Future History: A Nuclear War Begun by Iran
By THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: January 22, 2006
"The Origins of the Great War of 2007 - and How It Could Have Been Prevented," in The Daily Telegraph in London, offers an eerie history of the near future by Niall Ferguson.

The ideological cocktail that produced "Islamism" was as potent as either of the extreme ideologies the West had produced in the previous century, communism and fascism. Islamism was anti-Western, anti-capitalist and anti-Semitic.

From the Gaza to Manhattan, the hero of 2001 was the suicide bomber. Yet [Iran's president, Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad, a veteran of the Iran-Iraq war, craved a more serious weapon than strapped-on explosives. His decision to accelerate Iran's nuclear weapons program was intended to give Iran the kind of power North Korea already wielded in East Asia. ...

Under different circumstances, it would not have been difficult to thwart Ahmadinejad's ambitions. But the president was advised by his secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, to opt instead for diplomacy. ...

So history repeated itself. As in the 1930's, an anti-Semitic demagogue broke his country's treaty obligations and armed for war. Now Tehran had a nuclear missile pointed at Tel Aviv. And the new Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu had a missile pointed right back at Tehran.

The optimists argued that the Cuban Missile Crisis would replay itself in the Middle East. But it was not to be. ...

The devastating nuclear exchange of August 2007 represented not only the failure of diplomacy, it marked the end of the oil age. Some even said it marked the twilight of the West. Certainly, that was one way of interpreting the subsequent spread of the conflict as Iraq's Shiite population overran the remaining American bases in their country and the Chinese threatened to intervene on the side of Tehran.

Rock and roll will save us.

The Vines will save rock n roll.

My cord blood will save Aaron.

Pop will eat itself.

Not now James, we're busy.

Guy must have some serious pull to get his Doomsday scenario published in huge papers like this. I could type up two or three of these a day. What makes this one any different or more likely to happen? Because Bush opts for diplomacy, uncharacteristically?

Bush won't be president then. You read it here first.

In August 2007?

Nope. 8)

I've got a song by The Only Ones for you.

Let's hear it.

I've got a Mad Daddys song for you.

GDI, now that song is going to be stuck in my head.

It could be worse, at least it's a good song. It coulda been Barry Manilow.

"Oh, Mandy, and you came and you came without changing..."

...or however it goes.

what two countries border Iran on either side?

[img][495:500]http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/iran_population_density_2004.jpg[/img]

exactly - Iraq and Afghanistan

You forgot Turkmenistan.

everybody forgets turkmenistan, even the turkmeni

i think i forgot the point i was making

The invasion will come from Pakistan. They'll dress up the airborne as a travelling cricket squad.

That's cool; I got it. I like how Israel says they are discussing force because they "can't" let Iran develop nuclear capability. Way to diffuse the situation, you fucking Moes. Here's a shocker: plenty of people have said that shit (:cough:India and Pakistan:cough:), but there's not much you can really do. If Iran wants nukes, they're going to get them, and you're playing right into their plan by threatening the use of force.

Yeah, this idea that you can restrict technology (and nuclear technology is 60 years old now) to your friends is pretty fucking stupid.