24 Comments

1. Jassem Othman - From the Middle East (Poland):

I ASK MR. PRESIDENT OBAMA, AND ASK THE HUMILIATING POLICYMAKERS.
HOW YOU CAN LIVE WITH A NUCLEAR IRAN???
You know that Iran is not only represented in individuality Mr. Ahmadinejad, Iran is based on religious fanatic theocratic regime of the expansionistic nuclear and military, ever since Ayatollah Khomeini has been ruled Iran.
For a long time hardly a day goes by without pounding speeches and hatred declarations from the mullahs warning Jews nation and the United States, that is since the Ayatollah Khomeini had been declared since 1979.They had been waged war on USA more than 29 years (The Mullahs murder you more than 29 years). Eventually and easily THAT Mullahs BRING SOME AMERICAN POLICYMAKERS TO THEIR KNEES by his repetition of hard-line aggressive declarations against the west and Jews. Yet, the delusion persists by humiliating defeat makers. They called USA in the great Satan, they sworn to combat the satanic influence everywhere on the earth. Obviously in the Iranian dictionary the US “means enemy”, and “the enemy is Satan”. Time and again we heard the Iranian leaders have said that they intend to use nuclear weapons to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. We also heard the Iranian president Ahmadinejad’s declarations against Jews, Judaism and Zionism.

On October 2005, he called to Israel’s eradication from map, and the same on April 2006, thereafter he called and have incited the Islamic world to mobilizing to extirpate the Israel and Zionism from map. Ditto on August 2006 he adopted to hold conference which was titled in Tehran in “World Without Zionism”. On 11 December 2006 he did a conference in Tehran about Holocaust denial and recently he named Zionists in Satans. Obviously their sordid purpose to destruct the great Satan ONLY as soon as they would possesses WMD, which really they will possess it soon. And recently the Iranian president has done it again; vowed to wipe Israel off the face of the earth he STILL PROUDLY telling you about this matter, and telling the world too. Because he strongly believes what he says and saying what he believe. Inevitably this speech will be aimed thereafter to the Christian world after the obliteration of the Hebraic State God forbid! ONLY as soon as Iran would possesses the weapons of mass destruction. Ditto a few months ago, the Iranian President Ahmadinejad lashed out at Israel in a strongly worded attack, describing the Jewish state as a “dirty microbe” and a “savage animal” as he said: World powers have created a black and dirty microbe named the “Zionist regime”. Ahmadinejad’s charges come days after Mohammad Ali Jafari, commander of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, predicted that the terrorist army Hizballah would destroy Israel in the near future.
Mr. Ahmadinejad recently claimed that THE WEST HAS ALREADY BEGUN TO SURRENDER, and he gloated that “final victory…is near”.
OF COURSE THE MULLAHS WOULD BE VERY PLEASED TO NUKE ISRAEL AND TO KILL MILLIONS OF AMERICANS!!!

THE AMERICAN HUMILIATING POLICYMAKERS, PLEASE WAKE UP!!!

Dec 11, 2008 - 11:31 am 2. Robbins Mitchell:

I wouldn’t accept an umbrella from Baroque Obozo to keep me dry in the rain…much less one supposedly designed to protect Israel….both would be equally leaky and undependable….and should Israel ever actually get hit with a nuke,he will find some way to whuss out of actually responding in kind…he has all the credibility of Rod Blagojevich on this issue

Dec 11, 2008 - 5:01 pm 3. Nick G:

Whether deserved or not (I think not) Obama has at least some global credibility. The majority of people around the world are more likely to accept a message said by him than by Bush, I don’t think even Obama’s critics dispute that.

So will Obama use this opportunity to talk about “change” in Iran, and the Mideast? No. He could become a revolutionary international figure — if he wanted, that is. Problem is, he doesn’t seem to believe in it. He’d much rather talk about the “legitimate claims” of Hezbollah and Hamas (NYT, May 2008), or how Iran’s a “tiny threat,” etc.

