Christopher Geisel responds:

Thank you for your feedback. In response to your comments about Iran, I note that George Weigel believes that President Ahmadinejad's threats and behavior cannot just be dismissed as rhetoric, as they are indicative of a distinctively Shiite version of jihadism that believes in the goal of ushering in the return of the Twelfth Imam and the messianic age. He distinguishes this jihadist apocalyptic view from that of typical Christian fundamentalism--for instance, the difference being that the jihadists actually believe it is their responsibility to hasten the end of the world.

Martyrdom is intrinsic to radical Islamism. I think of the Iranian recruits who, with promises of paradise, stormed across minefields by the thousands in the human-wave attacks of the Iran-Iraq War. An enemy who is committed to martyrdom as an end in itself cannot be considered a rational actor on the world stage. Nuclear deterrence worked against the Soviet Union because the communist vision of the world, though dark, was not suicidal. A deterrence and containment strategy would only be perceived as weakness by the radical Islamists.

Weigel also compares the current rhetoric by Ahmadinejad to the writings of Hitler before World War II. During the 1930s, many dismissed the threats coming out of Nazi Germany as bluster as well, even as it grew in military strength and aggressiveness. When the Iranian president threatens Israel and the U.S., when Iran is actively sponsoring terrorism in Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and when it is currently enriching uranium, shouldn't we at some point take the Iranian threat seriously?

On the issue of whether an Islamic country would ever give a nuclear weapon to a terrorist, we should keep in mind that nuclear-armed Pakistan has a significant portion of its military and intelligence services infiltrated with pro-Taliban, pro-Al Qaeda elements. If these nuclear weapons (or even just the radioactive material) fell into the hands of terrorists, it would not necessarily be because of a decision by President Musharraf. A nuclear Iran who generally embraces extremists might pose similar risks of proliferation, regardless of the cautious self-interest of its mullahs.

The point of all of this, in my opinion, is that we face a global threat against a militant ideological enemy who seeks to destroy free societies, who is organized with state sponsorship, and who is actively seeking weapons of mass destruction. This enemy must be confronted head-on. I think the long-term solution is to encourage the spread of liberal democracy, which is the great antidote to radical ideology. In the meantime, we should use diplomatic, economic, and--as a last resort--military action to stop rogue regimes from further acquiring weapons of mass destruction.

Thanks again for your interest.