New York Times Op-Ed Claims Nukes are a Sacred Iranian Value

Sacred bomb values

Sacred bomb values

Since time immemorial, Islam has worshiped the nuclear warhead. Which means allowing Iran to go nuclear is just a matter of religious freedom. Just ask the idiots at the New York Times.

According to news reports, a key factor in last weekend’s diplomatic impasse over Iran’s nuclear program was Iran’s insistence on what President Hassan Rouhani has called its “right” to enrich uranium. “National interests are our red line,” he declared, echoing earlier statements by other Iranian leaders.

Western officials appear flummoxed: Why would Iran refuse to budge, even when offered the considerable financial incentive of lessened sanctions?

They shouldn’t be surprised. Researchers who study “sacred values” — moral imperatives we’re unwilling to compromise on, be they political, religious or personal — have detected just such a pattern of intransigence. When sacred values are in play, studies show, any proposal of economic incentives to make a deal is liable to backfire. And for the Iranian leadership, nuclear power has evidently become such an issue.

There are two things going on here (besides a hack promoting his book with a topical issue)

1. Liberal racism. If a Western country is bent on nukes, then it’s a murderous monster. But if official “brown people” want nukes, it must be because they have some “spiritual” need for them.

2. Sanctions are rational. Anyone who doesn’t give in to them is being irrational, which means they must have some superstitious desire for nukes. It’s inconceivable to them that it’s irrational to expect a tyranny bent on going nuclear to refrain from it because of sanctions.

The New York Times is almost on the right track. In Islam, killing infidels is a sacred value. But it needn’t be done with nukes.

As the Blazing Cat Fur blog points out,

The writer is apparently unaware that is possible to run nuclear reactors without enriching the uranium in your country (in fact, most countries do not enrich). He is further unaware that Iran has rejected an offer of importing enriched uranium from Russia.

There is nothing sacred to the Iranians about nuclear power. They are much more interested in nuclear bombs.

Sure, but it’s harder for Western liberals to argue that nuclear bombs are sacred. That gets a little too close to the dirty bomb truth about Islam.

  • Veracious_one

    In Islam, killing infidels is a sacred value
    When learning about Islam…this is lesson number one…

    • objectivefactsmatter

      Anything that advances sharia in the mind of anyone can be sacred.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “They shouldn’t be surprised. Researchers who study “sacred values” — moral imperatives we’re unwilling to compromise on, be they political, religious or personal — have detected just such a pattern of intransigence. When sacred values are in play, studies show, any proposal of economic incentives to make a deal is liable to backfire. And for the Iranian leadership, nuclear power has evidently become such an issue.”

    Here again you have leftist circular logic. Intransigence? It must be a sign of sacred values. Ahh, can’t touch sacred values…

  • montana83

    Look, uranium in the ground is about 99.3% U238 and a minute quantity (0.7%) of U235 – that’s the useful stuff. So, you have to enrich the U238 until you get about 3-5% U235. Then you can put that in a LWR (Light Water Reactor) and produce power.
    The Iranians are going right past 3-4% all the way to 20% U235. Well, you can use that that for medical isotopes but Iran has enough of this enriched uranium for the entire world. So don’t listen to that nonsense from them,
    It takes a long time to go from less than 1% U235 to 20% U235. It doesn’t take that long to get the 20% to weapons grade uranium @ 80% to 90% and 20% can make a crude device.
    There is nothing sacred about all this. It’s just nuclear physics. The fact is Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) worked in the Cold War as you had rational players. MAD doesn’t work with our Persian friends as Bernard Lewis says: “To Iran, MAD is an inducement”.
    The New York Times is insane and has been for decades. Don’t listen to them. They know nothing.

    • Stopnlook

      None of which will be acknowledged in the NYT. Wait a bit…

      Woo, they have a bomb now? And ICBMs? Appeasement time, let’s let them nuke Israel so they don’t nuke us!

      Nobody could possibly have seen that coming, I mean who understands this nucular stuff anyway??

      /sarc

    • Stopnlook

      “They know nothing.”

      They know very well what they are doing. That is why they’ve had a fair amount of success doing it.

  • T.A.

    Daniel Greenfield has misrepresented the meaning of this NY Times piece. The Times says, “And for the Iranian leadership, nuclear power has evidently become such an issue.” This clearly means that nuclear power was not formerly such an issue, but it is now. It is unspecified at what point it became such an issue.

    However, Greenfield misrepresents this as follows: “Since time immemorial, Islam has worshiped the nuclear warhead.” Since time immemorial??? Go back and read what the Times actually said.

    In addition, the Times defined “sacred values” as follows: “moral imperatives we’re unwilling to compromise on, be they political, religious or personal.” So it is clear that the Times is not claiming that nuclear weapons are part of Islam.

    The Times piece is worth commenting on, but Greenfield was not at his best when he drew these conclusions.

    • Stopnlook

      Iran appears to be following the North Korean path regarding nuclear weapons, something the Times consistently attempts to obfuscate.

      As stated above, DG’s interpretation of this Times article is odd and off base, as if he’d skimmed rather than read it. An accurate and incisive analysis of how this article fits (or doesn’t) with other NYT evasions on the topic would be a heck of a lot more valuable than one that falls apart should you actually read the NYT article.

    • fmobler

      I thought it was obvious that Greenfield was mocking the Times’ “researchers”.

  • Jason

    Of course it’s a sacred Iranian value. It’s the sacred value to wage unending Jihad against the Kuffar! We can’t take that away from them, not ever. How can you be so insensitive? If their religion tells them to kill us, then who are we to complain? (Sarcasm)

    • objectivefactsmatter

      As long as it’s sacred, how can we complain? We’re not a nation of racists, are we?

      • Jason

        of course we are, we’re white conservatives!

  • RMorrow

    The New York Times should be burned to the ground.