sentiment.

[BigBadBird]

Whether a given Mullah is relatively fanatical or extremely fanatical or even absolutely fanatical is of marginal value if his--it's always a man--program involves dedicating himself and his country to the destruction of another country, oppressing women, gays and the insufficiently righteous. I just don't see the gradations as useful

[wj]

Christianity prior to the Reformation, Renaissance and Enlightenment wasn't all that different then from cultural Islam in Iran and elsewhere

Not really. You can make the case for Islam as the ruling mullahs preach it in Iran. And, even more so, for the Wahabist sect that effectively rules Saudi Arabia. But Islam in general? Not really.

Perhaps you should get out and meet some Muslims in other countries. Or, more likely, get acquainted with those among your coworkers and neighbors. Which, unless you are quite isolated, you will find there are some. They simply don't make a big production out of their faith, any more than most Christians do.**

** As with Christianity, those who make the biggest display of their religion are often the furthest from actually practicing it. .

[hairshirthedonist]

I just don't see the gradations as useful

Not useful to excuse the bad acts you list, BBB, but useful for understanding how they might behave under a given set of circumstance. I'm pretty sure that's what people are thinking about on this thread. But being black and white about it's probably easier.

[BigBadBird]

There is a large Pew study (2017 I think) that polls attitudes across a range of Islamic countries on a range of issues such as the penalty for apostasy, application of Sharia Law to non-Muslims, the role and place of women in public and private etc. The most liberal Muslims are in the US. Turkey and several of the Baltic countries are fairly open. Many other countries, not so much. Prevailing attitudes in many Middle Eastern countries are medieval.

[Donald]

There is a huge difference in the behavior of fanatics and obviously it makes a difference. If we just start to the Muslim variety, Hamas has been more fanatical than Hezbollah and far less fanatical than Isis. Contrary to what I often hear people say, you could be Jewish and visit Gaza. There is a fairly prominent Jewish doctor who has been visiting Gaza in the past year. Hamas is fanatical, but they welcome anyone they think is supportive. but Isis— I am not sure if any Western journalist tried to visit them.

Hezbollah basically surrendered rather than continue firing rockets and have both them r organization further weakened and much of Lebanon flattened. Hezbollah does concern itself with what other Lebanese think and unlike Hamas they weren’t willing to have Israel turn Lebanon into rubble.

I think the Iranian mullahs are more like Hezbollah.

The Economist ( I don’t subscribe and just saw sections secondhand) say that harder line elements in Iran are taking over, which makes sense. Every time the more moderate elements in Iran tried to reach an accommodation with the West it blew up— Israel killed an Iranian negotiator recently. The Washington Post has a tape ( I don’t know how they verified it) of an Israeli phoning an Iranian general and threatening to kill him and his wife and child if he didn’t renounce the govt. People either give in to that or they become hardline.

The NYT just reported a classified US assessment that the attacks set back the nuclear program, assuming they want a bomb, by a few months. The enriched uranium is probably safe.

I think we should talk about Israeli fanaticism and just how far their fanatics will go. Ideally you could put Israeli and Iranian fanatics in a small room all armed with hand grenades and let them sort it out. Oh, yes, Hamas fanatics as well.

[GftNC]

On the total obliteration question, the NYT says [Donald beat me to it]] that classified reports indicate the strikes likely set back Iran's nuclear program "by a few months", because all the attack did was seal "off the entrances to two facilities but did not collapse their underground buildings":

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/24/us/politics/iran-nuclear-sites.html?unlocked_article_code=1.RU8.5NQv.SW8yyGGoHt4Y&smid=url-share

If this is true, I wonder how long it will take anybody who believes a word that comes out of Ubu's mouth to see the truth: he's a salesman, a huckster, and his schtick has always been to exaggerate, over-claim, over-praise and generally play the rubes. And by God how the rubes have been played.

Donald: there are definitely appalling religious fanatics in Israel, and actually their attitudes to women and gays are not all that different, they just have less power than the mullahs in Iran and the taliban in Afghanistan. And there are certainly Christian fanatics too. When Ian Paisley and Khomeini were still alive, I used to say they belonged in the same circle of the hell in which I do not believe, along with some of the revered extreme orthodox rabbis too.

[Tony P.]

BBB (or anyone else),

Consider a nation that treats "scripture" as a land deed. Would you call it "theocratic", or not?

When certain American politicians treat the Book of Genesis as history and the Book of Revelation as forecast, are they "fanatics" or not?

