This is an article from January, but I was just thinking about this issue again in the context of an email discussion, on whether or not Iran can be trusted with nukes.

All streams of Islam believe in a divine saviour, known as the Mahdi, who will appear at the End of Days. A common rumour - denied by the government but widely believed - is that Mr Ahmadinejad and his cabinet have signed a "contract" pledging themselves to work for the return of the Mahdi and sent it to Jamkaran.

Iran's dominant "Twelver" sect believes this will be Mohammed ibn Hasan, regarded as the 12th Imam, or righteous descendant of the Prophet Mohammad.

He is said to have gone into "occlusion" in the ninth century, at the age of five. His return will be preceded by cosmic chaos, war and bloodshed. After a cataclysmic confrontation with evil and darkness, the Mahdi will lead the world to an era of universal peace.

This is similar to the Christian vision of the Apocalypse. Indeed, the Hidden Imam is expected to return in the company of Jesus.

Mr Ahmadinejad appears to believe that these events are close at hand and that ordinary mortals can influence the divine timetable.

The prospect of such a man obtaining nuclear weapons is worrying. The unspoken question is this: is Mr Ahmadinejad now tempting a clash with the West because he feels safe in the belief of the imminent return of the Hidden Imam? Worse, might he be trying to provoke chaos in the hope of hastening his reappearance?

Now here's the funny thing (at least to me). During the eighties, many accused Ronald Reagan of exactly this--thinking the Apocalypse at hand, and being willing and even eager to hurry it along with his itchy nuclear trigger finger, because we all know what a Christy bible-banging nutbag he was. It should be added, of course, that no credible evidence that he actually believed this was ever produced, and in fact we not only survived the Cold War under Reagan, but won it decisively, without a shot being fired, let alone initiation of the End Times.

Yet somehow, I don't see much in the way of expressions of concern from any of the people who were shopping this nonsense about Reagan then, about another nation's leader who actually does believe this, and whose every word and action confirms such a belief. This seems to be the same mindset that feverishly sees a theocracy continually descending on America, but never seems to notice that it somehow (to paraphrase Tom Wolfe) always lands in the Middle East. As Dennis Prager pointed out the other day, MAD (ironically) requires sane people.

Nazis and Communists wanted to live and feared death; Islamic authoritarians love death and loathe life.

That is why MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) worked with the Soviet Union. Communist leaders love life -- they loved their money, their power, their dachas, their mistresses, their fine wines -- and were hardly prepared to give all that up for Marx. But Iran's current leaders celebrate dying, and MAD may not work, because from our perspective, they are indeed mad. MAD only works with the sane.

There is great room for doubt that this is a description of the folks currently in power in Iran. Despite the nasty options facing us, none of them good, the worst outcome would be if they get their hands on nukes (if indeed, they haven't already, as some have suggested, via North Korea). It should be additionally worrying that they seem determined to develop launchers (which implies ICBMs) But some people are too busy trying to get us to disarm to be worried about them.

It sometimes boggles my mind that we are engaged in a conflict with an ideology that openly declares the desire for, and has proven willingness to use force to obtain, virtually all the things many on the left claim to fear from the Christian right, e.g. a theocracy, persecution of gays, subjugation of women etc., and large chunks of the left refuse to support the fight against it. Actually it should not surprise me, because during the Cold War many of the same people thought that the Soviets would act like big friendly teddy bears if the evil U.S. capitalists would just stop provoking them.

OTOH, it's possible that Mr. Ahmadinejad may love life just as much as the communist leaders, but like them, be putting up an act. Ie, if people know you have nuclear weapons and think you might be nuts, then you can exploit that. The trick is not to have think you're so far gone that they lose nothing by starting a nuclear war and taking you out.

The problem with the acting crazy bit is if I know you do not yet have nukes, but I think you may soon get them and I think you are crazy, my best course of action is premption.

I think people jump too quickly to the assumption that this is an act. There are too many cases in history when folks assummed someone's aggressive talk was just an act, and then were caught unprepared.

Iran is possibly making deals to ship their medium range missiles to Venezuala. What kind of picture does that paint? These people do indeed hate life. The left just hates the eeeevil burgoise west, and wants to take us down to erase their own failure during the 20th century. They'll glom on to whoever seems the biggest contender to humble us at the moment. After all, we're the ones who really need a lesson.

"but I think you may soon get them and I think you are crazy, my best course of action is premption." If we were smart, we'd start bombing the crap out of anything industrial in their country tommorrow. Better their lives than ours. It is not our job to defend their people: it's our job to defend our people.

If we could only even just credibly portray this as our mindset, the Iranians would be forced into backing down.

i wonder why you bring reagan up, when just recently bush was asked about his beliefs in this regard: http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Bush-Cleveland-3.mov

he doesnt deny he believes the war in iraq and the rise in terrorism are signs of the apocalypse, but instead launches into a long, awkward, unrelated rant about the war on terrorism.

also, you assert that ahmadinejad believes something similar, and you imply that this assertion is more credible than a similar one made toward reagan, yet you use the same standard of evidence for both ("rumors").

personally, i dont think any of the three are (or were) actively trying to destroy the world.

"It sometimes boggles my mind that we are engaged in a conflict with an ideology that openly declares the desire for, and has proven willingness to use force to obtain, virtually all the things many on the left claim to fear from the Christian right, e.g. a theocracy, persecution of gays, subjugation of women etc., and large chunks of the left refuse to support the fight against it."
actually the left criticizes when the religious (muslim and christian) zealots ally against western (or perhaps you would say "liberal") values. if the fight you are talking about is the war on terrorism, virtually all americans regardless of politics support that. conservatives often conflate the war in iraq with the war on terror, when really iraq has done much to harm the war on terror. it has wasted resources, wasted goodwill, wasted credibility, as well as provided muslim extremists an effective way to rally.

he doesnt deny he believes the war in iraq and the rise in terrorism are signs of the apocalypse

Perhaps because he thought it too stupid a question to dignify with an answer (which it was), but chose not to embarrass the questioner by pointing that out? Ahmadinejad's beliefs on this score are not "rumors." They are reported fact, by his own words. The only thing that is "rumoured" is the signing of a contract to act out on them.