[ Page 48-49 ]
The martyr state view rests on bold, even radical claims about Iran’s goals and behavior that defy conventional expectations of states’ actions. Governments can and have made catastrophic mistakes that have unintentionally led to their downfall, but no government in recorded history has willfully pursued policies it knows will proximately cause its own destruction. Given the novelty of the martyr state argument, its major implications for policy, and how unequivocally its proponents present it, one would expect to encounter an avalanche of credible evidence. Yet that is not the case. References are scarce in this line of writings, and certain references are cited with striking regularity. In his book, for example, Ledeen relies primarily on two sources for his depiction of Iran as a martyr state: an op-ed in Newsweek by Taheri, and the JCPA study by Shapira and Diker. Those authors cite Taheri’s Newsweek op-ed as well, in addition to a pair of other opinion pieces by him for Commentary and the Telegraph (UK), for key premises, including the essential claim that “religious convictions have propelled the regime toward an end-of-days scenario.” Other sources in the study include an unnamed “Israel Ministry of Defense analyst familiar with Iran,” a blog called “Baha’i Rants” written by an author who goes solely by the name of “Baquia,” a pair of op-ed columns by Daniel Pipes and Bernard Lewis, and a Christian Science Monitor article on Mahdiism. Yossi Melman and Meir Jevadanfar offer some documentation in their book The Nuclear Sphinx of Tehran, but it too relies heavily on op-eds, including the same Taheri op-ed cited by Shapira and Diker.