I am asking seriously, in hopes of clarifying definitions. We're all entitled to define terms our own way, but being clear about them helps conversation along.

--TP

[Donald]

I meant to get to the Christian fanatics but I am online too much today and cut myself off.

But that said, here is a different topic. There is a new survey of the Gaza death toll. Spagat is one of those seketicsk of the 2006 John’s Hopkins Iraq War estimate so he isn’t inclined to overstate. This is a preprint— hasn’t been peer reviewed.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.06.19.25329797v3

Summary— the nonviolent death toll is lower than people have guessed, but the violent death toll is somewhat higher than the MOH figures and the breakdown by age and gender is similar. So the health care workers in Gaza are dong their best and have probably done a good job and their numbers are, as expected, lower than what is likely to be true.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.06.19.25329797v3

[BigBadBird]

Donald, your observations about ISIS vs Hezbollah, as one example, make sense. Thanks for the added dimension. If this were a verbal, face-to-face conversation, I might have more to say about pragmatism/fanaticism/barbarism, but generally, I will keep your points in mind going forward. Thanks again.

[wj]

When certain American politicians treat the Book of Genesis as history and the Book of Revelation as forecast, are they "fanatics" or not?

I would say that they might or might not be fanatics. What makes a fanatic (IMHO) is that he not only demands that others embrace his fantasies/theology, he demands serious sanctions against anyone who fails to conform to them.

[Hartmut]

To my knowledge still no civil marriage in Israel. Many couples have to travel abroad because they don't get a marriage licence from the religious authorities. There were also cases were Jews were refused Israeli citizenship because their Jewish parents were married not by an orthodox but reform rabbi (on principle, not due to specific objections to the rabbi in question). The persons thus denied citizenship were treated in essence as (at best) just one step up from a mamzer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamzer

[Hartmut]

What makes a fanatic...

I would also add the distinction between true and fake fanatic. The latter do all what you describe but do not themselves believe a word of it. Imo these fake ones can be even more dangerous, in particular once the authoritarians have taken over. Then they have to outdo the true ones to avoid getting detected and purged.
Btw, the same holds true in nominally secular authoritarian regimes like those of the Stalinist type.

[CharlesWT]

Trump has something that reform Jews don't have...

[GftNC]

Hartmut, if I remember correctly, children born to two Jewish parents (or even just a Jewish mother), even if not married (as they would not be in your example), are not considered illegitimate or anything remotely like mamzerim. To be a mamzer, I think you have to be a product of adultery or incest. And all you need to obtain Israeli citizenship (again if I remember correctly) is for your mother, whether married or not, to be Jewish (by descent, or orthodox conversion).

When you spell it out like this, it just shows you how mad all this is, just like the politicians who treat the Book of Genesis as history and the Book of Revelation as forecast.

[wj]

GftNC, that's my understanding as well. If your mother (and her mother, and her mother's mother, etc.) was Jewish, you are Jewish. Period. Even if you are Episcopalian Reform, ancestry still rules.

[liberal japonicus]

I made the comment questioning religious fanatic because of Khamenei own life story and how it doesn't really fit the template just before going to bed, which is always kind of dicey, but after reading, I'm now wondering about how and to whom we apply the phrase religious fanatic. Tony P's question about treating a religious document as a land deed is nice, but I'm wondering if anyone has seen an article describing the recent Minnesota political assassinations as the work of a 'religious fanatic'. This NPR article describes some background

https://www.npr.org/2025/06/21/nx-s1-5440350/minnesota-shootings-anti-abortion-extremism

Yet I'm struggling to find any descriptions of him as a 'religious fanatic'. I realize that there is the additional problem of discussing a person who is accused of a crime but hasn't been convicted about it, but wj's shorthand of 'the mullahs are religious fanatics' probably obscures more than it clarifies.

[wj]

Wondering how long** before the MAGAts notice that those bombs in Iran basically accomplished nothing beyond a couple of holes in the ground. And start demanding retribution against the Air Force, specifically the B-2 pilots, for deliberately missing the target so as to make Trump look bad. Deep state in the military, you know.

**If it hasn't started already; how would I know?

[liberal japonicus]

I'm surprised they haven't trotted the B2 crews and had them talk about the mission and how smoothly it went. Like something out of Wag the Dog.

[wj]

Can't have the B-2 crews talking, unless you can guarantee that they will attribute their success entirely to the wise leadership of Chairman Mao President Trump. Otherwise, you're putting someone else center stage, which is not acceptable -- see any cabinet secretary's statement about pretty much anything.