Could you imagine Obama going to Baghdad and talking about regime change in Tehran? Or going to Jerusalem and talking about regime change in Damascus? It’d be incredibly powerful.

It’s too bad. At best, he’s going to pursue a hybrid of Clintonian liberal internationalism and Scowcroftian realpolitik. At worst, he’s a full-scale capitulationist a’la Carter and the Gates & Jones appointments are mere political moves to protect him on his right flank as he pursues a weak policy.

Dec 11, 2008 - 6:11 pm 4. Nick G:

Another thing to think about, as we discuss Obama’s Iran positions: At what point throughout his presidency will he realize his will be a wartime presidency, as well? Biden, Clinton, McCain etc. have all said they don’t need to “learn on the job.” What lessons will Obama learn? At what point will he learn — WILL he learn — what we already know, about Iran?

Can you really imagine Obama rallying the troops? You know, doing the presidential prerequisite things every Commander-in-Chief does? Can you really visualize him at an overseas base going “Hooah!” or “Semper Fi!”?

Throughout this entire campaign, we haven’t heard him talk like a president. We’ve heard him talk like a professor, like a social commentator, like a Chomsky, a Huffington, a Hitchens. Throughout his entire nomination speech — which lasted around 40 minutes, comprising over 4,600 words — the phrase “General Petraeus” was not mentioned once; the phrase “Islamic terrorist” or “fundamentalist” was never uttered; the word “surge” was never mentioned; “victory” didn’t appear either.

This was a man running for president during a time of war, refusing to talk about the war. Think about the magnitude of that.

It would be great to hear Obama talk about these pretty, um, important developments in a war-zone without having to be prompted by someone else.

He might think it isn’t worthwhile, to talk about victory, or to praise the military consistently and put the military’s wartime accomplishments into historical context. But perhaps now that he will be Commander-in-Chief, you think he’ll throw the soldiers some red meat?

Dec 11, 2008 - 6:19 pm 5. Jack Davis:

Sh*t. What a mess.

Dec 11, 2008 - 6:22 pm 6. kourosh:

Leftists organizations and media are responsible for the majority of the ills in the world by putting forward misleading ideas mostly against US, and the in favor of their inhuman ideologies. If Khomeinists have nuclear capabilities, then it would be the end of Israel, and world will have many wars after that. Only those who favor wars can accept nuclear bombs in the hands of Ayatoolehas. In my opinion:
1)US was right to enter WWII for 2 reasons. First, it was attacked by Japan, and second, it had the moral rights to prevent Nazism, since it was anti-human.
2)US was right to enter into Vietnam for 2 reasons. First, it was threaten by Marxists on its door steps, and second, it had the moral rights to prevent Communism since it was anti-human and would spread in SE Asia.
3)US had right to enter into a war with terrorists and stop them in their bays in Afghanistan and Iraq for 2 reasons. First, it was attacked by terrorists and Islamists for several years prior to their final attack on US soiul on 9/11. US of course did nothing to stop terrorists prior to 9 /11. Second, it had / has the moral rights to prevent Islamists, Jahadists, and Khomeinists, since they were /are anti-human, anti-civilization, anti-human right, and anti-progress.
4)The only time that US didn’t implement a right strategy, was the time that Carter was tricked by so-called human right activists and leftists in his cabinet, and went to bed with Khomeinists. If that mistake wasn’t committed the item #3 would never happened. Therefore, to correct that mistake, US is right to prevent Khomeinsts of obtaining the Nuclear boms.

