The issue with Iran is whether we are facing a case of militarism disguised as peaceful use of potentially military technology.

During the recent flap over Iranian processing of uranium we have heard a lot of protests to the extent that Iran’s nuclear program is strictly peaceful. The only people who know for sure, of course, are those in charge of the program in Tehran, and probably some of their colleagues spread around the country supervising the individual sites where work is going on. Can we trust them? Probably not; in any event, history shows us that to do so would be foolish. Just take the example of Nazi Germany and you will see why.

When the Treaty of Versailles concluded World War I Germany, perhaps unfairly, was singled out for extremely harsh treatment. It had numerous foreign possessions taken away, was required to pay reparations to other nations of Europe, and was severely restricted in its military activities. When the Nazis came to power in 1933 they set about circumventing these military restrictions. Because they were forbidden to organize an effective air force they set up recreational flying clubs where young men could train in gliders, and then powered aircraft in the same flying skills that were used for military purposes in 1939. German experts traveled widely to research what other nations were doing, to obtain technology where possible, or to take their observations back for development where it wasn’t. One of these, Ernst Udet was responsible for bringing several aircraft back from the United States along with the concept of the dive-bomber, which led to the development of the Stuka aircraft, which saw considerable and effective use until allied developments rendered it obsolete. It might be noted that this was the tip of the iceberg, because Germany had also been experimenting on jet powered aircraft, and only Hitler’s monomania about using the Me 262 as a bomber kept it out of the war at a time when it might have made a huge difference.

Similarly, because Germany could not openly develop new armored vehicles, a large part of the work was done in public under the guise of farm tractors and construction equipment. When the situation was right the disguise was dropped and the tractor chassis became a tank chassis.

The issue with Iran is whether we are facing another case of militarism disguised as peaceful use of potentially military technology. While the Iranians, on one hand maintain that their interest in nuclear power is for generating electricity; they also rattle their sabers by threatening the elimination of Israel, and war on other nations as well. Lest we forget, while Hitler was talking peace, building farm tractors and organizing peaceful flying clubs, he also threatened war in Mein Kampf, his book which, inter alia, detailed his plans for conquest.

What makes things different today is not the possibility of war, but the potential effects of a war, or of nuclear terrorism. In 1940 it took a tremendous effort to kill a million people. One nuclear bomb, properly placed may do the same with ease. Downtown Los Angeles, New York or Chicago make tempting targets, as may Washington, DC. Consider that a nuclear explosion does not need to be right on top of the White House or the Capitol to take them out. The danger is real and significant.

While America may want to avoid confronting Iran on this issue because of public opinion, or international pressure, it may be necessary to do so, none-the-less. What the rest of the world’s governments may not yet realize is that they are also on the target list; albeit at a lower priority than cities here in the USA. Thus, we must confront the sad duty of protecting those who won’t protect themselves, and who won’t thank us for doing it until maybe, just maybe, we come up with the smoking gun that says London, Paris, Moscow and Beijing were also slated for destruction. The people who will control the triggers are interested primarily in power, and they will not hesitate to use it when they have it ready. Of course by the time we are out of the way and the same threat is brought to bear on other governments it will be too late.

In an interesting article noting another case of parallel behavior in the Middle East, the reader may also want to check out Lee Harris’ column for TCS Daily entitled Misunderestimating Moktada al-Sadr in which he details al-Sadr’s use of the political process to gain power in Iraq in a manner similar to that used by Hitler during the 1930’s. Whether or not history repeats itself, one can certainly count on the fact that people will always repeating the same mistakes or following the same roads to success. The names change, but the events are so similar that we should not have any problem figuring out what is going on; unless we haven’t studied history.