The Iran “Situation”

“May the undertaker bury you, your table and your body, which has soiled the world.” Pretty extreme words, right? Well, no less than the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, had these choice words to spat at the U.S. in a recent speech in response to what he calls American threats of a military strike against Tehran’s nuclear program.
What a joke. What world leader says stuff like this? Unbelievable. Although quite frankly, he looks like a complete idiot, he must be taken seriously. He is a radical ruler of a growing power that hates Israel and the United States with a passion. And, what happens when you hand nukes to a crazy man? Scary thought, I know.
In addition, in this recent speech, Ahmadinejad had the nerve to question if the U.S. really had evidence as to who flew those planes into the World Trade Center on 9/11. Really? He said most citizens in the United States don’t even believe they know who the hijackers were. Wow. Sorry man, but most people in this country know exactly who is responsible and the ideology behind I the attack.
In most situations, no one would have any reason to take a guy like this seriously, but unfortunately, “this guy” might end up wielding nuclear weapons that could devastate Israel. Therefore, we are forced to take him very seriously. We must make it clear whose side we are on. We cannot allow our friend and ally, Israel to be ravaged and “wiped off the map.” Action is inevitable. Time keeps ticking.

12 thoughts on “The Iran “Situation”

  1. ___0_ Reply

    "in response to what he calls American threats of a military strike against Tehran’s nuclear program."

    I have zero sympathy for Ahmadinejad — but it's a fact that the US has been at odds with Iran at least since the US-backed 1953 coup against Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq. Iran should feel threatened when the world's dominant military power takes such a casually belligerent pose that its second largest political party's Presidential candidate can sing "Bomb bomb Iran" at a fundraiser.

      • ___0_

        Let's see, if you live in Iran there's a very real chance that the US Air Force will bomb your country and kill thousands of people, maybe tens or hundreds of thousands if there's a full-scale invasion. If you live in the US what's the chance that the Iranian Air Force is going to invade and/or bomb Peoria? "Death to America rallies" are hardly a sign of strength, they're a reaction to decades of US belligerence.

        Why did the nutjobs capture the embassy and hold its occupants hostage? Because the US had overthrown a democratically elected leader and backed a vicious, violent despot for twenty-odd years.

      • crdaily

        The current regime does not consist of "vicious, violent despot[s] " ?

      • mseelingerjr

        I feel like if the overthrowing of a democratically elected leader was what really put these people over the edge, the first thing they would not have done upon deposing the old despot would be to install a new one. I think the 1979 Revolution had absolutely nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with an opportunistic power grab by a bunch of insane lunatics.

      • ___0_

        I agree that the revolution had nothing to do with democracy, but by overthrowing Mossadeq and backing a brutal dictator for decades, the US holds some not-insignificant responsibility for creating the conditions that allowed those power-hungry theocrats to take over the country, and Iranians have every reason to fear that the US will invade their country and kill many thousands of people.

        The OP begins by dismissing Iranian fear of a US attack and then says "action is inevitable" in the final paragraph… is there a name for that kind of pathological lack of self-awareness or is it just part of being a conservative in the USA in 2010?

      • mseelingerjr

        On what basis do you make the claim that "Iranians have every reason to fear the the US will invade their country and kill many thousands of people?" It's not as if our Fearless Leader has been rattling the saber. I know that UN Sanctions are really intimidating, but I'm curious on what basis you make that claim.

        Also, given that last year the Iranian people were willing to lay down their lives in a challenge to the legitimacy of the government, I doubt they'd be too upset to see the Mullahs go.

      • ___0_

        "On what basis do you make the claim…"

        I make this claim on the basis that prominent pro-war factions in the US have been threatening military strikes against Iran for years now, and those pro-war factions are more or less comprised of the same people who promoted and propagandized in favor of the US invasion of Iraq … there are organizations like Cheney's "Freedom Watch" whose sole purpose seems to be to urge military action against Iran. Gallons of conservative ink have been spilled urging war against Iran. Conservative lawmakers have introduced H.Res.1553, a resolution providing explicit support for an Israeli pre-emptive bombing campaign against Iran.

        On what basis do you believe that Iranians should not fear a US invasion? I'm sure many Iranians would be happy to see the Mullahs go, but you're delusional if you think that translates into support for a US military attack that will kill thousands.

      • mseelingerjr

        So, in other words, your assertions are not based on fact, but rather your projecting your hatred of Bush/Cheney onto the Iranian people.

        I'll just point out that those "prominent pro-war factions" (including Dick Cheney) don't currently hold any positions of significance within the current administration. I realize it's kind of instinctive for the Left to blame Bush for everything, but do try to tone it down.

      • ___0_

        No, they don't hold any positions of significance within the current administration, but that hardly means they're powerless, as they include both Democratic and Republican congressmen as well as numerous widely-published conservative and neocon pundits, who, despite being wrong about pretty much everything related to Iraq in the run-up to the 2003 invasion and its aftermath, have suffered no loss of credibility and continue to agitate for more, bigger war.

        Bush holds substantial responsibility for pushing the US toward a permanent war footing, something which no "small-government" conservative should be willing to abide. Obama hasn't been much better, but at least he has been so far unwilling to pursue the Bush policy of aggressive / pre-emptive war.

    • mseelingerjr Reply

      My understanding of the situation is that the US relationship was quite warm until the 1979 Revolution, at which point, if you'll recall, the current nutjobs that run the country captured our embassy and held its occupants hostage. So, I think the problem here is less the US and more the Islamic Fundamentalism that informs most of Iran's operations.

Leave a Reply