Dec 12, 2008 - 7:49 am 7. dan:

despite the anti-clerical feeling you and others say is common and powerful among Persians (and presumably other Iranians), it is difficult to imagine they will be able to topple the government there. i personally no longer believe in popular revolutions; revolutions must be organized. who can organize against the mullahs? undoubtedly there are such conspiracies and there are apparently no shortage of people, primarily students, to provide mass to the crucial crisis – but we are no Soviet Union, for example, when it comes to patronage. what is the ideology they will fight for? is that not the primary steel of Communism – that its total philosophy silences all internal dissent among the revolutionaries? did he and stalin and the rest not continually harangue faithful Communists about steel discipline of the Bolshevik Party, and against factionalism? but anglo-saxon modern state-administration is precisely an affair of factions. how could such a motley force overthrow the Islamic Revolution – a very similar animal to Leninism? it’s not that i don’t think this would be the best course for all, and certainly one that seems to find expression among many people in iran, but the question always seems to have been: can we rely on this force to carry out increasingly critical strategic errands for us? i really just don’t see how we can. unless we have gotten much better at organizing and sustaining revolutionaries, while applying the requisite pressures to the existing regime, it’s going to take more than a few disloyal republican guards, some CIA money and a few black-ops to crack the Islamic Revolution open. don’t you think that’s self-evidently true?

Dec 12, 2008 - 8:17 am 8. Winston:

Will they wake up when a nuclear bomb destroyed much of a major US or European city? Well, personally I doubt that too.

Dec 12, 2008 - 8:56 am 9. Dan D:

I remember the Iranian Revolution. Nobody in my lifetime did revolution more effectively and resolutely than did the Iranians. The early Khomeini years, the fanaticism of the fighting with Iraq during their war, the tolerance of extraterritorial assassinations, the utter rejection of the Pahlavi years… that was a thoroughgoing revolution.

I keep hearing how the Iranian populace supposedly loathes the mullah’s regime, how continuing social and economic difficulties have undermined the regime, how apathy and and exposure to Western culture has alienated youth.

So where’s the revolution? Nobody did revolution better than Iranians, but there is no sign of significant and effective resistance against the mullah’s regime on anything like the scale of the late 1970’s. Maybe much of the Iranian nation is not that terribly unhappy with the state of affairs in their country.

I have talked with about a dozen natives of Iran who have settled in the States, some for the last thirty years, and who have made successful lives for themselves here. Every one is proud of their American success, and also proud of the long Iranian and Persian culture. Even the ones who vehemently oppose the mullahs never fail to express strong resentment against American interference, they will never forget Mosaddeq and 1953.

This makes me very skeptical of the chances for regime change in Iran, the mullahs have nationalism cards they can play to their advantage.

Dec 12, 2008 - 8:59 am 10. kourosh:

Dan:

I agree with you that uprising is hard But that is due to the fact that Khomeinists have no mercy on anyone. Just in recent days there were many students and other factions uprising with not much cover in the Western media. Of course, most of their leaders were arrested and are now in Evin prison while their families are being harassed too. In the other hand, we know Mullahs overall capabilities. As long as they have free hands with the world looking the other way, they will commit their crimes against humanity in Iran and elsewhere. However, Mullahs are a bunch of cowards more than any other terrorists group out there. At the moment they notice a serious change of attitude toward them, they will run to their holes. The fact is, Iranian people are alone and no one is supporting them by reflecting their desires for democracy. Everybody including our own ML is saying people must revolt. But who is supporting them. Of course there are few sporadic statements like the one by the France President in recent days which is very important, but in the other hand and in the same continent as Europe, there are Germans and others who have increased their economic transaction with Khomeinists by 15% last year alone. It seems countries like Germany and its Siemens don’t care about human rights, and anti-Semitic statements by Khamenhie, Ahmadi-Nejad, Rafsan-Jani, and Lari-Jani. They actually welcome anti-Israiles stands of Khomeinists. Of course, there is also GE in US doing the same thing as Siemens with murderers of Iranian people. Bottom line is people in Iran can only rise, when they see for sure there is no support for Khomeinists among civilized nations.