[liberal japonicus]

They could have done something like he did with with Juventus. Unless the crew included a female...

[nous]

WRT Christian religious fanatics in the US, I think it is entirely more weird than that.

I've been doing a bunch of reading about the New Apostolic Reformation in the last week or two trying to get a handle on the nexus of support for Trump among the religious right in the US. The pieces I had read before about the NAR had identified it as a largely pentecostal movement fueled by non-denominational megachurches headed by charismatic televangelists and religious podcasters. But when I started to dig into a lot of the practices and doctrinal positions, I started to see a lot of things that I knew from past experience were shot through the non-pentecostal evangelical churches as well - the Seven Mountains Mandate in particular. I had not realized before this last week that the Seven Mountains Mandate had been formulated by Youth With A Mission leader Loren Cunningham, or that YWAM had spent Cunningham's last years allying itself with prominent NAR leaders.

A lot of my family members are non-pentecostal evangelicals, but their focus on missionary work has had them deeply influenced by YWAM and whether or not they are pentecostal, they do seem to have fallen into the Spiritual Warfare paradigms that underpin a lot of the NAR thinking.

From there, I also found that these teachings are prevalent among Messianic Jews, and that Naomi Wolf seems to have gone down that particular rabbit hole as well via the writings of Jonathan Cahn.

https://naomiwolf.substack.com/p/have-the-ancient-gods-returned

And then from Naomi Wolf we get taken back full-circle to Rod Dreher.

S. Jonathon O'Donnell covers a lot of this in a fascinating article in the journal Nova Religio entitled "These Present Darknesses: Contemporary Demonology and the Conjuration of “Judeo-Christianity,” where he quotes Johnathan Cahn's The Return of the Gods:

In many ways America is a composite and summation of Western civilization. So then what gods could relate not to one nation or ethnicity within Western civilization but to all of them or to Western civilization as a whole? The answer goes back to ancient Israel. The faith of Western civilization comes from ancient Israel. The Bible consists of the writings of Israel, the psalms of Israel, the chronicles and history of Israel, the prophecies of Israel, and the gospel of Israel. The spiritual DNA of Western civilization comes from and, in many ways, is the spiritual DNA of ancient Israel.

O'Donnell goes on to say:

Channeling the mutual identificatory logics of American Christian Zionism and the nation’s long history of self-identification as Promised Land, America is subjected to the same demonic beings because, on a spiritual level, America is Israel—at once the alpha and the omega of “western civilization.”

In other words, a lot of the current Culture War rhetoric about Political Correctness and Western Civilization is driven by groups across the Religious Right who literally believe that Political Correctness is a demonic spirit meant to destroy a geographic stronghold of Western Civilization understood as Judeo-Christian religious values. Their support of Trump is not support of the man, but of the Apostles and Prophets who have declared that Trump was God's hand unleashed against the not-at-all-metaphoric, demonic Old Gods.

It's disturbing how many of these people are shot through the GOP in state and federal government. I don't think they are heavily represented in the swing voters, but they are a majority of the grassroots activists.

And the belief system overlaps with the vaxx deniers and the anti-abortion activists as well.

If you want to talk about a horseshoe effect, it runs between the anti-vaxx left and these lovelies.

I'm not engaging in conspiracy theories here. This is all things that they are saying themselves about the world.

[Hartmut]

Yet I'm struggling to find any descriptions of him as a 'religious fanatic'.

In the German daily newspaper I read, there was a double page yesterday on that topic that put the guy into the context of the New Apostolic Reformation. The expert interviewed there left no choice that he saw him as one and that he personally met many like him.

[wj]

They could have done something like he did with with Juventus. Unless the crew included a female...

Which, as I understand it, it did. And how irritating that must be for the pseudo-macho men now in charge at DOD.

[GftNC]

Meanwhile, Big Balls has left the building. I wonder what happened...

[GftNC]

Meanwhile, Big Balls has left the building. I wonder what happened...

[wj]

Someone got a look and discovered that they weren't...?

[CharlesWT]

Unless the crew included a female...

Why not? After returning from the mission, it's not like they will have to parallel park.

[russell]

WRT Christian religious fanatics in the US, I think it is entirely more weird than that.

A good place to start in understanding the Christian nationalism thing is R.J. Rushdoony.

Meanwhile, Big Balls has left the building.

My guess is that he'll pop up somewhere on Fox.