Dec 12, 2008 - 9:35 am 11. dan:

i really should not type so fast, my posts look ridiculous most of the time.

kourosh: i hope you are right, and that – if you are right – there occurs very soon a very big push from the US and European media to support a simultaneous uprising in the main cities of Iran. we’d probably need this to be timed with a very public withdrawal of financial relations from iran. i think it was henry kissinger who told ali bhutto that he should behave himself because “we can destabilize your country and make a very bad example of you.” i hope there is a combination of forces prepared even now to push this popular uprising into daylight, and to victory.

but i think we have seriously to think about what will happen if (1) there is no such plan in the works, or (2) the plan is tried but fails.

because the ultimate question here is whether iran can be prevented from achieving the ability to produce its own nuclear weapons. at that point it will no longer simply be a question of what’s best for iranian people, but also a question of what’s best for all the peoples of the region, including israel, and also the people of the rest of the world (except of course for the russian and chinese sponsors). in fact, it already is that kind of question.

much like the obama, anti-bush talking point of: “let’s talk to Ahmadinejad!” the point is: what happens if that Doesn’t Work? THEN what do we do?

Dec 12, 2008 - 1:27 pm 12. Right Pulse » Blog Archive » Obama accepts a nuclear Iran:

[...] wonders if that means Obama has accepted the inevitability of an Iranian nuke. Yes, of course I blogged on it. And so did Richard [...]

Dec 12, 2008 - 3:15 pm 13. marymcl:

Likud is Israel’s only hope here – it is the only party that would never, ever trust the nation’s security to anyone but the IDF. If the Israelis even consider this idiotic plan, they are lost. Not to mention the proverbial unintended consequences elsewhere. It’s hard to believe Obama’s foreign policy team is as ignorant and shallow as it appears to be, but there you have it.

(And isn’t it an awful irony that our incoming NSA is an anti-Zionist named Jim Jones? You couldn’t make this stuff up and be believed.)

Dec 13, 2008 - 9:06 am 14. Ben Florsheim:

CORRECTED

Lawyers are familiar with the phenomenon of clients who lent money to a debtor who PROMISED solemnly to provide security for the loan. The debtor was “DEFINITELY” going to execute a deed of trust over his property, etc.

Before long, the loan goes into default, and one finds that the debtor somehow never got round to making good on his promise. The credulous lender is left high and dry with no hope of recouping its losses.

For Israel to even consider entrusting its survival to the distant Beltway bureaucracy would be tantamount to suicide. As Bernard Lewis has observed, the U.S. can be fearsome enemy and a DANGEROUS FRIEND.

Dec 16, 2008 - 4:33 pm 15. The Captain’s Journal » Is a Nuclear Iran Inevitable?:

[...] Michael Ledeen also weighs in with his always educational and interesting prose.

Dec 16, 2008 - 10:01 pm 16. j green:

So does this mean that we would not have responded to an Iranian nuclear attack against Israel in kind until this idea of a “nuclear umbrella” comes to fruition?

Therefore, in the meantime, as there is obviously no “nuclear umbrella” policy in place already, does Iran henceforth have carte blanche until such time as Mr. Obama decides to make this declaration?

Obama seems already to have backstabbed Israel, and he merely holds the Office of the President-Elect. Imagine the damage he can do after January 20.

Dec 17, 2008 - 11:19 am 17. a Duoist:

German corporations regularly conduct seminars today on how to trade with Iran, despite UN economic sanctions. German trade with Iran is up 14% this year.

Russia stalled the Bushehr nuclear plant as long as it could, but now with its completion Russia looks forward to stronger commercial relations with Iran, especially as Russia seriously considers joining OPEC.

Swiss utility companies buy Iranian natural gas to sell to its customers in northern Italy.

None of this would be possible if Iran’s present form of governance was accurately described in Germany, Russia, Italy or Switzerland. So long as the ‘nature’ and ‘character’ of Iran’s governance is innaccurately described in propagandistic and particularistic rhetoric, the world merely hears the boy falsly crying “Wolf” and will not join the fight to deny dual-capability nuclear power to Iran.

For at least two years we have made a weak case against Iran’s governance. Instead of correctly arguing about the ‘character’ of the theocracy in Iran, we have allowed the debate to concentrate on geo-political issues, which always reduce the argument to calls for “stability,” the favorite word of thugs, theocrats, and the Nobel Prize Committee.

In Ambassador Bolton’s words, Iran is already a nuclear state. Dual-capability is now only a year away, IF that is Iran’s intent.

Mr. Obama’s intent is still a mystery. The American neo-cons have all but destroyed the most accurate and strongest arguement available against Iran’s theofascism, so Mr. Obama’s eventual policy to Iran could very easily attempt to adopt George Kennan’s “containment” recommendation for US policy against the Soviet Union.

Hitler’s and Komeini’s form of governance, in Hitler’s actual words, is a “philosophy of life.” As Dr. Ledeen points out, the nihilsm of Nazism and Khomeinism actually make them a ‘philosophy of death.’ Our brightest intellectuals have failed abysmally over the past two years to make Churchill’s warnings a part of the current debate. Churchill didn’t give a fig about the geo-politics of Nazism, or about ‘realist’ versus ‘idealist’ onanism in the halls of academia and government. What Churchill warned against was the ‘nature,’ the ‘character’ of the governing philosophy. Every neo-con argument against Iran for the past two years has mis-identified the threat by the unfathomable use of anti-intellectual propaganda. If we had simply made an accurate argument, Mr. Obama’s ultimate Iran policy would reflect the strongest, clearest, and most Churchillian thinking.

No one is brighter than the neo-cons, and no one is as unintentionally self-defeating. Iran is another neo-con opportunity missed.

Dec 17, 2008 - 11:53 pm 18. a Duoist:

Sorry for all the mis-spellings; I’m so angry at the “missed opportunity,” that I just speed-typed my comments. Mr. Obama’s Inauguration is in roughly one month. An Iranian policy should be in place within thirty days after the Inauguration. If there is to be a ‘window’ of opportunity for the neo-cons to clean up their propaganda rhetoric in favor of dispassionate accuracy against Iran’s form of governance–their “philosopy of life”–that window is the next sixty days.

Dec 18, 2008 - 12:16 am 19. adam poorshed:

Mr. Leddeen:
The President did not fall for any trap. The American policy is plain and simple: Mullah-Iran as well as any other non-Arab country surrounding the Arabs cannot be friends with the Arabs. This was the litmus test. If Iran does not want to become a fried with us, we will cajole, beg, besseech and then surrender to them provided they show their enmity to the Arabs.
As the main instrument of chaos in the Middle East after the Americans, their policy of messianic Shiism is exactly what we want. We needed, planned and created a menacing Iran.
The road to surrend to Iran satrted not with an illusion, but with a determined and successful policy to steer the Iranians against the Arabs. Bush took us so long down that path that the only thing Obama will have to do is just declare what has always been an American policy. What we got now is a multi-fold strategic enmity between the Arabs and the Iranians cemented by the fact that Iran, with the purposeful help from the USA, has achieved all of its aspiration at the expense of the Arabs. Now Iran controls Iraq, lock stock and barrel. If they get the nukes, they will threaten, not Israel, but the Arabs. With their delusional policy spurred on and carried into execution by the USA, their desire for destructive control of the ME is closer than ever. Yet, that is exactly what we wanted in the first place, provided it is done at the expense of the Arabs.

Dec 19, 2008 - 1:18 pm 20. Bent Notes » Blog Archive » This option may yet look viable to Western decision-makers:

[...] bracingly plain-spoken observers who tries to give good sense an airing despite the cacophony.

Dec 20, 2008 - 4:11 pm 21. David P:

Umbrella has been the implied standard, it’s unacceptable, inapplicable & unrealistic, it follows the typical failed reactionary policies that spearhead every crises. The USA’s in a unique position to launch an authentic preemption to stave off a future Holocaust promised by the Mullahs.

Dec 21, 2008 - 9:57 am 22. Len Frankel:

“Democratic revolution in Iran has a lot going for it, and I believe the Iranian people would support it if they saw that the United States would do the same.”

The tough-talking heavyweight sits in his corner, pounding his gloves, rarin’ to go. Then the bell rings, the big bruiser gets up, rushes forward – and pees in his pants.

Dec 22, 2008 - 8:40 pm 23. Ira Zad:

Hussein Oh-Banana can put that ‘umbrella’ where the sun don’t shine(while opened)!
He does not know diddly sh*t about foreign policy or Iran. Our only hope is Hillary(God, how far we have fallen!) since she is the daughter of Jerusalem.

Now, Hussein Oh-Banana and EU-Biden along with their other EU buddies will do their best to re-install EU-mullah Khatami(or someone like him with EU-ties) as “president” of Islamic Republic of Turds of Tehran in the May 2009 presidential ‘elections’ there.
Believe me they are already working on that.

If a Khatami or a ‘Khatamite’ gets back in there in June 2009, all bets are off: no bombing, no nothing, ‘Grand bargain’ galore, i.e. no regime change. The new Prez in Iran, be it Khatami or another EU-stooge, will immidiately declare a multi-year ‘freeze’ on all nuke activities, and That will be that. The rest will be dealings and wheelings with the EU-mullahs by Obama/Biden team. And the regime will get a long long long lease on life. Problem solved!

If –on the other hand– Nejad(who is running again) or another ‘fundamentalist’(Russian faction within the regime) gets re-elected there n June, we may just see bombings yet, but not necessarily ‘regime change’.

Either way, the chances of any ’steam rising’ from within Iran from the numbed Iranian populace against the regime are equal to chance of a snowball in hell.

You see the city-dweller Iranian are too busy re-doing their noses and chins by plastic surgery, and dancing in their night parties in major cities, in their Caspian sea villas with their opium and sex orgies, and travelling to Dubai for fun to care much about ‘regime change’. The regime knows it too and allows the decadence to go on since it is in its advantage for the masses to be a-political.

So sorry to say that any short to intermediate range change of regime in Iran will have to be from the outside. Just like in 1953, except that in 1953 we did the wrong thing and did the wrong thing real well!
But now that we have to do the right thing, we slumber and appease the mullahs, instead.
Shame on Bush for being a push-over on Iran, and even more shame on Condi-mullah appeaser-Rice for that.
Condi deserves a few “shoes” to be thrown at her face for that! But somehow Bush got the dirty end of that stick(as usual.)

Watch it unfold- “when you can make a deal with them, why change them?” Say Hussein Obama and Euro-Biden.

Obviously Hussein Obama’s “Change” did not extend to or encompass regimes like Iran’s.

Dec 24, 2008 - 6:17 pm 24. Rubicon:

I still contend that a nuclear Iran is a problem but not the “big” problem. Iran could & probably would use a Nuke to destroy or seriously harm Israel. To do so would fulfill their prophecy. The corrupt interpretation of the Koran that Iran uses to motivate or actually to incite its followers, is behind their actions.

Yet a nuclear Iran is only a small element of the real threat. Once equipped with nuclear bomb capabilities, Iran will probably first & foremost establish a means to duplicate their bomb & make many, many bombs. And that is the “real” problem. Once Iran has more than one bomb, you can bet the bank they will distribute those “excess” bombs to every nut job terrorist who is seeking to subjugate the rest of the world to their despotic vision of a seventh century world run by Islam & its extremist Imams.

So in a way the appeasers are right. Iran with a bomb could be dealt with, “if” they were not over the top extremists. But Iran’s leaders are over the top extremists & they are in bed with the world’s over the top extremists who want Islamic rule over the world perhaps even more than Iran does. This is why the appeasers are dead wrong. They see Iran as a single compartmented issue. They do not see the really big picture of perhaps dozens of extremist terrorists possessing bombs & what devastation these extremists could wrought on the whole world.

This is why Iran should be denied the bomb & this is why Israel wants the world to support & agree with them that mankind must do all it can to stop such an eventuality. Ironically, Israel’s desire to stop Iran is actually an act to protect the rest of the world!

Dec 31, 2008 - 3:55 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: