Mustafa Domanic is an online activist and blogger. He contributes to several blogs on Turkish current affairs as well as global political issues including foreignsight.blogspot.com.
Close.
Mustafa Domanic
Istanbul, Turkey
Mustafa Domanic is an online activist and blogger. He contributes to several blogs on Turkish current affairs as well as global political issues including foreignsight.blogspot.com.
more »
To those who claim that the US has a moral superiority over Iran and therefore the right to do:
When I think of a country in the Middle East, or even in the world that is the true nemesis of a western style liberal democracy, whose state promotes fundamentalism and society breeds extremism, I do not think of Iran, I think of Saudi Arabia; America’s best friend in the Middle East.
Osama Bin Laden is Saudi, and a very rich one as well – purely driven by ideology, not desperation. Al-Qaeda is a Saudi founded organisation. 9/11 was thought of, planned out and mainly carried out by Saudi extremists. Saudi oil money finances and supports Islamic extremism all over the world from the Philippines to England, from the Balkans to Israel.
If you are really talking about a threat – not even to world peace, because I know our definitions of world peace are quite different – but to the American people, you would worry about Saudi Arabia, not Iran.
Oh, but of course, I forgot that Saudi Arabia is a loyal client of the US, providing a constant flow of oil and logistical support when necessary. The Saudi royal family – by far the most corrupt, oppressive, decadent regime in the region – is a good friend of your administration.
Then I guess you have two different moral standards: one that applies to you and your friends, clients, etc., and one that applies to your enemies.
And let us not even begin with America’s “moral” credentials. I don’t have to start with native Americans, I believe fifty years in Central America (Nicaragua, Panama, Chile) and the Middle East (Iran, Iraq, Palestine) are ample evidence of ‘American might makes right’. I will not elaborate.
I know some of you actually believe in this moral superiority illusion. I don’t know what to say to you except that your media and your government has been doing an excellent job of brainwashing you. Open your eyes! Others, though, who are aware of the dilemma, honestly, why don’t you just say what your administration is really after in Iran, and drop the moral crap!
I believe, not only in principle, but also in practice, that nuclear proliferation is not a solution. If climate change doesn't annihilate us, then nuclear weapons will.
However, I think Mustafa has a crucially valid point. I would put it this way: Current Iran policy of the US, coupled with Washington's decades of meddling in that country's internal affairs, is effectively stripping Iran of a feasible alternative to pursuing nuclear ambitions. Therefore, while I believe Iran 'should not' possess nuclear weapons, I think under the present circumstances they are forced to build that capacity.
If the US really wishes a non-nuclear Iran, it should seriously review its own policies and present that country with more alternatives. Threatening to bomb and invade the country leaves them little to choose from.
On the other hand, I disagree with Mustafa that Iran's only deterrent against the US is having nuclear weapons. I believe, in fact, the current American stance only plays into the hands of extreme right wing hardliners in both countries, who wish to manipulate domestic public opinion with an ever present external threat.
American neo-cons probably 'want' Iran to have nuclear ambitions: they know Iranians' premature nuclear operations pose no substantial threat to advance nuclear states like theirs and Israel, while it gives them the excuse to be actively involved in Iran's affairs.
Consequently, there is another deterrent that Iran could employ against US aggression, which Tehran made very little use of so far: world public opinion. The biggest war of our century is the propaganda war. Bush administration has trumped its way into Iraq by convincing its people that Iraq posed a serious threat to their country. Saddam, a failure that he always was from a PR point of view, did poorly in trying to convince the world otherwise.
If Iran can convince the American people (granted, much harder than convincing the rest of the world) that they pose no threat to them at all, it will disarm the American propaganda machine and gain Iran some supporters in the western world. And even the US cannot invade a country (even harder now than before) without the backing of its own people and at least the prentention of an international 'coalition'.
Winning the propaganda war is a difficult endeavour (just look at the fanaticism of some of the comments posted here), but Iran has more chance in this alley than in the nuclear alley. They already scored a big point with the intelligence report (and they know it).
"Iran needs nukes to defend itself against America"?
"North Korea wasn't attacked by America because they have nukes"?
How much longer must we endure hearing such utter nonsense? Does the Left really have no stronger argument to use to buttress their nonsense than these two howlers?
No, nukes are _not_ useful to Iran to defend itself against America. The only country that successfully defended itself against America with nukes was the Soviet Union. But at what a cost! The expense of keeping up with the arms race was a major cause (if not the only cause) of the collapse of the Soviet Union.
And no, North Korean nukes had _nothing_ to do with they weren't attacked. It is the way North Korea holds the South Korean capital, Seoul, hostage that is the reason. For even before they had nukes, when everybody _knew_ they did not have nukes, we could not attack. Why? Because the North Koreans have _huge_ batteries of artillery aimed at Seoul, so that we know that once we attack, they will bombard Seoul causing immense civilian casualties. The South Korean government would not forgive us for this, even though it is really the North's fault if they die.
The only alternative that might prevent this is a _massive_ nuclear strike to take out those batteries. Come to think of it, the resulting nuclear winter might be the best answer to China's refusal to cooperate on global warming;)
Now perhaps Iran would be willing to stoop so low as to imitate North Korea's inhumanity, but then why are there so many _apologists_ for such inhumanity on the Left, especially in the _European_ Left?
I love all these so-called American patriots coming in here and claiming that Iran is destablizing the middle east. Have these people checked their headlines oh for the last 60 years. We just launched a disastrous and unprovoked war in the heart of the middle east that has virtually torn Iraq into three parts, and somehow Iran is destablizing the middle east. Israel our prinicipal ally in the globe has launced attacks against two Arab countries just in the last 8 months, forget about their 60 year history of apartheid and wars of conquest. My personal highlight of Israeli History is the 1956 war in which they tried to steal the Suez Canal and where forced to withdraw by arch Islamist-loving Dwight Eisenhower.
I WILL BET ANY PERSON IN THE WORLD 10,000 DOLLARS IN A BET, WHO IS MORE LIKELY TO FIRE THE FIRST SHOT IN A WAR, ILL PUT MY MONEY ON IRAN AND YOU GUYS PUT YOUR MONEY ON THE WASHINGTON/TEL AVIV UNITY GOVERNMENT.
FOR YOU GAMBLING ODDS MAKERS LETS LOOK AT PAST BETTING PERFORMANCE:
Iran: last time Iran/Persia initiated an invasion was sometime in the middle part of the 19th century when Nader Shah tried to conquer northern India.
AMERICA: HAS FOUGHT ALL OF THE FOLLOWING WARS, BOMBINGS, POLICE ACTIONS JUST SINCE 1980:
1. SHOOTING DOWN OF IRANIAN CIVIL AIRLINER (SEE USS VINCENES)
2. SHELLING OF LEBANON AND BEIRUT, 1980S
3. Grenada: that was a real imminent threat
4. Somalia
5. Bosnia
6. Kosovo
7. Iraq (twice)
8. Afghanistan
9. Panama
10. Haiti
I WONDER WHO YOU WOULD BET ON. The world opinion polls are right, and our own militarist history proves them right, we have launched a war or military invasion or some kind of bombing against some perceived threat, on average every 3 years. IT IS OUR OWN MILITARIST, ZIONIST, AND CORPORATIST GOVERNMENT THAT IS THE BIGGEST THREAT TO OUR PEOPLE AND THE PEOPLE OF THE REST OF THE WORLD.
I love all these so-called American patriots coming in here and claiming that Iran is destablizing the middle east. Have these people checked their headlines oh for the last 60 years. We just launched a disastrous and unprovoked war in the heart of the middle east that has virtually torn Iraq into three parts, and somehow Iran is destablizing the middle east. Israel our prinicipal ally in the globe has launced attacks against two Arab countries just in the last 8 months, forget about their 60 year history of apartheid and wars of conquest. My personal highlight of Israeli History is the 1956 war in which they tried to steal the Suez Canal and where forced to withdraw by arch Islamist-loving Dwight Eisenhower.
I WILL BET ANY PERSON IN THE WORLD 10,000 DOLLARS IN A BET, WHO IS MORE LIKELY TO FIRE THE FIRST SHOT IN A WAR, ILL PUT MY MONEY ON IRAN AND YOU GUYS PUT YOUR MONEY ON THE WASHINGTON/TEL AVIV UNITY GOVERNMENT.
FOR YOU GAMBLING ODDS MAKERS LETS LOOK AT PAST BETTING PERFORMANCE:
Iran: last time Iran/Persia initiated an invasion was sometime in the middle part of the 19th century when Nader Shah tried to conquer northern India.
AMERICA: HAS FOUGHT ALL OF THE FOLLOWING WARS, BOMBINGS, POLICE ACTIONS JUST SINCE 1980:
1. SHOOTING DOWN OF IRANIAN CIVIL AIRLINER (SEE USS VINCENES)
2. SHELLING OF LEBANON AND BEIRUT, 1980S
3. Grenada: that was a real imminent threat
4. Somalia
5. Bosnia
6. Kosovo
7. Iraq (twice)
8. Afghanistan
9. Panama
10. Haiti
I WONDER WHO YOU WOULD BET ON. The world opinion polls are right, and our own militarist history proves them right, we have launched a war or military invasion or some kind of bombing against some perceived threat, on average every 3 years. IT IS OUR OWN MILITARIST, ZIONIST, AND CORPORATIST GOVERNMENT THAT IS THE BIGGEST THREAT TO OUR PEOPLE AND THE PEOPLE OF THE REST OF THE WORLD.
The Iranian Islamo-thugs seize the US Embassy---an act of war---and hold American citizens hostage for 444 days, but the US is the bully and poor Iran is the victim.
Got it!
Why is it so hard for people to accept the words coming out of a despot's mouth? When a dictator tells you theat they want to wipe a country off the face of the earth, they probably mean it, but nobody wants to believe it. Since they live in denial, we get dreck like this. Appeasment minded bovine droppings disguised as intilectual debate still smells just as sour.
If Iran gets a nuke, they will do exactly what they say the want to do... Use it against Israel. When they do, 50 more go off over Iran, dropped by the Isralies, the middle east will boil over, and we have WWIII, started in the same way the second one started. Appeasment giveing evil time to arm and get ready for the party.
Hitler warned us he wanted to retake lands lost, and destroy the Jewish people with a book before he tried to burn the world. Now that another dictator says he wants to drive the Jews into the sea, and create a new Persian empire, we really want to lay the blame at Americas feet for trying to stop it, and hand them what they need to set their plan in motion?
We have forgotten the lessons of history, and now, it looks like we're going to repeat it. God help us all if this guy gets his way.
No country has anything to fear from America unless that country is run by lunatics who are racist AND actively advocate destroying America or American allies. Mustafa is as intellectually dishonest as possible in his "analysis" of present Iran-USA "relations." Iran's stated aims are to destroy Israel, drive all the Jews out of the middle east, and impose the narrow backwards retarded "mores" of their religion upon non-Muslims everywhere.
Your contribution is a masterpiece! By giving rise to this insane conversation on potential mutual extinction, it indeed points to the only viable alternative to unmitigated madness, i.e. world disarmament and peaceful coexistence.
Once upon a time, in our own lifetime, there existed people, groups, countries even, working toward world disarmament and peaceful coexistence. Even in the media were found human beings who could present and discuss the advantages for humanity to set itself, pursue and achieve those collective goals. In our midst, people could be found, who understood the fundamental changes required, in our way of thinking, in order for us to attain such truly human objectives.
As always, violence is very unlikely to produce the results its promoters expect. Yet those it will produce have been known to us since the early beginnings of mankind. War still ought to be considered and treated as a funeral service.
While I am not surpised that this "author" would condemn America, after all he is a muslim and brit. My question, if Iran is so great, why do you live in the land of cowards (England)? What is really disturbing to me is that some Americans actually beleive this crap the author writes and that Islam is anything other than a sick death cult.
Someone please stop Iran now. And to the posters here who think America is morally equivalent to Iran: Please wise up, before your unique brand of stupidity gets us killed.
It is astounding that an American newspaper would even publish this piece of trash. It is enlightening however how anti-American sentiment is cherished at the Washington Post. Once this guy gets it's way there will be no Washington or Post.
Mr. Domanic with the exception of the coup d'etat you have conveniently managed to neglect decades of British involvement in 20th century Persia/Iran. Be careful of to who exactly it is you point your fingers."
I hate responding to someone named Anon but here goes.
UK was primarily the main instigator/destablizer of the democratic regime in Iran. US joined in with the UK's plan by supplying the funds to the Army General and the Shah for the coup. BP formerly AIOC was the initial firm being nationalized, and this happened when Mossadegh realized that UK was taking more in taxes & profits from Iranian oil through BP than Iran. I know its difficult to put this is perspective, but Iran nationalized the oil industry after repeated efforts to get a just settlement for the Oil-Revenue sharing between UK and Iran.
Secondly, Many US companies were part of the Cartel of 8 that benefited from the Shah's rule.
"You have also managed to neglect, as others have already pointed out, the U.S. numerous humanitarian efforts.
"The US had also sent aid to the USSR after earthquakes. Lets not forget Somalia '92 where the US sent food and aid and was attacked by locals. Yet somehow no one ever decides to remembers these. This is all in spite of the fact that after some of the US's worst natural disasters (Hurricanes Andrew and Katrina, The blizzard of 93, wildfires and earthquakes that have plagued california for ages, etc. etc.) where was the support for the U.S.? To put it bluntly, it wasn't."
Dont be naive to think that the US govt's aid help is 100% humanitarian. Its a known fact in the developing world that the Aid is contingent upon favorable terms for US interests. Also, wrt Katrina, US asked for assistance in the aftermath of Katrina. $854 million was pledged by over 40 countries in the world as aid. of this only about 5% in aid was accepted by the US in order to avoid the obligations this would result in.
In fact, IRAN offered oil assistance to the US in the aftermath of Katrina.
Pure propaganda,and shame on the Post for giving this terrorist a venue. And shame on some posters, suicidal 5th columnists with advanced cases of BDS.
Who cares what this pig licker has to say? How dare we "interfere" with the Iranians' democratic system? Can this dirtbag say Hamas? How about Hezbolla? Lebenon? Can he say Lebenon? Hey England, wake up! Hey western civilization, wake up! Christians, wake up! This guy is the face of the cancer that's spreading around the world, "in Allahs' name". These are the guys who murder little girls for trying to go to school. Like any other cancer they must be cut out of the body. Completely. We suffer them at our own peril.
Claire W. may I ask you and other pseudo-peaceniks on this blog who are commenting that we cannot allow any one else to go nuclear or that nuclear technology is not the answer, would you suggest the same to your american and israeli counterparts? surely if nuclear deterrent is such an evil thing nobody should have it specially the one country known to have used it on a civilian population (and yea i've heard all those disgusting excuses america makes for nuking japan).
Really, if you leave iran alone, it has got nothing to do with you guys. are people really so dumb not to understand that its not Iran thats after US its the other way round. all because of oil. I believe that Ahmedinejad or whoever follows him would be considered the biggest traitors of persian history if they roll back their nuclear programme and turn a blind eye to this impending threat. Once having rid Iran of its WMD's America and NATO in their zest to loot Iran of its oil will make Iran worse than Iraq
It makes sense that Iran should continue to build her nuclear capacity since it looks like the US will one way or another will attack them whether they do or do not.
With their failure in Iraq, US has stumbled in the political arena. 2007 has been a hard year for them also in the economic arena. However, nor the lack of international and local support (or lets say the diminishing support of the Americans) neither the adverse affects of the `war` on US economy seems to have stopped them.
Now that the elections are coming up, I would like to hear more about you interpret the release of this report as a change in US policy or as you have put it where do you place this in that larger game? In other words, how would it get US what it wants?
BTW, I support Iran having nuclear weapons too, as well as nuclear energy capability. I think American arguments are absolutely moot. Every argument of how threatening Iran can be countered that America is more threatening, more demonstratively destructive and designing towards surrendering Iran's sovereignty for America's imperial desires. And Americans are too blind to see that they are a corrupting empire that exploits other people for their corporations' benefits.
Wonder why Russia went authoritarian? Or Venezuala? Or Ecuador? Or why China remains authoritarian rather than just follow America's leadership?
Did you know Australia is pulling out of Iraq? And Britain will be soon? And eventhough Spain had a terrorist attack of its own, it still withdrew out of Iraq. And did you know that the Pentagon wants to set up a new African Command, but the poor, pathetic countries of Africa are reluctant to host such a new American megabase because it will spell the end of their sovereignty and position them in every American venture, ecspecially the bad one? And did you know Russia, China, and some central Asian countries formed a security pact, the SCO, which is being formed to resist American and NATO encroachment into Asia? So it is plausible that Chinese troops could be on the borders of Europe becauase America is using NATO as a pretext for its imperial acquisition of East European nations like Georgia to weaken Russia and gain access to the Caspian sea basin and the surrounding natural resources of oil, gas, and metal ore.
And did you know America has been fomenting war in the Congo through Rwanda and Uganda in order to wrestle control of the resources of the region away from the Kinshasa based, EU tied, govt for American corporate designs?
And did you know America wants the secession of Darfur from Khartoum in order to gain access to the oil rights of Darfur and Eastern Chad?
And did you know that Somalia has oil, and the first American incursion into Somalia in 1991 was designed to bring back stability so America could claim its oil rights which Siad Barre awarded American companies and the starving Somalis was just a pretext?
And today there are American oil companies working to gain access to Somali oil in Puntland and elsewhere.
And the new puppet regime in Mogadishu is positioned to grant Somali oil rights to America.
So you imperialists need to face yourselves. You think you can justify invading any country and that you are above laws and morality? And from your home in suburbia, you think you are threatened by the entire world, so you must conquer the world to bring order and security? That's the language of Empire.
iran is as justified as any other country to have nukes. the problem does not lie in whether there are nukes or not. we can have tons of nukes like there were in the cold war without any of them being used. iran should make itself strong considering what is going on now in the mid-east. making nukes could be a way of doing this but it would be incredibly short-sighted. it would end up just like the former soviet union that went bankrupt in a arms race with the west. iran's best hope is to strengthen itself in all respects, in economics, social issues, scientific progress, blah blah. this is the only way to cut off the west's dirty meddling hands. iran can show al-qaeda & other extremists the way to get even with the satanic enemy, not by violent terrorism but by enlightened progress...
Neo Con imperialism runs thick in the veins of Americans these days. To no surprise, most all Americans accepted Bush's lies that the Iranian regime is trying to build nuclear weapons. The last I saw, nearly 50% of Americans still think Saddam had something to do with 9/11. I suspect most Americans support torture too, ecspecially as long as 24 is in the top 5 shows each season.
America is still an imperialist power (and many of these WaPo comments reflect that). And the Neo Cons, or whomever replaces them in the future, will still desire to conquer Iran NOT because of its THREAT (that's just a pretext, Iran is fairly cooperative on most things), but because of it RICHES: oil, gas, metal ore.
The American Empire hungers to dominates the world's resources in order to retain control over the larger masses which pose future challenges: namely India, China, EU.
Iran is just a stepping stone to the big rock of long term, global, supreme imperialism. That's what the PNAC stands for: Project for a New American Century. How can a century be claimed by any one nation? If it becomes a world empire with longevity.
六四的参与者们他们怀着和我一样的气愤和梦想，采取的是有组织的大集体做战。2百多个主力军在天安门前一个月地下跪，绝食，示威，乞求，几十万支援军在外围摇旗呐喊。他们饱尝辛酸。他们把身体都搞坏了，有的饿成重病。却没有实现他们的梦想。因为他们只会乞求。而我的人生字典里根本没有乞求两个字。他们饿得不行了，情绪失控，从爱国蜕变成害国，引发武装暴乱。他们被抓进监狱，有的患上精神病和其他疾病，他们的人格和名声也被搞臭了。他们会痛哭，后悔一辈子。
我自始至终都能控制自己的情绪，尽力调节自身的状态，平静和微笑一直在心里和脸上。我决不做危害国家的事。明明我们的人也在贪污，我硬是要遮住中国屁股，大力展出洋屁股。 我只是偶尔暴躁。血性男儿都这样。比如，当我身上没一分钱，心衰体弱，害怕紧张地写crime details, clues and evidence and black lists 时。图书馆工作人员和政府派来的人动不动就骂我，向我施压，并且关闭网线。我不知道他们的名字，但我能清楚记住他们的大便脸。我愤怒。这不难理解。他们首先是穷要饭的精神病（经常自言自语或主动骂人），为了生存而去帮助那些官员。那些官员本身就是贪官，神经西西地认为我也会把摧毁他们。
六四参与者除了重创了他们自己，没能丝毫实现他们的梦想和愿望。腐败照样存在，而且愈演愈烈，到达今天的程度。中国和美国的关系反倒更加紧张。世界分为两派更加对立和明争暗斗。他们只不过是可敬又可悲的失败者。
As seems to be the norm in present day political discussions, this columnist presents another heavily biased viewpoint when, as usual, the true answer lies in moderation. Mr. Domanic is correct when he condemns cooperative effort between the United States and Britain to over throw a democratically elected leader in Mohammad Mosaddeq in 1953 however; in his bombastic rhetoric, he fails to recognize the volatile domestic political situation that was being played out in the United States during this time period. The early 1950's were a time of intense rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union. A time that included not only the McCarthy Hearings, but also the Eisenhower Doctrine. When Mosaddeq sided with Iran's communist party in an effort to solidify his position, it raised more than a few shackles in Washington. Also, it should be noted that many of Iran's influential ulemas were ardent Mosaddeq detractors, and supported the coup that ultimately lead to his ouster. While this does not excuse the United State’s hypocrisy in thwarting Iran's attempt to instill a democratically elected leader, it does show the inherent bias in Mr. Domanic's argument. It is important to note that the United States, as pointed out by Mr. Domanic, is taking an unrealistic and belligerent stance towards Iran. Making extreme military threats, and labeling a country's defense force as a terrorist organization, is not the proper way to go about establishing peace and deterring nuclear efforts. It seems that the Bush administration is trying to reinstate the policy of Brinkmanship against a much lesser opponent. Unfortunately, this policy, has, and will continue to induce the type of attitude adopted by the Arab states following the 67' Arab-Israeli War. Iran will have no choice but to adopt a policy of belligerence, knowing that it cannot physically repel the U.S. but; in belligerency, it can frustrate U.S. efforts and gain global sympathy by playing the underdog. For both countries to actually gain from this experience, two events must occur: the United States must assume a less physically threatening stance towards Iran; and Iran must cease its nuclear ambitions. Nothing good can come of a volatile state, with such a large and disillusioned young population, possessing nuclear weapons. As the U.S. should have learned through countless past experiences, it cannot continue to try and impose its will on other nations. For beneficial a results, the U.S. truly use force as a last result and Iran must abandon its nuclear objectives.
Agree that we need more creative leadership, both them and us.
Iran is a still an underdeveloped society. The enormous intellectual and economic might of the Persian people is being squandered by misguided mullahs.
The Iranian people are worse off today than at any point under the leadership of Reza Shah.
So much for the ideals of their revolution.
The Iranian people are getting ripped off again, and on a human level, deserve much better than their current government affords them.
I agree with you on the fact that bullying often causes a downward spiral of violence - and I would also agree that the US has much responsibility in causing that violence at a global level. Yet the response can't be 'going nuke' - need more progressive, creative and definitely more peaceful alternatives for deterrence. Maybe it is time we start thinking what these measures could be...
If Mustafa is so willing to accept the cold, geopolitical reality of neccesary deterrance, in the form of nuclear weapons, he must be willing to also accept the geopolitical dominance of America. He cannot have it both ways as he does when advocating accpetance of Iranian nuclear weapons. The actions which America undertook, specifically the coup of 53', was an action which fell squarely within the framework of cold war policy as did many other unsavory American actions which were to a certain extent uncovered during the church committee hearings of the 1970's. The point is that these were realpolitik actions taken by the US to preserve post war dominance and prosperity, but this does not exscuse them on a moral scale. Though the reaction of the Iranian regime to build a detterent against American and Israeli power is justified in this realpolitik sense, we must ask if it is justified in a moral sense. If you pose this question, then the central point of Mustafa's essay is rendered moot. You cannot bemoan American dominance in the world and then justify actions which run along the same lines. Or in today's parlance, "Don't hate the player, hate the game". If you want to take the moral high ground, and I believe that this article was a misguided attempt at doing so, you must take a moral stance against cold realist policies of all nations which inevitably increase the spiral of violence and despair in our world.
Mustafa should put the US way down on the list of those commiting "unending aggression." Pretty much all of Iran's neighbors want the Mullahs taken down, more than the USA does. Face it - besides China, who just wants Iran's oil (sound familiar?), Iran's totally corrupt theocracy doesn't have a single friend in Asia or Europe (gangsters in Lebanon don't count). Hell, even the Iranians themselves hate the Mullahs. Mustafa - how much are they paying you?
Make no mistake about it, Bush will not leave office without letting a few tomahawks fly. The targets have been chosen. We are at the ready.
Bomb Iran, Bomb Iran, ba, ba, ba, bomb Iran.
One the one side, we have a bunch of corrupt Iranian Mullahs. On the other, we have a bunch of corrupt American politicians. We have a village idiot as President, and Iran has one it's own, also president of the nation.
We have all sorts of bold pronouncements made on each side. The truth, however, is to be found somewhere in the middle.
Of course the Iranians are working on a nuclear capability. Who could blame them? Mustafa Dominic brings up a valid point. The Iranians look at a map and what do they see? We have them surrounded, for the love of God! They are next on the war monger wish list, and they know it.
It's only natural to want to defend yourself.
As far as Iran bombing Israel, forget about it. This would be suicide, would result in annihilation for the nation of Iran. The mullahs may be corrupt, but they are not stupid.
President Amen-then-jihad has said a lot of dumb things, but, ultimately, the Iranian regime is interested in advancing it's own economic interests.
The Iranians don't need the U.S.A. They are a nation obsessed with the idea of self reliance.
Mr. Domanic with the exception of the coup d'etat you have conveniently managed to neglect decades of British involvement in 20th century Persia/Iran. Be careful of to who exactly it is you point your fingers.
You have also managed to neglect, as others have already pointed out, the U.S. numerous humanitarian efforts. As I recall both the US AND Great Britain both sent aid to Iran after the Bam earthquake. This of course is just the example of Iran.
The US had also sent aid to the USSR after earthquakes. Lets not forget Somalia '92 where the US sent food and aid and was attacked by locals. Yet somehow no one ever decides to remembers these. This is all in spite of the fact that after some of the US's worst natural disasters (Hurricanes Andrew and Katrina, The blizzard of 93, wildfires and earthquakes that have plagued california for ages, etc. etc.) where was the support for the U.S.? To put it bluntly, it wasn't.
Despite what you want to believe Mr. Domanic, the US is not as narcissistic as the rest of the world would have you believe.
This fool sounds like the leftist nuclear scientists who gave away the atomic bomb to the monster Stalin because "it would be a deterrent to America". As for his absurd rehashing of the Mossadegh plot in 1953 as somehow a justification for the totalitarian regime in Iran bent on reestablishing the caliphate, it is beneath human decency.
This fool sounds like the leftist nuclear scientists who gave away the atomic bomb to the monster Stalin because "it would be a deterrent to America". As for his absurd rehashing of the Mossadegh plot in 1953 as somehow a justification for the totalitarian regime in Iran bent on reestablishing the caliphate, it is beneath human decency.
In a world where America and Iran were moral equivalents, he may have a point.
But that is not the case. Iran is state sponsor of terrorism, a state whose government has endorsed and materially supported genocide in Israel, and a state that brutally treats its own people. The current government in Tehran and this author are complete moral failures.
The cold war between the US and the Soviets worked quite well, for a time, as a deterrent to both sides. The only hope for peace in the Middle East is a NEW cold war, as Israel and the zionistas have made it perfectly clear they're more than willing to do "whatever it takes" to win their 4000 year old Holy War. Listen to Lyin' Joe Lieberman for 56.2 nanoseconds and you'll see what Israel is really all about.
I agree with you poit completely but I also think that there is another point that can be made. If Iran can manufacture their own nucleur fuel then they will have a cheap alternative to oil and can sell the oil they would normally use. This would make it even harder for the west to black mail them.
I fully agree with the views expressed on this very intelligent analyst. Being a expatriate latinmerican professional with a strong interest in contemporary world history, I find this insighfull article totally true and only one isolated example of similar behaviour of USA thoroughout the world. To support this assertion, please spend some time to digest the views of another very intelligent and insightful journalist, who this time, bring us a much more documented and overwhelming set of incriminating evidence against USA abussive interventionist history, this time in Latinmerica.
They mean to drive me crazy. But they fail. I ,only ,as normal man, have a little depression, anxiety and anger when bullied.
They do succeeds in driving me into poverty by shutting down all the possibilities of finding a stable job by means of spawning vicious rumors.
I even cannot afford to buy the cheapest shoes and a cheapest watch….
Doesn’t matter. Their IQ is too low. I can cope.
At the crucial moment when china, America, and the world are having a tough setback， worsening . I did something conducive within my dream and ability.
My contribution must be amply valued and rewarded.
I am now yearning to live and work in America with help of all the reward I deserve.
Yet still I will forward my suggestions for china on such fields as perfection of political pattern and population improvement and for the world peace keeping only if I can be treated fairly under your justice. .
With respect to the nuclear issue , we are all actually looking forward to the payoff by xmas.
I hereby would like to only write a sanguine poem for your refreshment.:
All for the dè jà wo
Big dream and heavy vexation slumbering into the wet woods.
Mist lingers no long
Dust flourishes impossible.
Because the last agile rain,
Glazes the purple and green leaves once rough
Blazes the brown blanches once weak
Moistens the bronze trunks once mash,
Rots the ugly weeds once crazy.
Nourishes the golden soil once desperate,
Singing larks ,blue and red , weave through the woods gaily,
Fresh fragrant breath of nature chimes the eternal moment.
Up the fringe , sshu….
The real dè jà wo homes in on the most acute creativity.
I'm American and don't like the idea of Iran (particularly one led by a nut) with nuclear weapons. At the same time, I realize that the leaders of my own country have no sense about them and have lost a lot of credibility worldwide.
They not only started a war illegally and without just cause, they also conveniently failed to recognize the one benefit of having Saddam in power.
I'm at the point where I'm almost in agreement with the author. Iran with short-range nukes just might be what we need to get the US in shape and possibly out of the Middle East and focus on the crap going on at home.
Nuclear weapons in the hands of IslamoFascist thugs
it totally unacceptable.
"Without America and with its own commodity wealth, the Middle East can still be a prosperous and peaceful region." is the statement of a complete moron.
If I ran a hedge fund and one of my managers made statements like this I would take a second look at his ability for rational analysis.
The Middle East is one big oasis of love, and the only thing this moron has going for him is that he doesn't have to live in it. This is just pathetic. Let's see...the last time the Islamic world did something positive in ANYTHING, literature, government, innovation...ANYTHING, was long before the fall of the Ottoman Empire. They did back then what the IslamoFascists want all Muslims to do today, which is forsake anything Western. We saw how well that worked for them when they became the "sick man of Europe"...now, we will be lucky if it isn't a mushroom cloud somewhere.
It's hard to take someone seriously when they come from a country that is named after a bird that we eat on Thanksgiving.
But no, seriously. This turkish guy is all PO'd because by the American invasion, it's going to cause the kurdish people all across the region to rise up and demand independence from Iraq, and... you guessed it, Turkey.
So he's basically a turkish national who doesn't like that idea.
As to his other ideas, just utter nonsense. Iran doesn't have any support in the international community primarily because the country is run by a bunch of flaming religious nuts. In case you didn't catch the name it's the "ISLAMIC Republic of Iran".
You remember those guys, the ones who treat women like dogs, run airplanes into buildings, arrest women who name teddy bears "Mohammet" and turn themselves into bombs.
If Mr. Domanic feels that American "aggression" is the principal cause of violence in the "peaceful" Middle East then I humbly suggest he open a history book or two. The predations of what is now named "Iran" began some four millennia before the United States existed and have continued without a break since. And if he feels that nuclear arms in the hands of the mullahs there is a stabilizing influence then he is delusional indeed.
Mustafa=idiot. I suppose WaPo needs eyeballs to drive ad sales, so they send in a bunch of clowns to make outlandish statements based on their "sophisticated geo-political understanding" of the world based on what? What a clown.
This has to be the greatest statement of all time:
Our Lord made man in his own image and the man he created was flawed. In the 1930`s he saw perfection and will create man once again with the perfection he saw as his model. First all the less than perfect men have to be destroyed and he set that in motion by giving man "The Bomb".
I am far to modest to tell you who it was the Lord saw in the 1930`s.
Yes the Lord will take a rib, as needed, from me.
Mr. Mustafa makes some valid points. Certainly the foreign policy of the US under the Bush adminstration has been appalling. I think Mustafa understates the importance of the NIE on Iran however. I think it is a turning point, internally in this country -- a coup of sorts, and that it might well have changed the course of history.
Bush has been derailed - a huge thing. I hope the world gives America another chance.... There is an opportunity, in light of this mess that has been created, for US foreign policy to emerge as better than ever. The vast majority of Americans were complacent about foreign policy before Bush...I don't think that will ever be the case again. Our foreign policy has never lived up to the ideals of the average American....perhaps, in order to redeem ourselves, we'll actually become the leader we've always been alledged to be. I don't think an Iranian nuke will solve anything - ok...so long as we don't elect Giuliani....if that's the case...ok...I concede...
"October 23, 1983 - A suicide car bomb attack against the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut kills 241 servicemen. A simultaneous attack on a French base kills 58 paratroopers.
In response, President Ronald Reagan ordered the battleship USS New Jersey, stationed off the coast of Lebanon, to shell the hills near Beirut. "
You forgot about when Reagan retreated from Beirut, thereby encouraging terrorists for generations.
Still, though, you have a very impressive recall of history.
Actually, come to think of it, what were we doing in Beirut, anyway? Or any of the other places you mention, aside from on Sept. 11? What were we doing there?
I hope the first nuke detonated by Iranian-sponsored terrorists is "at the London office of a global hedge fund." And I hope this jerk's family live within walking distance of his office.
Sorry to inform this jerk that he is able to engage in his slimeball line of work that contributes nothing to society due to the world order that America put in place.
GS: Amen. How much in aid is Turkey or Iran giving to fight AIDS in Africa? Name me another country that will rush a whole aircraft carrier task force to fly humanitarian aid to those stricken in a mind-numbing Tsunami or devastating earthquake. The Russians? If thats global domination, be careful of what you wish for. Maybe the US won't be around or be able to afford such actions in the future. Then everyone will be crying the US is doing nothing.
Yes, nuclear, or as we now say here in the US, "nucular" weapons suck. But who are we to say who can have them and who cannot. Seems funny that Israel can have them, we can have them, but our enemies can't. I don't recall talk of invading Russia or China as they developed nukes.
We, as everyone else in the world has seen for a long time, are bullies. We pick on anyone who is not cooperating with us, unless of course, they might kick our ass.
I don't expect people to know about us using Iraq against Iran, supplying Saddam with WMD to use against them, or supporting brutal dictatorships in Iran, and everywhere else we've done this, and the list is long. How could they know about it? The US media doesn't cover it, but they sometimes allude to it, twenty or so years later. Chile, Phillipines, Indonesia, Argentina, Brazil, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Haiti, Iran, Cuba, Honduras, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc, etc. I'm sure I'm leaving out a bunch. Just as I'm sure it's happening in some 'stan' or another, right now. That's not democratic.
Instead of trying to beat down other nations, control their politics, and tell them what weapons they can and cannot have, it would be nice if we could focus on being a light in the world, and not merely a sword. With over 700 military bases worldwide, it's obvious what we have chosen to live by: The Sword. If we weren't constantly beating every other nation over the head, maybe we wouldn't have so much to worry about. Who do we think we are?
I think this oversimplifies the issues between the US and Iran. Many posts I read seem to forget recent history. Iran and the US did not come to loggerheads in the immediate aftermath of the Revolution. It was only after the Shah came to the US that they seized the Embassy. Secondly, and I think Mr. Domanic clearly misses the whole point of what the West has been saying about Iran, the NIE report notwithstanding. The US has emphatically and explicitly said they can live with aa Tehran civilian nuclear program. This is well documented, but you must have missed that. It is the uranium enrichment that is key. And if you even bothered to pay attention to the NIE, it also said it would only take a matter of months for Iran to turn back on their weapons program and get back to where they were. If you even had a clue to what is really at stake, it is the Europeans who are more worried about Iran then the US. But guess what we are "Leading" the oppostion to Tehran. Iran already has missles capable of hitting Southern Europe. Thats why they are nervous. And you think the Sunni countries aren't nervous? While I personally doubt if given a nuclear weapon, Iran would ever use it against Isreal, but Isreal is not a big country, so a nuclear strike would absolutely affect the Arab countries bordering Isreal. And I contest your ascertion that the US is heckbent on attacking Iran. We could have done that to Libya. They came clean, and look where that has led. And in fact the US is disarming most of their WMD's. They have fallen behind schedule, yes, but they are still progressing to eliminate all of their chemical and biological weapons, and are reducing their nuclear arsenal. Go back to finance, because you clearly don't have any mastery over this material.
September 11, 2001 - Terrorists hijack four U.S. commercial airliners taking off from various locations in the United States in a coordinated suicide attack. In separate attacks, two of the airliners crash into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, which catch fire and eventually collapse. A third airliner crashes into the Pentagon in Washington, DC, causing extensive damage. The fourth airliner, also believed to be heading towards Washington, DC, crashes outside Shanksville, PA., killing all 45 people on board. Casualty estimates from New York put the possible death toll close to 5,000, while as many as 200 people may have been lost at the Pentagon crash site.
Oct. 12, 2000 - A terrorist bomb damages the destroyer USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39.
Aug. 7, 1998 - Terrorist bombs destroy the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. In Nairobi, 12 Americans are among the 291 killed, and over 5,000 are wounded, including 6 Americans. In Dar es Salaam, one U.S. citizen is wounded among the 10 killed and 77 injured.
June 21, 1998 - Rocket-propelled grenades explode near the U.S. embassy in Beirut.
June 25, 1996 - A bomb aboard a fuel truck explodes outside a U.S. air force installation in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. 19 U.S. military personnel are killed in the Khubar Towers housing facility, and 515 are wounded, including 240 Americans.
Nov. 13, 1995 - A car-bomb in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills seven people, five of them American military and civilian advisers for National Guard training. The "Tigers of the Gulf," "Islamist Movement for Change," and "Fighting Advocates of God" claim responsibility, and wounding over 600.
February 1993 - A bomb in a van explodes in the underground parking garage in New York's World Trade Center, killing six people and wounding 1,042.
Dec. 21, 1988 - A bomb destroys Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. All 259 people aboard the Boeing 747 are killed including 189 Americans, as are 11 people on the ground.
As a result, two Libyan intelligence officers are charged with planting the bomb. They are eventually turned over by the Libyan government and tried. The trial, conducted in the Netherlands under Scottish law, begins in May 2000 and ends in February 2001. Abdelbaset Al Mohmed al-Megrahi is convicted and receives a life sentence. The other defendant, Al-Amin Khalifah Fhimah is acquitted.
April 1986 - An explosion damages a TWA flight as it prepares to land in Athens, Greece. Four people are killed when they are sucked out of the aircraft.
April 5, 1986 - A bomb destroys the LaBelle discotheque in West Berlin. The disco was known to be frequented by U.S. servicemen. The attack kills one American and one German woman and wounds 150, including 44 Americans
On Nov. 13, 2001 a German court convicted four people for the bombing. Verena Chanaa, a German national, was found guilty of murder and sentenced to 14 years in prison for selecting the site of the attack and placing the bomb. Yassir Chraidi, a Palestinian working at the Libyan Embassy and suspected of being the main organizer of the attack, was convicted of multiple counts of attempted murder and sentenced to 14 years. Two other embassy employees, Musbah Abdulghasem Eter, a Libyan, and Ali Chanaa, a Lebanese-born German and Verena Chanaa's former husband, were both convicted of attempted murder and sentenced to 12 years. Libya has refused to extradite five other suspects sought by German police, including members of the Libyan secret service.
December 18, 1985 - Simultaneous suicide attacks are carried out against U.S. and Israeli check-in desks at Rome and Vienna international airports. 20 people are killed in the two attacks, including four terrorists.
November 24, 1985 - Hijackers aboard an Egyptair flight kill one American. Egyptian commandos later storm the aircraft on the isle of Malta, and 60 people are killed.
October 7, 1985 - Palestinian terrorists hijack the cruise liner Achille Lauro (in response to the Israeli attack on PLO headquarters in Tunisia) Leon Klinghoffer, an elderly, wheelchair-bound American, is killed and thrown overboard.
August 8, 1985 - A car bomb at a U.S. military base in Frankfurt, Germany kills two and injures 20. A U.S. soldier murdered for his identity papers is found a day after the explosion.
June 19, 1985 - In San Salvador, El Salvador, 13 people are killed in a machine gun attack at an outdoor café, including four U.S. Marines and two American businessmen.
June 14, 1985 - TWA flight 847 is hijacked over the Mediterranean, the start of a two-week hostage ordeal. The hijackers, linked to Hezbollah, demand the release of prisoners being held in Kuwait as well as the release of 700 Shiite Muslim prisoners being held in Israeli and Lebanese prisons. U.S. Navy diver Robert Dean Stethem is killed and 39 passengers are held hostage when the demands were not met. The passengers are eventually released in Damascus after being held in various locations in Beirut.
April 12, 1985 - A bomb explodes in a restaurant near a U.S. air base in Madrid, Spain, killing 18, all Spaniards, and wounding 82, including 15 Americans.
September 20, 1984 - A truck bomb explodes outside the U.S. Embassy annex in Aukar, northeast of Beirut. The ambassador is injured and 24 people killed, two of whom were U.S. military personnel.
March 16, 1984 - CIA Beirut station chief William Buckley is kidnaped by militant Islamic extremists in Lebanon. He is said to have died after prolonged torture. His body was found on December 27, 1991 in southern Beirut, nearly eight years after his abduction.
December 12, 1983 - Shiite extremists bombed the French and U.S. Embassies in Kuwait, killing 6 and injuring over 80 people. The suspects were thought to be members of Al Dawa , a group supported by Iran and known for operating against Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
October 23, 1983 - A suicide car bomb attack against the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut kills 241 servicemen. A simultaneous attack on a French base kills 58 paratroopers.
In response, President Ronald Reagan ordered the battleship USS New Jersey, stationed off the coast of Lebanon, to shell the hills near Beirut.
April 18, 1983 - A suicide car bombing against the U.S. embassy in Beirut kills 63, including 17 Americans.
November 4, 1979 - Fundamentalist Islamic students took 52 Americans hostage at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Iran.
IMPEACHING BILL CLINTON FOR DOING NOTHING ABOUT THESE TERRORISTS ATTACKS WOULD HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL
How very typical a non-American stance. This is the same rhetoric about the United States that non-U.S. bloggers and editorialists have been making for the last seven years. Tell me Mr. Domanic, how hard have you actually pressed your finger on the pulse of the US nation? The vocal minority of oil bathing hyper-christian neo-cons you are using to justify your argument are just that... a minority. You do realize that now in Iran, as was the case in 2003 in Iraq, a majority of Americans would prefer to live and let live?
Considering how far more vocal average Joe America has been in what was the growing face of neo-con influence, your allegory of the gun on the wall will prove far from self-fulfilling.
While your point about the '53 coup is both valid and correct, your point that the United States is fully responcible for the state of Iran is at best a stretch of the truth. While it DID precipitate the actions leading to widespread unrest, it was the Iranian student activists themselves who conscienciously rallied under the banner of Khomeini aand extremism, supplanting one dictator for another. They were given the opportunity to bring a second Mossadeq to power, yet instead they chose the opposite.
You are right, change in Iran will only come from an organic, home-grown second revolution. It will come from the Iranian people. Likewise, the US populus will take care of it's own problems. With every new poll Bush and his hot-headed cabinet pulls back farther from their extreme fire-brand rhetoric. In a year he will hold no influence either. It will be the Americans, sir, NOT the Iranians or anyone else who keeps the U.S. government in check.
I would caution you not to continue with the conformist and trite habit of confusing what Bush says with the true will and want of the American people.
Finally, as for your asinine nuclear argument, NO country... not Iran, Israel, Russia or the US should have nuclear armaments. As it were, all the nuclear states need to continue to reduce and despose of their arsenals. The creation of even a SINLGE new nuclear warhead would setback all humanity and peace no less than 30 years. ALL countries in the world should be held accountable to the NPT. Although it isn't a good one, the only reason any country even still has nuclear weapons, is because there still are countries with nuclear weapons. Making more guns to stop war. I truly hope you see the fallacy in this.
I know the liberal Democrats hate their own country so badly that they would love Iran to have nuclear weapons. The liberals would let al-Qaeda and the Taliban have nuclear weapons also.
Let me put down a few reasosn why Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons.
PARTIAL LIST OF ISLAMIC TERRORIST ACTIVITIES
1968 Robert Kennedy assassinated
1972 Munich Olympics Sep-5,1972 (Black September)
1976 Entebbe Hostage Crisis, June 27, 1976
1979 Iran Hostage Crisis, Nov. 4, 1979 444 days
1979 Grand Mosque Seizure, Nov 20,1979
1981 Assassination of Egyptian President, Oct 6,1981
1982 Assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister, Sept 14, 1982
1983 Bombing of US Embassy in Beirut6, April 18,1983
1983 Bombing of Maring Barricks, Beruit, Oct 23,1983
1984 Hizballah Restaurant Bombing, April 12,1984
1985 Egyptian Airliner Hijacking, Nov 23,1985
1985 Rome Airport murders
1985 TWA Flight 847 hijacked, U.S. Navy diver murdered
1985 Achille Lauro hijacking, Homacidal maniac lived in saddams Iraq
1986 Aircraft Bombing in Greece, March 30, 1986
1988 Pan Am 747 Flight 103 Bombing, Lockerbie, 100's murdered
1988 Berlin Discoteque Bombing, Dec 21,1988
1992 Bombing in Israeli Embassy in Argentina, March 17,1992
1993 Attempted Assassination of Pres. Bush Sr., April 14,1993
1993 First World Trade Center bombing, February 26th, 7 Killed, Hundreds injured, Billions
1994 Air France Hijacking, Dec 24,1994
1995 Attack on US Diplomats in Pakistan, Mar 8,1995
1995 Military Installation Attack, Nov 13, 1995
1995 Kashmiri Hostage taking, July 4,1995
1996 Khobar Towers attack
1996 Sudanese Missionarys Kidnapping, Aug 17,1996
1996 Paris Subway Explosion, Dec 3,1996
1997 Israeli Shopping Mall Bombing, Sept 4, 1997
1997 Yemeni Kidnappings, Oct 30,1997
1998 Somali Hostage taking crisis, April 15,1998
1998 U.S. Embassy Bombing in Peru, Jan 15, 1998
1998 U.S. Kenya Embassy blown up, 100's murdered
1998 U.S. Tanzania Embassy blown up, 100's murdered
1999 Plot to blow up Space Needle (thwarted) 2000 USS Cole attacked, 17 U.S. Navy sailors murdered
2000-2003 Intifada against Israel - 100's dead and injured
2000 Manila Bombing, Dec 30,2000
2001 4 Commercial airliners hijacked, 250+ murdered
2001 World Trade Center attacked, 2800+ murdered
2001 Flight 93 murders
2001 Pentagon attacked, 180+ murdered
2002 Reporter Daniel Pearl, kidnapped and murdered
2002 Philippines American missionary, Filipino nurse killed
2002 July 4, El Al attack Los Angeles LAX, several murdered
2002 Bali bombing - 200 dead, 300 injured
2002 Yemen, French Oil Tanker attacked
2002 Marines attacked / murdered in Kuwait
2002 Washington D.C. sniper
2002 Russian Theater attacked, 100+ dead
2002 Nigerian riots against Miss World Pageant, 200 dead, dozens injured
2002 Mombasa Hotel Attacked, 12 dead, dozens injured
2002 Israeli Boeing 757 attacked by missiles, fortunately no one injured
2002 August Hotel bombing in Jakarta, Indonesia. 12 dead, dozens injured.
2003 Rusian concert bombing
2003 Phillipines airport and market bombing
2003 Foiled SAM plot in the USA
2003 UN Baghdad HQ Bombing
on and on and on and on their terrorism has gone .........
2003-2007 Way too many terrorist attacks by radical Muslims to fit in this post.
Qur’an 8:12 “I shall terrorize the infidels.
So wound their bodies and incapacitate them
because they oppose Allah and His Apostle.”
Qur’an 8:57 “If you gain mastery over them in battle,inflict such a defeat as would terrorize them,so that they would learn a lesson and be warned.”
I wish I could find the reference for this, but here goes: an Indian general was asked after the first Gulf War what lessons it had taught him. His answer: Get a nuclear arsenal or the USA will one day do that to you. If one looks at a map with Iran at its centre, that country is surrounded: US nukes potentially in Iraq and Afghanistan; Israeli nukes; Indian nukes; Pakistani nukes; Chinese nukes; Russian nukes. Of course they want to join the club. If we were in the same position, wouldn't we say that it was our leaders' duty to pursue nuclear weaponry?
Maybe so. But if you are so concerned about the Middle East why don't you go back to Turkey and help your neighbours. America is the land of immigrants. Why don't you go there? Europe is not America and should never be allowed to become so. The world has great respect for Iranians because they live in Iran. The Turks... not so much http://www.currybu.de/doener-kebap-doener-kebab.php http://www.currybu.de/doener-sperma-im-kebab.php
God God. I hope for the sake of your clients that you are a better trader and financial analyst than you are an observer of global affairs. You display the depressingly familiar paranoia, insecurity and just plain shallowness that unfortunately characterize elite opinion in formerly great societies, such as Turkey and Iran. Honestly, I feel sorry for you. There are plenty of perfectly rational arguments against US policy vis a vis Iran. You, however, have taken the easy, intellectually lazy path rather than engage in a serious criticism--rehashing the tired, often repeated rants of third world elites still bitter over your diminished status. You are not to be taken seriously.
you wrote: "....whereas her own aspiration for global domination is no secret to anybody." Well, America's "aspiration for global domination" is a secret to me, and probably a few others around the world. However, the US's manifold attempts over the years to genuinely assist various people groups in their quest for political freedom is no secret at all. To be sure, the attempt to establish the essentially western thought processes of modern Democracy may be lost on non-western nations, and could easily be misconstrued or misrepresented as Imperialistic, but many see the task as noble and prudent. None of the 40 or so nations in which any type of democratic form of government has been established since WWII are in Arab lands, and it looks like the odds are it will remain so.
Is the US, it's people, it's government, perfect? Far from it , just like everyone else. Have there been horrible mistakes, lies, and blunders? It is after all, a human society we are talking about. And yet, envied and much sought after. Have they tried to help more people and people groups than any country in recorded history, responding to the cry for aid time and again at great national cost? Most certainly. The desire and will to do good is here, and will continue to be, despite the failures and fallings in the execution of such. How the US-Iran-Iraq relationships will pan out is something only time can unfold, but the best causes and directives of America will ( and must) continue to be driven by a hope that all men can live free. Try to give the US some credit for the great amount of good it has done ( or tried to do) as well.
to attack america's world domination attempts/acts, one must think of alternatives. if the world need a dorminate power, which country do we want? I am from China but I still pick U.S. Russia/China/India are all far from ready. Eroupe can be a candidate but it is not a single country. America is losing its moral high ground though, because it's been too selfish lately.
I commend washington post to publish this commentary.
The best solution is, everyone give up on nuclear weapons. since this is not possible, iran should have some options. but in reality, this will bring harm to iran.
The only good option for Iran is, give up on religous rule of government. open up the country and be more like turkey. after that, Iran can have nuclear weapons to protect itself.
You guys are delusional. I just pray that your president doesn't start WW3 before he leaves office. Your mental state is so far out of whack with reality it is obscene. It's almost like you guys are schizophrenic. There are no facts that get in the way of your delusional world order. NIE says no nukes? Discredit the report. Dems against the war? Dems are traitors. I'm here with you in the USA lifeboat and you guys scare the hell out of me. Iran isn't the enemy, you are. You guys want war at any cost. The definitive picture of traitors in America is the American right and the neo-cons -- bent on war with everyone to satisfy their Id complex that they'd risk killing us all. You guys need to be locked up and the key thrown away. Too bad our civil rights and due process of law gets in the way of that possibility for world peace. In other words, it's the very freedom you conservative guys hate so much that keeps you guys safe. But you know what? Thanks to your wholesale shedding of our civil rights, it might not be long before we can lock you guys up and throw away the key. Hallelujah, Praise the Lord when that day comes!
Maybe Iran should open up its country to the rule of law, and the natural rights of freedom and liberty born to every person. Maybe Iran should drop the jihad and start living in peace with their neighbors.
Let freedom ring, Mustafa. Let the bells of liberty and freedom ring throughout the world.
you wrote: "....whereas her own aspiration for global domination is no secret to anybody." Well, America's "aspiration for global domination" is a secret to me, and probably a few others around the world. However, the US's manifold attempts over the years to genuinely assist various people groups in their quest for political freedom is no secret at all. Give the US some credit for the great amount of good it has done as well.
So much hatred and mistrust on both sides. The more I read the more I realize there are two camps. Zealots (who occupy both sides) and realists.
Zealots just seem to repeat the party line. "They are evil, look at what they do; we are justified in our actions......."
Reality is both sides are responsible for many deaths in the name of “Insert political doctrine here".
Personally I’m tired of Zealots from both the east and west. Too many innocent lives are taken.
"vote for Jenna Jamison for president"
-"the truth hurts"
Who the hell is Jenna Jamison? I assume she is some sort of pornstar? Looks like you have been watching a little yourself you idiot. You can't lecture us when your people gang-rape women and get away with it, fly an airplane into a building, or put a bomb on the back of a three year old kid and send him on suicide mission, etc. Go home to your crappy house/life and your ugly, hairy, veiled wifes.
This man speaks a lot of truth, and a big chunk of the American public won't like it.
Just think: Saddam did not have WMDs and Iraq was invaded anyway. Maybe if he actually had them, the U.S. would have stayed out. What are Iranians to think? Damned if you do, damned if you don't, but at least if you do you have a chance to retaliate, so we give them no option but to seek nukes.
This is a monster of our own creation.
Of course the Iranian theocracy is monstrous, but we're just feeding it what it needs to grow: threats from abroad.
The way Israel deals with these issues is a lot better--- keep it quiet, keep a close watch, and bomb away when necessary. They did it to Iraq in 1981 and they recently did it to Syria.
Unfortunately, our current administration is led by a saber-rattling dunce with no knowledge of history. Please let someone with a keen strategic mind be elected in 2008. If not that, at least someone who got good grades in college.
Actually I wanted to call out the AIPAC clowns. I don't know whether you AIPAC clowns relaize your behavior towards arabs are so reprehensible, that it makes us the rest of the world realize that Hitler may have been right about you folks.
Thanks for telling it as it is, Mr. Domanic. I'm laughing at these AIPAC supporters who tell us Iran would be a threat to global security if it acquires nuclear weapons, when in fact the only country to use nuclear weapons is Israel.
last I checked Isreal has never threatened the extermination of any nation. I don't think Russia, or the USA or France has done so either in the modern era.
So when the leader of a country, that is actively trying develop its nuclear program towards something that could potentially produce WMD, calls for the anihilation of another state, people tend to be a bit worried.
By the way, a Shia bomb would inevitably produce a Sunni bomb. To think that if Iran gets one noone else in the middle would get one is naive and potentially dangerous.
The last thing we need is an arms race in the middle east ...
Ah, I think we have someone here experiencing the frisson of supporting what he sees as noble third-worlders standing up against the man - without, of course, the inconvenience of actually living the country he's boosting.
And so Iran, a real country, gets its struggles and complexities simplified and thrust onto the stage of Mr. Domanic's mystery play. Well play-acted sir! Well play-acted! You have turned a real country's situation into the digital equivalent of an angsty under-graduate's Che shirt.
I believe the Kurds should find much wider support from international community to protect themselves from this unending Turkish aggression and the only way to do that is to have a nuclear deterrent. The greatest danger in the Northern Iraq is Turkish meddling. Abdullah Gul's earlier remarks about assuming the Northern Iraq was a chaotic place before Turkish intervention were a grave distortion of truth. Without Turkey and with its own commodity wealth, Northern Iraq can still be a prosperous and peaceful region.
Mr. Mustafa Damonic is correct in stating historic facts and analysing them. It is obvious that some readers do not like the truth and instead attack the messenger. They show no reasoned counter to his assertions. Nobody, in an ideal world, wants Iran to get nuclear weapons; and even now it is desireable that nuclear bombs are defused and peacefully dismantled and Iran is reassured with international guarantees that it will be left alone. Will the U.S. take steps in that direction instead of hurling threats and insults at Iran and its loud-mouth president? Pakistan is much more dangerous and it already has nuclear weapons (Pakistan has been the main state culprit in harboring and promoting the worst fanantic trouble makers). India too has nuclear weapons and so does N. Korea now, not to mention the unmentionable Israel. It is an affront to Iranians and millions and millions of fair minded people around the world to suggest that of course the Israelis and the western world are too civilized to and will never use their weapons and Iranians are savage idiots and will promptly throw their weapons, if they ever get one, on Israel or anyone else. It is that incredible attitude behind the U.S. policy that galls the civilized world, including Iran and propells them to nuclear madness. Sad, but true!
I agree fully with the analysis. If I were an Iranian, I would feel compelled to develop nuclear weapons with American troops on two of my borders and a history of intervention in Iranian sovereignty.
How pleasant to read this! What I don´t understand is that how it is possible that this administration and this president is still playing its tricks and lying its way not only out of its former lies but into the direction of the next completely unjustified war.
I can´t believe that the American people are completely stupid. It seems however that they listen and believe what is coming from the White House but don´t look at what is happening in reality.
What me as European doesn´t worry is the presence of a disturbed idiot, wherever. What does worry me a great deal is the presence of a disturbed idiot with a very great deal of power and not being able to influence things for the better.
Not any nation-state should be treated the way Mr. Bush (and his admin.)is treating Iran. Who the hell does Mr. Bush thinks he is? God? Yeah, I actually do fear that is his problem.
While I disagree with the position that a nuclear Iran would be a good thing, it is refreshing to read someone who knows the history behind the headlines. In the end, America's stumbling destabilizing of the Middle East may prove better than the previous strategy of holding our breath--only time will tell.
As far as the NIE its just CYA. Why?
The Bush administration's foreign policy with regard to nuclear proliferation is incompetent.
They have agreed to help India with their nuclear energy program despite India's refusal to join the international nonproliferation regime. Worse, they have supplied Iran with nuclear technology.
We call India a "democracy" despite the fact that they openly discriminate against Muslims, Christians and dalits (the "untouchables"). Iran, hypocritically is criticized for similar behaviors.
Further exemplifying the double standards at play, Israel is called a democracy despite their oppression of those who live in the occupied territories and outright banning of Christian proselytizing in Israel. Yet they, like India, are deemed worthy of trust with their nuclear arsenal.
Our intelligence agencies say that N. Korea tested a nuclear weapon. By their sabre-rattling and refusal to negotiate, Bush and his cronies essentially forced them into openly defying the International Atomic Energy Administration (IAEA). After the cat is out of the bag; now they negotiate.
We refused to negotiate when Iran was allowing IAEA inspectors to monitor their nuclear program. Now that our hardline has caused Iran to kick out the IAEA inspectors, we say we want to negotiate but we must impose economic sanctions on Iran because they are not cooperating with the IAEA.
Now we say that our intelligence shows that Iran abandoned their nuclear weapons program years ago; once again after the fact. How convenient. With their track record, how do we know our intelligence is even right about their conclusion that Iran used to have a weapons program.
When they have finished chasing their tails and are long gone the rest of us may well be left with the task of picking up the Bush team's pieces, the countless body bags and the burial of the dead.
The beautiful thing about this article is it proves the hypocrisy that is writh in the fabric of america, and her people are blinded by her hubris. As I read in another article here not long ago, the american people are mostly unaware of the atrocities she has subjected other nations too, these things are footnotes of american history yet the names of the chapters of other nations history. The odd part is that 'we' believe we will be allowed to do this forever and wont pass the same way as fallen empires of yesterday. Trust me the Visigoths are at the gates.
Enough with the Mossadegh garbage. The truth is that the Islamic fanatics--Ayatollah Kashani comes to mind--were active partners in the subversion of Mossy's government. For their successors to be complaing about now is a little too rich. The US didn't oust Mossadegh anyway. The Iranians did. The US elected to help the dissentients because we believed in good faith that Mossadegh's instability and incompetence was paving the way for a Soviet takeover.
you are right, they should get a Nuke, if Putin has not already given them one.
since they have no ICBM capability, they can then launch it at Tel-Aviv, Riyadh, Ankara,or Hopefully, at your office in London's Financial District.
Since the U.S is the only Nation with the Capability to actually knock one down after it has been launched, i really don't see why we should spend billions protecting any one else but us.
It is time for some good, old fashioned american isolationism again.
The NIE said that Iran had an illegal weapons program till 2003. It was illegal under the non-proliferation treaty which Iran signed. And, the report is clear that Iran can re-start these activities at any time.
So, Iran was making the world more un-safe by conducting illegal activity. Just because it has stopped committing illegal nuclear weapons research does not make me feel safer.
I wouldn't cheer a burglar just because he stopped breaking into houses.
But, because Iran is not actively breaking the treaty at this time, I think we should talk with them about their future intentions before taking any tough measures.
The author is absolutely correct when he says that the United States is a bully and the greatest threat to peace in the world today.
But the proliferation of nuclear weapons is NOT the way to combat American aggression. Sinking to America's level is NOT an answer - and will only lead to nightmare.
Instead there needs to be greater solidarity and co-operation between nations in standing up to American violence and threats. In particular, individual Americans must be made aware of the death and destruction that has been done in their names over the years. They must be educated out of the ignorance that has made American atrocities possible.
Finally, Americans, like their axis partners the British and the Israelis, must be encouraged to abandon what is essentially their inately racist concepts of themselves. For the Americans this is the idea of 'exceptionalism'. For the Israeli's it is the idea of the 'chosen people'. or the British it is the concept of 'being special' that Blair described in his farewell speech. These views are the same as the 'master race' ideas of the mid-20th century, and they are what permit the breath-taking hypocricy of the US-UK-Israel axis.
There is one world with one, equal, humanity. There are no exceptions, no chosen people, no master races. And the rules apply equally to EVERYBODY.
Hey, my question is where do all the hot American girls like to party in DC? I love American women. Anyone want to marry a young, Iranian man who has only a little chest hair? I'd like to have green card and open a Italian leather store in Georgetown.
If it's one thing learned from Iraq, is that the American military machine use larger, more destructive bombs, with precision(optional, of course) to rid the the world of this Muslim menace threatening the Christian world. This is the opportune moment in history. Better use it before we lose it!"
If there's one thing we can learn from you, X, that is you are a complete idiot!
Sorry for being personal but this is beyond acceptable.
Mr Domanic,
I appreciate your comments regarding America's dealings with Iran, however it would be prudent for you to remember a few items. First, when speaking about America, remember that you are referring to policymakers in Washington and not the entire population. The opinions on such matters as Iran are as diverse as they are based on any deeper knowledge of the relationship the U.S. holds with Iran or any other country. Second, I find it odd that you would be so surprised by the Intelligence findings given the fact that a majority of the population was unconvinced that invading Iraq was a plausible idea to begin with. The Intelligence community has received its fair share of negative press with more to come over the recent CIA destruction of the 'torture tapes'. However, when looking at the government as separate entities rather than as a whole, it becomes clear that there is a grass roots move afoot to right the wrongs of these last few years. An excellent example of this is reflected in the Climate Convention taking place in Bali where several U.S. Senators are seeking, of their own accord, to propose climate policy change in the U.S., given the certain knowledge that the current administration is averse to any such action. Third, America has been and will continue to be about preserving its national power. One of the requirements for our success has been our dependency on resources that enable our economy and our market to move forward. Oil is certainly a big part of it and will continue to be so in the future. Are we so negatively perceived from others in pursuing our own national objectives and protecting our own national interests? I will admit that our diplomatic efforts have given way these past few years to more forcible methods. It is my hope that we return to a policy of engagement rather than intervention, but until that decision is made, we must continue to utilize all facets of national power to protect our vital economic framework. Third, in my opinion, U.S. global domination could not be further from the truth. We have a policy of active engagement not domination. We would not nor could not sustain any efforts towards global domination. The diversity of cultures, governments, economic focus, and more are not in the least bit sustainable by one nation. The U.S. removed itself from the Bretton Woods arrangement of the post WWII world because it realized that it could not simultaneously pursue its own national strategy and continue to maintain the groundwork for the international political economy. It wasn't possible then, nor is it today. Fourth, nuclear proliferation of any type and by anyone will become an increasingly serious problem in the future. Iran absolutely has the right to pursue its own nuclear ambitions under the guidelines of the IAEA. However, peaceful nuclear ambitions and the nuclear deterrent you discussed are very separate issues. I ask you to consider carefully what you wrote regarding the 'peaceful and prosperous Middle East' and show me a time of peace in this region (or define peace in the Middle East).
In closing, I would ask you in your future pieces to consider your position in society. You rely on oil each and every day just like the rest of us. A policy of non-engagement in areas where our national (dare I say world) interests lay may in fact require reformulation of existing foreign policy, but it is certainly not an acceptable course of action given shifting dynamics in today's world. It is easy to be a critic, the world already has too many of those. Please offer real solutions which reflect careful consideration and research before becoming just another critic.
Iron Sheik, I will put my sized 13s steel tipped boots up where the sand collects. USA is #1! You Iranians are barely out of the bronz age, we will bomb you back to the pre-stone age. No nukes for you and, more importantly, no thongs for your women.
Hmmmm, let me think about why the West if afraid of Iran. Maybe because Iran supports terrorists, advocates wiping out another sovereign country, threatens its neighbors, takes diplomats hostage, abuses and denies fundamental rights to half its citizens, what else? We're not idiots, a rabid dog should be put down.
As long as people in power threaten the use of atomic weapons like georgie did in Iraq and Iran, the rest of the world has a right, a need, a moral justification, to pursue atomic weapons. We can hear all the claptrap about children and mine sweeping and fear our enemies but more importantly THEY fear us. We dropped nukes on civilians in order to save our soldiers and hasten the end of a war. No other country has ever done this. We should fear others like they fear us. We once had the genie in a bottle and WE let it out. Now we threaten its use far to often, and wonder why others want to be able to threaten us with the same? We made the bed and yes it may just be the end of everything. Welcome to the world we created, its knocking at the door and we have to answer.
Mr. Domanic's point is all well and good, except that there is really no proof that any Middle Eastern country will or has any intentions on developing democratic institutions without US intervention/meddling.
Mr. Domanic seems to imply that had the US not intervened in Iran, it would somehow have developed its civil society.
The ideas of democracy, pluralism, religious freedom and minority rights isn't catching on and is -- as can be seen in Iraq -- fervently opposed by the regimes and the dominant/ruling peoples in the Middle East.
Perhaps, an argument can be made that there is too little intervention in the Middle East and the international community, but most realistically the United States, has not applied pressure consistently to all countries with undemocratic practices.
I could not agree more, while the US, the West and Israel stockpile WOMD, the cry foul about a simple nuclear reactor in Iran. It is funny that Brasil is building nuclear power plants right now, but noone is complaining!! It is a policy of hate,,, hating anything called Muslims. The good news is, which is bad news for the US, the west and Israel, this will not stop Iran and other Muslim countries from developing nuclear weapons, it is just a matter of time, so deal with it.
Interesting argument, Mustafa. I propose another initiative: let us call the international community's attention to the need for Greece and Cyprus to build an atomic arsenal so that they may be relieved from the fear of domination by the sensual and hegemonic Turks. Hell, might as well let the Armenians have a few too. Lord knows they have reason to be fearful.
If it's one thing learned from Iraq, is that the American military machine use larger, more destructive bombs, with precision(optional, of course) to rid the the world of this Muslim menace threatening the Christian world. This is the opportune moment in history. Better use it before we lose it!
THe United States haas been screwing the Iranians at least since the CIA overthrew the Mossadegh government in 1953 after they nationalized the oil industry. The Iran-Iraq war, the shootdown of the Iranian airliner, it never ends. The whole thing is about OIL. Let the US take a hike! I wish Putin would simply arm the Iranians with nukes, then what would Bush/Cheney do?
And the hypocrisy of sanctioning the Israeli nukes in the region. Iran and others in the Middle East have been asking for a nuclear-free region, and Bush, Cheney, Rice and the other stooges remain silent in response.
The reality is that if Finland or Brazil or
Estonia builds nukes its not really a problem.
Lets be quite honest Iran and the whole planet
would be better if the Shah were still in power.
Hey lets be more frank, we would all be better
off if the British Empire still stood and ruled
that part of the world!!! A lot better off!!!
What most people here lack the gumption to
say is that Martin Amis is right about
the Islamic world. It's simply a failed
civilization. Doesn't matter what kind of
government they have. The neocons are fools
for thinking that they can be rescued by
democracy. The left is just as bad for being
all multicultural and treating them like "equals".
Keeping nukes out of the hands of the lot of
them should be a matter of common sense for
everyone who doesn't want the planet to be
brought down with this failed civilization.
Had we all had the required gumption this guy
would have be kicked out of London and the
west. Let him go live in Iran.
Absolutely! In the history of our two countries the USA has been the aggressor. Iran never over through OUR elected government. They NEVER supported an American dictator. The OIL interests have always been the problem for our two peoples. The American people could not tell you what happened yesterday let alone in our history. Iran has lived in it's boarders for far longer than our history has even been recorded! I do not agree with many of the things the religious regime forces on it's people, but that is their choice, not mine.
I must be the only one that believes Iran when they say they do not want nuclear weapons. But what good can they do? If they want to be left alone, and I can understand that attitude - they should negotiate deal with the USA. We will let them be.
Any race / religion that leverages human bombs, doesn’t give equal rights to woman and demonstrates barbarianism on the level not seen since the dinosaurs should perhaps consider burning the Koran and firing allah and mohamed.
Wathing all you libs froth with glee at the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran is hilarious. The irony of your typically self-hating position is that the aggrieved nation whose cause you seem to champion is ruled by folks who would line all ya'll up first for the DecapitationFest that would usher in the era of their 12th Imam and new global Caliphate.
All you America haters think your resentful condemnations of your own country makes you intellectual, cutting-edge thinkers. In fact, it reveals your complete stupidity. In the land of the Mullah's you people are the first to go.
The mullas are using the oldest trick in the book - find an outside "boogyman" (the US, ISRAEL, Jews, Christians, etc.) and get your citizens (serfs?) to focus their hatred on them rather than on their own corrupt government.
It happens everywhere, including here in the US, but to different extents and extremes.
The trick is that its a trick. The real enemy in the MidEast is the corrupt leadership, especially the royal families, who keep the masses ignorant and in poverty, while the "princes" live a life of excess and dunken debauchery that would have made caligula blush.
Someday, people in Arab countries will overthrow their leaders. If the people who take over are educated in more than the koran, the new leadership will be fine. If the ones that take over are religious zelots, the citizens of those countries will be even worse off than they are now.
As long as Arab minds are controlled by religious fanatics, Arabs are toast.
As the quality of education in the Arab world increases and Arabs realize that not everything they need to know is in the Koran, and realize that there are many kinds of knowledge, and many good books, they will be fine.
Until then, they will continue to be used as Pawns by their political and religious leaders
as they have been for thousands of years, and will continue to suffer and bring suffering to others.
Adding another nation to the list of nuclear powers will make the Middle East more unstable given the statements of the President of Iran and his goal of wiping Israel off the map. If Iran gets nukes, they will use them, I have no doubt. That's why Israel will destroy have no choice but to destroy their capability at same point with a preemptive strike.
The mullas are using the oldest trick in the book - find an outside "boogyman" (the US, ISRAEL, Jews, Christians, etc.) and get your citizens (serfs?) to focus their hatred on them rather than on their own corrupt government.
It happens everywhere, including here in the US, but to different extents and extremes.
The trick is that its a trick. The real enemy in the MidEast is the corrupt leadership, especially the royal families, who keep the masses ignorant and in poverty, while the "princes" live a life of excess and dunken debauchery that would have made caligula blush.
Someday, people in Arab countries will overthrow their leaders. If the people who take over are educated in more than the koran, the new leadership will be fine. If the ones that take over are religious zelots, the citizens of those countries will be even worse off than they are now.
As long as Arab minds are controlled by religious fanatics, Arabs are toast.
As the quality of education in the Arab world increases and Arabs realize that not everything they need to know is in the Koran, and realize that there are many kinds of knowledge, and many good books, they will be fine.
Until then, they will continue to be used as Pawns by their political and religious leaders
as they have been for thousands of years, and will continue to suffer and bring suffering to others.
I never thought sitting idly by as citizens are kidnapped, diplomats and spy masters are terrorized and then killed, and having marines killed and their barracks destroyes equated to bullying. Orwellian, perhaps; provactive, sure; accurate premise, no.
You are an idiot
When Iran talks about wiping Israel of the face of the earth, is a country that should not have any nuclear weapons. I don't care about political correctness, so I suggest you go back where you came from and stop making money from the country you hate so much
Oy!:
Being a racist apartheid militaristic jewish occupation theocracy,israel has been murdering and ethnically cleanesing Palestinians for sixty years-yes U are right,every time israel murders a Palestinian, it mourns them!!!
If U want the truth visit the scholarly and informative WWW.PLANDS.ORG which spells out israel's barbarities and atrocities:a state that was built by terrorism and ethnic cleansing and maintained thus far by brutal state terrorism and a fromidable nuclear arsenal-on and about which the US and the West is completely MUTE.
israel's nuclear arsenal is the cause of all the insecurity and instability in the whole ME-and its monopoly of the nukes is the main reason for its intransigent and militaristic adventures and occupation in the region-which is scarring Iran and others to seek defensive and deterent nuclear weapons.
The US would have never invaded Iraq,had it had a deterent nuclear arsenal-and its imperative that Iran and other Arab states acquire nuclear deterent weapons to keep regional peace, defend themselves against israel and any potential neocon invasion.
israel is an existential threat to the Iran and the Arab World.
Finally,why is all this deadly silence on israel's 300 nuclear war heads while it occupies all of historic Palestine as well as Syrian and Lebenese lands??? Iran never aggressed upon any nation nor is it occupying any one's lands.
"Therefore I believe the Iranians should find much wider support from international community to protect themselves from this unending American aggression and the only way to do that is to have a nuclear deterrent."
The author encourages the Mullahs on the path of developing a nuclear arsenal as a "deterrent" against attack by the U.S. despite the fact that America had the capability, since long before the inception of the current regime, to obliterate Iran without fear of retaliation. Their deterrent then is dependent on an imperialistic, hegemonic bully, etc., etc. that inexplicably waits decades while a hostile power develops weapons under its nose. Hopefully the Iranians will show similar forbearance once they finally have their arsenal, but, in the meantime, they have certainly done well in choosing an enemy. Meanwhile, the Post is to be congratulated for providing a forum that conclusively (though, perhaps unintentionally) demonstrates that Americans have no monopoly on idiotic opinions.
He didnt say that he wanted iran to have nuclear weapons, he said it was in their best interests. He's right.
Its a pathetic shame that he's right, but isnt it obvious? Set aside the debate over whos the badguy here, all governments do bad things... anyone remember nagasaki or hiroshima? Mutually assured destruction works, its sick and its scary, but as an alternative to war and terrorism (poor man's war) it begins to look very attractive. The real question is, is it practical or even possible to force the rest of the world to play by our rules?
He didnt say that he wanted iran to have nuclear weapons, he said it was in their best interests. He's right.
Its a pathetic shame that he's right, but isnt it obvious? Set aside the debate over whos the badguy here, all governments do bad things... anyone remember nagasaki or hiroshima? Mutually assured destruction works, its sick and its scary, but as an alternative to war and terrorism (poor man's war) it begins to look very attractive. The real question is, is it practical or even possible to force the rest of the world to play by our rules?
Arab countries are stuck in the dark ages.
Until they get rid of their monarchies and seperate church and state they'll always be under the control of their princes and mullahs.
Eventually, there will be revolutions in each of the Arab countries.. If those revolutions are started by college students and the middle class, they have a chance of building a successful modern society.
If the revolution is religion based, they'll be worse off than they were before.
I generally think that global nuclear disarmament is a good thing. However, it is the height of arrogance for the USA to claim that it (and UK and France and Israel) can have nukes, but the "lower life forms" like Iran and Pakistan cannot. Since when does religion dictate sanity? Christians and Jews have behaved just has hateful as muslims throughout history.
And we must mention the influence of the pro-Israeli lobby on the US government: in many ways the US acts to do the bidding of Israel, including disarming its neighbors.
The US promulgates so much anti-muslim propaganda. Im glad some alternative viewpoints are aired.
Kudos to Mustafa for coming up with the alternative viewpoint. America or atleast Israel giving up it's Nukes should be part of the negotiations with Iran. If not, nuclear deterrence is the only way to avoid mutual annihilation.
Double standards and American and Israeli propaganda dont fool the majority of the world. All of this nonsense is about oil and Israel. In fact most of it is about Israel and I speak on behlaf of the rest of the world 'non-muslim and non-judeo-christian'.
I wonder how much dough Joe here, get from AIPAC??
The mullas are using the oldest trick in the book - find an outside "boogyman" (the US, ISRAEL, Jews, Christians, etc.) and get your citizens (serfs?) to focus their hatred on them rather than on their own corrupt government.
It happens everywhere, including here in the US, but to different extents and extremes.
The trick is that its a trick. The real enemy in the MidEast is the corrupt leadership, especially the royal families, who keep the masses ignorant and in poverty, while the "princes" live a life of excess and dunken debauchery that would have made caligula blush.
Someday, people in Arab countries will overthrow their leaders. If the people who take over are educated in more than the koran, the new leadership will be fine. If the ones that take over are religious zelots, the citizens of those countries will be even worse off than they are now.
As long as Arab minds are controlled by religious fanatics, Arabs are toast.
As the quality of education in the Arab world increases and Arabs realize that not everything they need to know is in the Koran, and realize that there are many kinds of knowledge, and many good books, they will be fine.
Until then, they will continue to be used as Pawns by their political and religious leaders
as they have been for thousands of years, and will continue to suffer and bring suffering to others.
To Robert of Los Angeles...why should we die to save Israel's existence? Didn't we do enough when we saved your behind in WWII? Now my children have to die to save Israel? I say NO. Let the Mullahs get their weapon and wipe out Israel. They're a nothing but a pain in the butt anyways.
The basic premise he presents is wrong. Deterrent against America, absurd - when between the US and Russia there are 97% of nukes. The real reason for Iran's program is and always will be Israel. And Israel, not so secretly a nuke power, has no option but to think ANY Iranian program is an EXISTENTIAL threat, and therefore the US has no option but to guarantee that does not happen. One nuclear bomb, or even its threat, can ruin everyone's day.
Whatever position one takes in the long and complicated debate over US-Iranian relations, continued proliferation of nuclear arms should never be part of the equation. Anyone who suggests nuclear weapons as a viable leverage point, regardless of the "side" they are taking, should be ashamed of themselves.
The Islamic Republic of Iran: (1) murders, imprisons, and tortures political dissidents, (2) murders, imprisons, and tortures university students, (3) murders and denies a decent life to Baha'is,(4) imprisons homosexuals, (5) dresses down women, and (6) demands the return of Bahrain (four months ago) as a long-lost province.
Despite these facts, the author states that Iran should build a nuclear-arms capacity.
Apparently, the author believes that the Islamic Republic of Iran is presently short a few victims and needs to tally some more.
I wish the world were as simple as presented by Mr. Dominic but I don't believe that it is. To pretend that the sources of all of Iran's problems lie at the doorsteps of the U.S. or that nuclear weapons will solve these same problems is absurd.
The ridiculous discussion of the reason for the NIE is so over-the-top that it doesn't merit comment. It simply proves that Mr. Dominic's understanding of America is obviously extremely limited. If we weren't discussing nuclear weapons here I would have a good long laugh about those statements and the twisted paranoid search for Mr. Dominic's understanding of the NIE event. I realize that in Turkey popular television shows suggest that the CIA creates earthquakes to harm Turks but really..... :)
I don't want the U.S. to go to war with Iran but I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons either. I don't believe that the Middle East or Iran will be safer if they do. Is the world safer because North Korea has nuclear weapons and sells the technology to the highest bidder? Is the world better off because Pakistan is politically in flames and has nuclear technology that has also been sold as well?
Even though I vehemently opposed the Iraq War I don't believe that this war is the source of all problems in the Middle East and in fact, I believe that Iran understands this better than most and certainly better than Mr. Dominic. Does he seriously believe that Iran has not supported the Shia militias in Iraq and leveraged the war for maximum influence throughout the Middle East? Does he believe that they have not been the money behind Hezbolla and Hamas? On the other hand, he's not in the Middle East but tucked away in safety in London where political discussion is open so how would he know?
Until the Middle East decides that ethnic groups can live together peace will be in short supply, not just in Iraq but throughout the region and this has little to do with U.S. policy.
I don't want to go to war with Iran but I don't want to give Iran carte blanche to promote the lunacies of its dictatorial theocracy either. I believe the U.S. should continue to oppose the Iranian nuclear ambitions - for the sake of the entire world.
Thank you, Mustafa, for saying what should be said more often. I agree completely. I would only add that the US is in violation of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, which obliges it to undertake nuclear disarmament at the same that smaller nations commit not to acquire nuclear weapons. The message is clear: we can have these weapons, and threaten to use them as we please, but you can't. As you point out, Iran has every reason to consider its security in deadly peril.
The writer offers an important and sobering perspective, How would we react if the U.S. had been the target of the Iran interventions such as the U.S. has launched against Iran?
I hope that this information and perspective is brought up in the debates of both Republican and Democrat candidates (Ron Paul, to his credit, is way ahead of the pack on this) and in discussions in the White House, Congress and elsewhere. Ronald Regan, to his credit, too, was on the right track in seeking the elimination of all nuclear weapons. Hopefully, we can get back on the Regan track and be successful in reaching the goal.
As Jesus said, Blessed be the peacemakers." May our predominantly Christian nation put that directive front and center. Heaven forbid that we (and others) should have to have the experience of the use of nuclear weapons again (vastly more numerous and powerful than in 1945) with likely horrific devastation, immediately and subsequently (compared to which 9/11 would approach insignificance), to get us on track and to success in eliminating nuclear weapons.
The esteemed panelist says that Mid-East can still be peaceful and prosperous if left alone by America. Really. Forget USA's intervention and saving the nation of Kuwait from Saddam whose next stop would have been unholy country of Saudi Arabia and Allah knows what he would have done there.
The fact is Muslims , since the times of Mohammed (PBUH) have been fighting and killing each other. In order to save their religion they needed to expand and conquer new areas and thus the reason for a nomadic (but extremely expansionist and violent) "religion" to have spread all over.
I am more amazed at some of the comments than at the original article, most of which is correct in my opinion.
I am amazed at the ignorance of the US public, as represented by many of those posting comments, about the past history of US interference in the affaisrs of other nations, including Iran. Behind this ignorance is clearly the arrogant view that nothing else matters but the opinions of the US governments and it's captive media.
Such ignorance and arrogance will lead to continuing loss of the freedoms, which have been fought for over the years. Already, the Bush-Cheney regime has whittled many of them away. Soon torture will be acceptable and the rights of the accused as negligible as the victims housed in the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp.
Logic and debate are very detached from the things Mustafa is suggesting. Many contributors have tried to effectively articulate Iran’s vast crimes against other countries in the region, its own people and the world. A few contributors have defended such actions and the comments of Mustafa. However the fact of the matter is this topic should of never reached that point. This topic isn’t about Iran and its history with the west. It’s about a mad man that stood in front of the world and predicted the end of Israel. It’s about a mad man on a quest for nuclear weapons to facilitate that prediction. Its about a rouge state that the international community has had enough of and will deal with.
Ultimately its about a nation that made its own choices, took its own stances and will now pay the price.
That such a concept would even be expressed demonstrates how far America has fallen.
On 9/12 we had the sympathy of the entire planet, but thanks to a megalomaniac cocaine-snorting C student bolstered by a bizarre alliance between Christo-fascist fundamentalist end-timers and ultra-right-wing militant Isrealis, all that good will has been turned to hatred and suspicion.
Meanwhile the perpetrator of 9/11 still runs free.
The USA, in it's incredibly expensive role as policeman of the world, has once again decided to order a country around. Telling Iran what to do won't work anyways, as Pakistan, India, and a host of other marginal states now have nuclear weapons. The cat is out of the bag. How safe is China? What happens when technology is developed in the future that creates weapons as or more dangerous than nuclear weapons? The US needs to work on economic ties to all these countries, and stop the posturing. It is costing the US Treasury trillions, and putting our once great nation at a terrible risk.
Why should the Palistinians suffer for something that happened in Germany (Europe)? If the holocaust happened, Germany should be the land of the Jews, not the newest nation of Israel.
The opposition to the Reza Palavi regime at the time of the Islamic Revolution was pretty complex. The secular student movement found itself in an inconvenient alliance with the Islamists largely because of the overwhelming American support of the Palavi regime. Street demonstrations at the time used the Mossadegh ouster as a rallying point. That part, at least, was clearly a nationalist movement.
Unfortunately, as is often the case in power vacuums, the ensuing environment lent itself to a takeover by the most committed power. Those were the Islamists. In that sense, the American ouster of Mossadegh and support of the Shah had the unintended consequence of creating the Islamist threat -- much as the bombing of Cambodia created the Khmer Rouge.
To all of those - including Mustafa - who constantly trot out the Mossadeq business as the original sin that started the bad blood between Iran and the U.S.: Can any of you substantiate that? Can you point to any statement made by the Mullah regime, confirming that the invasion of the US embassy and the taking of the hostages was payback for whatever happened in 1953?
The author brings up an interesting point that needs to be further articulated.
Possibly the single biggest contributing factor to increased American aggressiveness in foreign affairs is the fact that there really are no negative consequences for doing so. We have a full-time professional military so the sacrifice of service is not distributed among the population. Bumper sticker patriotism appears to be the extent of anyone's "patriotic" duty. We are also so overwhelmingly militarily capable that the human costs are nearly insignificant.
Changing that force equation through an assymetric means appears the only way to deter American action. We seem loath to deter Russia's descent into the resurrection of Stalinism because they are bristling with nuclear weapons (and because Bush "read Putin's soul" and saw a good man). We are similarly reluctant to take aggressive action against the Chinese because of their links to our economy. It appears that the only way to prevent a rogue president from going nuts is to make such action disproportionately expensive.
Isreal might not send their own children into the mine fields, but they have no problem killing young children in the Gaza Strip or bombing all of Lebanon killing innocent women and children, which was using American bombs to kill all those innocent people. People get real, no country is innocent during war time and the biggest problem everybody do not want to be a CHRISTIAN OR A DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY.
WHAT IS GOOD FOR YOU DOES NOT MEAN IT IS GOOD FOR ME, WHICH AMERICA AND THESE OTHER SUPERPOWERS BELIEVE IN.
Maybe the Kurds need a nuke too. As far as I am concerned, the middle east and surrounding countries can all go to hell. Turkey included. I am no Bush lover. I just can't stand your centuries old stupidity towards each other. Grow up already.
Very well thought out and written comment. If the past 7 years has made anything clear, its that the posession of a nuclear bomb is the only protection one has in the face of U.S. agression. Just compare the different fates of North Korea and Iraq. If you have been declared part of the 'axis of evil' (pardon the repitition of this moronic phrase), then a nuclear bomb is your only sure defense.
Unfortunately, the Bush administration has undermined and castrated the hard-won multilateral mechanisms that resulted from the bloodshed of WW II. We have been plunged back into the darkness of the law of the jungle, where nations' only defense comes from having the ultimate weapon. What seemed unthinkable since the end of WWII (I'll leave out the issues of Vietnam, Afghanistan, Panama, etc) - namely the invasion of another country for its resources - has become the reality of the world situation again.
Iran's government would be irresponsible not to obtain nuclear weapons. How would we react if our government identified a real threat and then did not do everything it could to prevent that threat. The same thing is happining in Iran - and it's our (U.S.'s) fault.
A long as any country in the Middle East, including the United States and Israel, have nuclear weapons, no one is safe. A rigorous and enforceable inspection regime for a nuclear free zone in the Middle East is the only way forward. Israel's illegal nuclear complex at Dimona has to be opened and their hundreds of illegal nuclear weapons demilitarized. Simultaneously, Iran must let the IAEA back into their country and give them free and unfettered access to all facilities. Saudi Arabia has offered to host a conference to build a framework for a nuclear free zone and should be taken up on that offer. There are such nuclear free zone frameworks in South America, the South Pacific and Africa, so there are examples to work from.
Until the nuclear haves-U.S. and Israel-take positive steps towards dismantling their own nuclear stockpiles, other countries will continue attempt to protect themselves by building their own deterrent.
I'm a proud American, but I have to agree with Mustafa. We meddled in another country's government, denying the populace to right to make their own choices, then were shocked--shocked!--when they had finally had had enough.
How quickly we forget our own history, that which we often claim to hold so dearly. As he points out, we have no problems advancing our own interests in nefarious ways, but our quick to vilify and condemn others (typically confined to only those deemed foe when that proves expedient) of doing the same, even when theirs is strictly regional while ours empirical. It's just pure, blatant hypocrisy; there is simply no other explanation or rationale that suffices.
This isn't to condone hostage-taking or theological repressive governments. Nor do I wish to see Iran or any other country aquiring or maintaining nuclear weapons. However, Iran's current society is actually quite advanced when compared with some of its neighbors that the US supports. Unfortunately, our current administration's fear-mongering, Israeli-driven Middle East foreign policy, and narrow ideology, have worked to prevent the public from considering Iran's actions and people fairly from a broader perspective.
Surprisingly unmentioned here--but a key argument--is Israel's aggressive posture and bullying that constitutes another critical factor driving Iran towards possessing a nuclear capability. With some 300 nukes of its own, Israel is the pink elephant in the room that makes US hypocrisy impossible to ignore. And how is it that a non-signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, a rogue nation with a constant history of human rights abuses and ignoring international law (and which introduced the widespread use of terrorism as an effective tool to the region) has the chutzpah to point fingers or make demands of others that they themselves are unwilling to meet?
If I could be allowed a small pre-emptive attack of my own: For those whom will invariably label these observations anti-Semitic; you couldn't be further from the truth. But then, it is evidently not truth you seek, but obfuscation.
I'm a proud American, but I have to agree with Mustafa. We meddled in another country's government, denying the populace to right to make their own choices, then were shocked--shocked!--when they had finally had had enough.
How quickly we forget our own history, that which we often claim to hold so dearly. As he points out, we have no problems advancing our own interests in nefarious ways, but our quick to vilify and condemn others (typically confined to only those deemed foe when that proves expedient) of doing the same, even when theirs is strictly regional while ours empirical. It's just pure, blatant hypocrisy; there is simply no other explanation or rationale that suffices.
This isn't to condone hostage-taking or theological repressive governments. However, Iran's current society is actually quite advanced when compared with some of its neighbors that the US supports. Unfortunately, our current administration's fear-mongering, Israeli-driven Middle East foreign policy, and narrow ideology, have worked to prevent the public from considering Iran's actions and people fairly from a broader perspective.
Surprisingly unmentioned here--but a key argument--is Israel's aggressive posture and bullying that constitutes another critical factor driving Iran towards possessing a nuclear capability. With some 300 nukes of its own, Israel is the pink elephant in the room that makes US hypocrisy impossible to ignore. And how is it that a non-signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, a rogue nation with a constant history of human rights abuses and ignoring international law (and which introduced the widespread use of terrorism as an effective tool to the region) has the chutzpah to point fingers or make demands of others that they themselves are unwilling to meet?
If I could be allowed a small pre-emptive attack of my own: For those whom will invariably label these observations anti-Semitic; you couldn't be further from the truth. But then, it is evidently not truth you seek, but obfuscation.
Name of the game is commonsense. Threats don’t work, as they come to haunt you, may be from a different source, at a different time.
We don’t have much time left in between establishing a peaceful world or head for another war.
Choices need to be made keeping a long vision, short visions have failed and will fail.
In a war, no body gets hurt, other than common people. Real war starters, find easy heavens in other countries.
Only in last 100 hundred years, we have made real meaningful progress, in terms of really knowing one another, and that too at the cost of several wars.
We will be real stupid, if we don’t pause and think, towards which direction we need to head now.
Iran is paranoid and you can’t blame them for it. The bigger powers need to put them at ease first, before taking about dismantling their nuclear program, which they claim, is not for offensive purposes. Of course they are lying, but we need to accept their reasons for lying.
Fast media is playing a bigger role than we are wiling to accept, and people are not willing to accept wars without any rules. It is not a good idea to start a war over this.
So the option that we are left with is, talking to them, pursuing them to move away from this deadly technology, that will do much more harm, than they understand at this point, or ready to absorb the damage that comes with this deadly force.
We personally think, the world community needs to work relentlessly 24/7 to find a energy solution. Once that is found and made available, all countries need to dismantle their nuclear arsenals to put every body at ease.
Russians and Americans have made lot of progress and rest of the world needs to follow.
Bottom lines are:
(1)Find a permanent energy solution.
(2)Keep communication lines open.
(3)Let the commonsense be the next Super power of the world.
And one other thing Mr. Mustafa... Please, if you hate America sooo much, take someone else's money and don't post in American papers. As to the Post, what is wrong with you? Do you really hate your own nation so much that you think it is a good thing if an avowed enemy of America becomes a nuclear threat?
Perhaps if Iran swore not to produce nuclear weapons it would not have the US breathing down its neck. Perhaps if Irans elected leader retracted his words of wanting to "wipe out" Isreal, they would not have the West breathing down its neck. Perhaps if Iran wasen't trying to upset the balance of power in the Gulf region and instal pro fascist forces in Lebanon it wouldn't have the US and the west breathing down its neck.
Did Turks complain about the the 1953 coup in Iran? Did Turks object to the Shah when he was in power? Or did Turks cooperate militarily? Welcome an anti-communist neighbor during the Cold War? Welcome a neighbor equally committed to rejection of a Kurdish national government?
I think your complaints about American power and influence are redolent of habitual followership. Turks followed Americans and Europeans during the Cold War. Turks try to follow Europeans into modernity and prosperity in the EU. You follow Persian and Arab sentiments in an age that publicly rejects American leadership and secretly bows to it.
One begins to wonder, Do Turks have any directions they would like to pursue independently?
Your far leftist rant withstanding- you obviously don't understand the world from a geopolitical perspective.
Iran is run by a theocracy where we are not. They make comments about wiping Israel off the face of the earth and financially and with weapons support terrorism.
"If Iran -- a rogue nation whose support for terrorists is well known and documented -- develops nuclear weapons, we should deliver an warning to Iran that makes clear what we will do if nuclear devices are EVER used against America or American interests anywhere in the world.
Whether those devices originate in Iran or from a location/ownership that cannot be ascertained, we will assume that Iran was the source -- no degree of plausable denial will be accepted.
Should a device -- bomb or dirty bomb -- be used, Iran would have 2 hours before it's country will be reduced to nuclear rubble. If Iran wants to proceed to develop nuclear capability under this understanding of responsibility, it is free to do so. Be forewarned though -- neither Iran nor its surrogates will be able to use these devices and live."
If Iran -- a rogue nation whose support for terrorists is well known and documented -- develops nuclear weapons, we should deliver an warning to Iran that makes clear what we will do if nuclear devices are EVER used against America or American interests anywhere in the world.
Whether those devices originate in Iran or from a location/ownership that cannot be ascertained, we will assume that Iran was the source -- no degree of plausable denial will be accepted.
Should a device -- bomb or dirty bomb -- be used, Iran would have 2 hours before it's country will be reduced to nuclear rubble. If Iran wants to proceed to develop nuclear capability under this understanding of responsibility, it is free to do so. Be forewarned though -- neither Iran nor its surrogates will be able to use these devices and live.
To those who bring up the Iranian hostage crisis as a justification for aggressive policy:
If a foreign government assassinated even the most unpopular American president and replaced him with an unconditional monarch that it controlled, I would be the first person to jump the fence of their embassy with shotgun in hand. I would view this as my sovereign duty as an American. I would consider anyone who didn't follow me to be a coward and a traitor.
When we assassinated Mossadegh and replaced him with the puppet Shah Reza Palavi, we put those wheels in motion.
How about you look up the minefield clearing and the childrens' martyr brigades. It is well documented by many sources that are not all American.
Now that I have adressed that, how about you adress all of the other points. Also, since when has it been a good thing for there to be more nulear weapons in the world. This is not about Neo-con chest thumping. This is about plain facts.
Nuclear weapons are not nice things. Since the bottleneck in developing them is actually in the production of fissionable material, I fail to understand anyone who is breathing easier over the latest intelligence report. Saying that you are developing a fuel cycle - but not atomic capacity is a distinction only a politician could make. It is not good physics.
Further, notions of mutally assured destruction as a deterrent do not have the same value if one side believes they get to sport with 72 virgins in heaven.
Anyone who thinks that there is not a problem here is an utter fool.
Of course Iran should be able to have nuclear weapons. The most dangerous and biggest nations have nuclear weapons and I feel all countries should have the same type of weapons the next country have. The most dangerous country is America. I guess it's based around the cowboy attitude.
While most reasonable people are aware of American mistakes in dealing with Middle East policy over the years, it is madness to think that the world will be a more secure place if Iran has a nuclear weapon. Articles like this always ignore certain things, like Iran's support for Hamas and Hizbollah, or the sickening comments from Iran's president. According to Mr. Domanic, there is no probem on this earth that cannot be blamed on the United States.
I just watched a movie called Zeitgeist. It is the most sobering and frightening thing I have ever seen. The very survival of our world and our way of life depends on everyone knowing what is in this film. It is available on line. For the sake of everything and everyone you love, watch this film.
We don't need more nuclear powers but a more intelligent citizenry.Then Ahmadinejad would not have been elected and the US would not have chosen one who can't pronounce the iranian presidents name over one who since has won a nobel price and an oscar.
MUSTAFA DOMANIC is right; Iran has every right to protect itself against Bush's terrorism.
As a US citizen, I cannot accept the Republican's blood-for-oil neoimperialist crusade against Islam
1) b/c our attack on Iraq was illegal (where are the WMDs?).
and 2) b/c in an era of "free trade," there is no hope that US can occupy the Middle East to force oil producing nations to hand over their natural resources under threat of violence. We are already bankrupting ourselves (4 trillion!!), and we are losing--
Jefferson said it: FORCE CANNOT MAKE RIGHT
The last 7 years have been the most destructive in the US since the Civil War; and it no surprise that it's the great grandsons of the Confederates that are destroying the COnstitution and trying to turn the world into a slave plantation.
I find your argument compelling, and in the abstract, I agree with your conclusions.
Since I don't live in the abstract, however, I think it would be a pretty good idea to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. In the real world, a nuclear Iran is either a step towards the dissolution of Western hegemony or a step towards nuclear war.
Scary prospects. Do you expect something better to rise from the ashes? Or do you predict different outcomes?
So suck it up you retarded and unconditional Bush Fluffers!! This is the bottomline environment youve created...go "Nukular" and this hill billy who would not have been able to get a job bagging my groceries if it wasnt for his daddy and their family name will wimper away from you. Or he may bomb and invade you cuz Israel told him to! For the rest you back-county fools instead of attacking this commentator based on his name which youre so obviousely doing stick to the content and topic. Otherwise based on your Muslim stereotyping go back to moldesting little boys in your churches and turning your little girls into porn stars, hey its the fastest growing industry in the U.S. Im sure youll vote for Jenna Jamison for president next hey if your gonna give your back end be a pro about it!!
444 days! That is how long the Iranians held our people. Why should the US put up with a nuke capably Iran? Why should the US try to deal with a man who doesn't even believe that the holocaust killed millions of people, regardless of whether they were Jewish people or not? Why should the US try to deal rationally with a country that is headed by a religious zealot, who is doing everything in his power to bring about the next World War, so that it can fulfill some religious predictions that other 'twelvers' believe will come to pass? I am not a Christian, or a Muslim, or a member of any other organize mind control religion, and I am damn sure not in favor of anymore religious zealots having their figures on the buttons of nukes... one in our own country is enough.
Attitudes such as Mustafa Domanic's is an extremely valid reason for the United States to maintain their vigilance and targeting directly into the Middle East, centering on Tehran. If Tehran desires to become a nuclear target: so be it.
Who would you trust with your children - Iran, who sent its children to walk through minefields while fighting a 10 year war with fellow Islamic country Iraq; or Israel, where they mourn each death, Israeli or not?
The main appeal of the Bomb is the deterence factor. Israel hasn't used it and won't except as a last resort when threatened with imminent destruction. Iran fails that test miserably. They have said they want to use it against Israel, and Israel is certainly not looking to kill all the Iranians, or Arabs, or Muslims, or anyone else.
This is not a USA vs USSR deterence. Iran with the Bomb would lead to mushroom clouds in many different places.
Oy!
Oy!
Mr. Domanic chronicles well the history of the animosity between the US and Iran. It's too bad that few Americans have taken the time to read about the 1953 CIA coup that ousted Mossadegh. After 25 years of rule under the tyrannical Shah, it is not surprising that the Iranian people rose up and overthrew him. It is also understandable that the people of Iran have a real ambivalence about the political leadership of the United States.
One one hand, the people of Iran hold in high regard the principles on which American was founded. But in another way, many Iranians distrust and fear America because of her past dealings with their country. The ascendancy of the mullahs and their antipathy towards the US government is a natural outgrowth of that fear and distrust.
Though I'm not of the disposition to apologize for the behavior of the Iranian regimes, I would like to point out that we have the convenience of pontificating from a relative position of safety. Should the strategic shoe be on the other foot, one might expect far different results.
Examine the wholesale destruction of civil liberties after 19 medieval primatives crashed planes into American buildings. Similarly hostile actions happen in Iran with regularity and yet we don't see this as justification for the repression of political opposition. Should the US be threatened with overwhelming military force across a reachable border, we could expect the end of our own democratic experiment.
If you are truly concerned with the welfare of Iranian liberal political development, I suggest you work toward a less aggressive American policy in the present.
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me -- unless you assume that Americans are so irrational that they are not susceptible to deterrence.
The US has not honored its commitment under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to reduce its own nuclear stockpiles. We can't have it both ways.
Joe, your "children clearing minefields" story sounds like the same sort of "Iraqis are stealing baby incubators from Kuwait" propaganda our disinformation services cooked up to stoke their war machines. I hope the hook, line, and sinker don't snag when they come out your other end.
The ability of neo-cons and other Iran war hawks to hold two contradictory ideas at the same time never fails to fascinate. Since the release of the NIE the hard right has argued these two incompatible positions, both designed to discredit the NIE: 1.) that the report says nothing new -- Iran is still developing nuclear technology and so remains a dangerous place; and 2.) that the authors of the report have severely compromised American security by challenging the administration' central pretext for war.
And let's not kid ourselves. War is what they wanted. What else could John Bolton have meant when he accused the NIE's authors of advancing their own "agenda," since by all accounts taking war off the table was the signature accomplishment of the report. My guess is that the 16 intelligence agencies, with the secret urging of the Joint Chiefs, felt the US was being rushed into another reckless war and so needed to head this war-mongering off at the pass.
If the dramatic finding of the report -- that Iran is not now pursuing nuclear weapons -- is not matched by the specific details contained in the report, perhaps that is because American intelligence knows this is not an administration that crafts foreign policy to match actual intelligence, but rather uses intelligence to support a pre-conceived ideological agenda. When the two don't match it's the intelligence, not the policy, the administration and its supporters discredit. It's important for people to understand what a radical change that is.
One final point: Neo-con chest-thumpers say that if Iran suspended its weapon program in 2003 it's because they were cowering at the shock and awe of American military might after the Iraq invasion. But the more likely reason is that the US did Iran a great favor by eliminating the main reason Iran wanted nukes -- a WMD-possessing mortal enemy in Saddam Hussain. Without Saddam and without Iraqi WMD Iran had no reason for nukes -- except perhaps now to thwart being next on the George W. hit list.
North Korea didn't have nuclear missiles in 2003, nor do they have real nuclear missiles today. (The amount of force from their test, is doable with conventional explosives)
There are defintely cynical reasons to suspect that the US chose Iraq instead of North Korea, but they have much more to do that North Korea is under the Chinese sphere of influence, and that the Seoul, with a metropolitian population of 23 million or so, is within range of North Koreas artillery, and would have been shelled in the event of an invasion.
This Mustafa guy is a fine addition to the nutjob sector on the WP panel. "Meddling with Iran's democratic system"? "Support secessionism"? "Support Iraq's assault on Iran"? "help military groups destabilize Iran"? What the hell is he babbling about?
This whole alleged conflict between Iran and the U.S. is the brainchild of the Mullahs. They started it as soon as they came to power and have maintained it ever since. While bilthely concocting imaginary causes to the "conflict", Mustafa does not seem to have heard about the Iranians' assault on the U.S. embassy and the holding of U.S. diplomats as hostages for more than a year. Since then, there has not been a single U.S. administration who has not tried to make diplomatic overtures to Tehran and resolve the problems. No one even knows for sure what the Mullahs' problems are. They should get a life and so should Mustafa.
While we are at it. When will the Orientalists in the Modern Left start talking about personal responsibility? I do not debate that the United States did many wrong things in it's past policy with Iran. I do not debate that the policy was terrible.
In the thirty years since then, it is not as if the Iranis "just couldn't help themselves" from becoming so brutal, threatening and beligerent. The people in the Mideast need to also not be barbarians.
The reality is that Iran is a brutal theocracy that sent children to clear minefields in special "martyrs brigades."
Pause and consider this. The Mullahs in Iran had a problem with Iraqi mines during the war with Iraq. The mines killed soldiers and destroyed valuable quipment. The solution, get children to hold hands, sing about Allah and go stomping into the mine field.
The same regime that did this is in power. They are one of the worlds largest supporters, financial backers and trainers of terrorism. They are intimately connected with the unrest in Lebanon and they continually threaten war with Israel. They are beligerent to the Saudis as well. In fact, they and the Saudis play a very complex and sick game of chess over regional dominance.
Letting them get atomic capacity would be about as bright as letting a chimpanze have a loaded revolver. Nothing good can come of it. So please, take your foolish propaganda elsewhere. Not everyone in America is fooled by you.
Excuse me but ANY child can tell you that making a bigger global pile of nuclear death isn't going to deter the NEO-CONS to do anything but bomb the hell out of you.
You sir, are an idiot.
Go back to blogging on finance. You obviously know nothing about peace making.
PostGlobal is an interactive conversation on global issues moderated by Newsweek International Editor Fareed Zakaria and David Ignatius of The Washington Post. It is produced jointly by Newsweek and washingtonpost.com, as is On Faith, a conversation on religion. Please send your comments, questions and suggestions for PostGlobal to Lauren Keane, its editor and producer.
All Comments (185)
To those who claim that the US has a moral superiority over Iran and therefore the right to do:
When I think of a country in the Middle East, or even in the world that is the true nemesis of a western style liberal democracy, whose state promotes fundamentalism and society breeds extremism, I do not think of Iran, I think of Saudi Arabia; America’s best friend in the Middle East.
Osama Bin Laden is Saudi, and a very rich one as well – purely driven by ideology, not desperation. Al-Qaeda is a Saudi founded organisation. 9/11 was thought of, planned out and mainly carried out by Saudi extremists. Saudi oil money finances and supports Islamic extremism all over the world from the Philippines to England, from the Balkans to Israel.
If you are really talking about a threat – not even to world peace, because I know our definitions of world peace are quite different – but to the American people, you would worry about Saudi Arabia, not Iran.
Oh, but of course, I forgot that Saudi Arabia is a loyal client of the US, providing a constant flow of oil and logistical support when necessary. The Saudi royal family – by far the most corrupt, oppressive, decadent regime in the region – is a good friend of your administration.
Then I guess you have two different moral standards: one that applies to you and your friends, clients, etc., and one that applies to your enemies.
And let us not even begin with America’s “moral” credentials. I don’t have to start with native Americans, I believe fifty years in Central America (Nicaragua, Panama, Chile) and the Middle East (Iran, Iraq, Palestine) are ample evidence of ‘American might makes right’. I will not elaborate.
I know some of you actually believe in this moral superiority illusion. I don’t know what to say to you except that your media and your government has been doing an excellent job of brainwashing you. Open your eyes! Others, though, who are aware of the dilemma, honestly, why don’t you just say what your administration is really after in Iran, and drop the moral crap!
December 12, 2007 7:06 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 12, 2007 07:06
I believe, not only in principle, but also in practice, that nuclear proliferation is not a solution. If climate change doesn't annihilate us, then nuclear weapons will.
However, I think Mustafa has a crucially valid point. I would put it this way: Current Iran policy of the US, coupled with Washington's decades of meddling in that country's internal affairs, is effectively stripping Iran of a feasible alternative to pursuing nuclear ambitions. Therefore, while I believe Iran 'should not' possess nuclear weapons, I think under the present circumstances they are forced to build that capacity.
If the US really wishes a non-nuclear Iran, it should seriously review its own policies and present that country with more alternatives. Threatening to bomb and invade the country leaves them little to choose from.
On the other hand, I disagree with Mustafa that Iran's only deterrent against the US is having nuclear weapons. I believe, in fact, the current American stance only plays into the hands of extreme right wing hardliners in both countries, who wish to manipulate domestic public opinion with an ever present external threat.
American neo-cons probably 'want' Iran to have nuclear ambitions: they know Iranians' premature nuclear operations pose no substantial threat to advance nuclear states like theirs and Israel, while it gives them the excuse to be actively involved in Iran's affairs.
Consequently, there is another deterrent that Iran could employ against US aggression, which Tehran made very little use of so far: world public opinion. The biggest war of our century is the propaganda war. Bush administration has trumped its way into Iraq by convincing its people that Iraq posed a serious threat to their country. Saddam, a failure that he always was from a PR point of view, did poorly in trying to convince the world otherwise.
If Iran can convince the American people (granted, much harder than convincing the rest of the world) that they pose no threat to them at all, it will disarm the American propaganda machine and gain Iran some supporters in the western world. And even the US cannot invade a country (even harder now than before) without the backing of its own people and at least the prentention of an international 'coalition'.
Winning the propaganda war is a difficult endeavour (just look at the fanaticism of some of the comments posted here), but Iran has more chance in this alley than in the nuclear alley. They already scored a big point with the intelligence report (and they know it).
December 12, 2007 5:46 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 12, 2007 05:46
"Iran needs nukes to defend itself against America"?
"North Korea wasn't attacked by America because they have nukes"?
How much longer must we endure hearing such utter nonsense? Does the Left really have no stronger argument to use to buttress their nonsense than these two howlers?
No, nukes are _not_ useful to Iran to defend itself against America. The only country that successfully defended itself against America with nukes was the Soviet Union. But at what a cost! The expense of keeping up with the arms race was a major cause (if not the only cause) of the collapse of the Soviet Union.
And no, North Korean nukes had _nothing_ to do with they weren't attacked. It is the way North Korea holds the South Korean capital, Seoul, hostage that is the reason. For even before they had nukes, when everybody _knew_ they did not have nukes, we could not attack. Why? Because the North Koreans have _huge_ batteries of artillery aimed at Seoul, so that we know that once we attack, they will bombard Seoul causing immense civilian casualties. The South Korean government would not forgive us for this, even though it is really the North's fault if they die.
The only alternative that might prevent this is a _massive_ nuclear strike to take out those batteries. Come to think of it, the resulting nuclear winter might be the best answer to China's refusal to cooperate on global warming;)
Now perhaps Iran would be willing to stoop so low as to imitate North Korea's inhumanity, but then why are there so many _apologists_ for such inhumanity on the Left, especially in the _European_ Left?
December 11, 2007 8:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 11, 2007 20:44
I love all these so-called American patriots coming in here and claiming that Iran is destablizing the middle east. Have these people checked their headlines oh for the last 60 years. We just launched a disastrous and unprovoked war in the heart of the middle east that has virtually torn Iraq into three parts, and somehow Iran is destablizing the middle east. Israel our prinicipal ally in the globe has launced attacks against two Arab countries just in the last 8 months, forget about their 60 year history of apartheid and wars of conquest. My personal highlight of Israeli History is the 1956 war in which they tried to steal the Suez Canal and where forced to withdraw by arch Islamist-loving Dwight Eisenhower.
I WILL BET ANY PERSON IN THE WORLD 10,000 DOLLARS IN A BET, WHO IS MORE LIKELY TO FIRE THE FIRST SHOT IN A WAR, ILL PUT MY MONEY ON IRAN AND YOU GUYS PUT YOUR MONEY ON THE WASHINGTON/TEL AVIV UNITY GOVERNMENT.
FOR YOU GAMBLING ODDS MAKERS LETS LOOK AT PAST BETTING PERFORMANCE:
Iran: last time Iran/Persia initiated an invasion was sometime in the middle part of the 19th century when Nader Shah tried to conquer northern India.
AMERICA: HAS FOUGHT ALL OF THE FOLLOWING WARS, BOMBINGS, POLICE ACTIONS JUST SINCE 1980:
1. SHOOTING DOWN OF IRANIAN CIVIL AIRLINER (SEE USS VINCENES)
2. SHELLING OF LEBANON AND BEIRUT, 1980S
3. Grenada: that was a real imminent threat
4. Somalia
5. Bosnia
6. Kosovo
7. Iraq (twice)
8. Afghanistan
9. Panama
10. Haiti
I WONDER WHO YOU WOULD BET ON. The world opinion polls are right, and our own militarist history proves them right, we have launched a war or military invasion or some kind of bombing against some perceived threat, on average every 3 years. IT IS OUR OWN MILITARIST, ZIONIST, AND CORPORATIST GOVERNMENT THAT IS THE BIGGEST THREAT TO OUR PEOPLE AND THE PEOPLE OF THE REST OF THE WORLD.
December 11, 2007 1:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 11, 2007 13:52
I love all these so-called American patriots coming in here and claiming that Iran is destablizing the middle east. Have these people checked their headlines oh for the last 60 years. We just launched a disastrous and unprovoked war in the heart of the middle east that has virtually torn Iraq into three parts, and somehow Iran is destablizing the middle east. Israel our prinicipal ally in the globe has launced attacks against two Arab countries just in the last 8 months, forget about their 60 year history of apartheid and wars of conquest. My personal highlight of Israeli History is the 1956 war in which they tried to steal the Suez Canal and where forced to withdraw by arch Islamist-loving Dwight Eisenhower.
I WILL BET ANY PERSON IN THE WORLD 10,000 DOLLARS IN A BET, WHO IS MORE LIKELY TO FIRE THE FIRST SHOT IN A WAR, ILL PUT MY MONEY ON IRAN AND YOU GUYS PUT YOUR MONEY ON THE WASHINGTON/TEL AVIV UNITY GOVERNMENT.
FOR YOU GAMBLING ODDS MAKERS LETS LOOK AT PAST BETTING PERFORMANCE:
Iran: last time Iran/Persia initiated an invasion was sometime in the middle part of the 19th century when Nader Shah tried to conquer northern India.
AMERICA: HAS FOUGHT ALL OF THE FOLLOWING WARS, BOMBINGS, POLICE ACTIONS JUST SINCE 1980:
1. SHOOTING DOWN OF IRANIAN CIVIL AIRLINER (SEE USS VINCENES)
2. SHELLING OF LEBANON AND BEIRUT, 1980S
3. Grenada: that was a real imminent threat
4. Somalia
5. Bosnia
6. Kosovo
7. Iraq (twice)
8. Afghanistan
9. Panama
10. Haiti
I WONDER WHO YOU WOULD BET ON. The world opinion polls are right, and our own militarist history proves them right, we have launched a war or military invasion or some kind of bombing against some perceived threat, on average every 3 years. IT IS OUR OWN MILITARIST, ZIONIST, AND CORPORATIST GOVERNMENT THAT IS THE BIGGEST THREAT TO OUR PEOPLE AND THE PEOPLE OF THE REST OF THE WORLD.
December 11, 2007 1:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 11, 2007 13:52
The Iranian Islamo-thugs seize the US Embassy---an act of war---and hold American citizens hostage for 444 days, but the US is the bully and poor Iran is the victim.
Got it!
December 11, 2007 1:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 11, 2007 13:03
Why is it so hard for people to accept the words coming out of a despot's mouth? When a dictator tells you theat they want to wipe a country off the face of the earth, they probably mean it, but nobody wants to believe it. Since they live in denial, we get dreck like this. Appeasment minded bovine droppings disguised as intilectual debate still smells just as sour.
If Iran gets a nuke, they will do exactly what they say the want to do... Use it against Israel. When they do, 50 more go off over Iran, dropped by the Isralies, the middle east will boil over, and we have WWIII, started in the same way the second one started. Appeasment giveing evil time to arm and get ready for the party.
Hitler warned us he wanted to retake lands lost, and destroy the Jewish people with a book before he tried to burn the world. Now that another dictator says he wants to drive the Jews into the sea, and create a new Persian empire, we really want to lay the blame at Americas feet for trying to stop it, and hand them what they need to set their plan in motion?
We have forgotten the lessons of history, and now, it looks like we're going to repeat it. God help us all if this guy gets his way.
December 11, 2007 12:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 11, 2007 12:44
So if the US is ( as usual ) the root of all evil, why then do our Persian cousins rant on about "death to Israel"?
Is it really a rational position to hold that fanatical theocrats can be entrusted with nukes?
Who is it amongst your readership would prefer to live under the Mullahs than in the nasty old USA?
In NYC our gays may be hung but not hanged.
December 11, 2007 12:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 11, 2007 12:41
No country has anything to fear from America unless that country is run by lunatics who are racist AND actively advocate destroying America or American allies. Mustafa is as intellectually dishonest as possible in his "analysis" of present Iran-USA "relations." Iran's stated aims are to destroy Israel, drive all the Jews out of the middle east, and impose the narrow backwards retarded "mores" of their religion upon non-Muslims everywhere.
December 11, 2007 12:34 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 11, 2007 12:34
The veracity of your article is further confirmed by the comments. Apparently, you hit the spot.
December 11, 2007 11:09 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 11, 2007 11:09
Thank you, Mustafa Domanic.
Your contribution is a masterpiece! By giving rise to this insane conversation on potential mutual extinction, it indeed points to the only viable alternative to unmitigated madness, i.e. world disarmament and peaceful coexistence.
Once upon a time, in our own lifetime, there existed people, groups, countries even, working toward world disarmament and peaceful coexistence. Even in the media were found human beings who could present and discuss the advantages for humanity to set itself, pursue and achieve those collective goals. In our midst, people could be found, who understood the fundamental changes required, in our way of thinking, in order for us to attain such truly human objectives.
As always, violence is very unlikely to produce the results its promoters expect. Yet those it will produce have been known to us since the early beginnings of mankind. War still ought to be considered and treated as a funeral service.
Even victory is a funeral.
December 11, 2007 10:26 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 11, 2007 10:26
While I am not surpised that this "author" would condemn America, after all he is a muslim and brit. My question, if Iran is so great, why do you live in the land of cowards (England)? What is really disturbing to me is that some Americans actually beleive this crap the author writes and that Islam is anything other than a sick death cult.
Mohammed was a PIG!!!
December 11, 2007 9:31 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 11, 2007 09:31
Someone please stop Iran now. And to the posters here who think America is morally equivalent to Iran: Please wise up, before your unique brand of stupidity gets us killed.
December 11, 2007 9:27 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 11, 2007 09:27
It is astounding that an American newspaper would even publish this piece of trash. It is enlightening however how anti-American sentiment is cherished at the Washington Post. Once this guy gets it's way there will be no Washington or Post.
December 11, 2007 8:52 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 11, 2007 08:52
"Anon.:
Mr. Domanic with the exception of the coup d'etat you have conveniently managed to neglect decades of British involvement in 20th century Persia/Iran. Be careful of to who exactly it is you point your fingers."
I hate responding to someone named Anon but here goes.
UK was primarily the main instigator/destablizer of the democratic regime in Iran. US joined in with the UK's plan by supplying the funds to the Army General and the Shah for the coup. BP formerly AIOC was the initial firm being nationalized, and this happened when Mossadegh realized that UK was taking more in taxes & profits from Iranian oil through BP than Iran. I know its difficult to put this is perspective, but Iran nationalized the oil industry after repeated efforts to get a just settlement for the Oil-Revenue sharing between UK and Iran.
Secondly, Many US companies were part of the Cartel of 8 that benefited from the Shah's rule.
"You have also managed to neglect, as others have already pointed out, the U.S. numerous humanitarian efforts.
"The US had also sent aid to the USSR after earthquakes. Lets not forget Somalia '92 where the US sent food and aid and was attacked by locals. Yet somehow no one ever decides to remembers these. This is all in spite of the fact that after some of the US's worst natural disasters (Hurricanes Andrew and Katrina, The blizzard of 93, wildfires and earthquakes that have plagued california for ages, etc. etc.) where was the support for the U.S.? To put it bluntly, it wasn't."
Dont be naive to think that the US govt's aid help is 100% humanitarian. Its a known fact in the developing world that the Aid is contingent upon favorable terms for US interests. Also, wrt Katrina, US asked for assistance in the aftermath of Katrina. $854 million was pledged by over 40 countries in the world as aid. of this only about 5% in aid was accepted by the US in order to avoid the obligations this would result in.
In fact, IRAN offered oil assistance to the US in the aftermath of Katrina.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina
Do not bother reading up that link as it would actually enable you to know about something before you open your dumb mouth.
December 11, 2007 8:42 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 11, 2007 08:42
Timothy L. Pennell, you are so sick. it is utterly disgusting.
December 11, 2007 8:05 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 11, 2007 08:05
Pure propaganda,and shame on the Post for giving this terrorist a venue. And shame on some posters, suicidal 5th columnists with advanced cases of BDS.
December 11, 2007 7:51 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 11, 2007 07:51
Who cares what this pig licker has to say? How dare we "interfere" with the Iranians' democratic system? Can this dirtbag say Hamas? How about Hezbolla? Lebenon? Can he say Lebenon? Hey England, wake up! Hey western civilization, wake up! Christians, wake up! This guy is the face of the cancer that's spreading around the world, "in Allahs' name". These are the guys who murder little girls for trying to go to school. Like any other cancer they must be cut out of the body. Completely. We suffer them at our own peril.
December 11, 2007 7:32 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 11, 2007 07:32
Claire W. may I ask you and other pseudo-peaceniks on this blog who are commenting that we cannot allow any one else to go nuclear or that nuclear technology is not the answer, would you suggest the same to your american and israeli counterparts? surely if nuclear deterrent is such an evil thing nobody should have it specially the one country known to have used it on a civilian population (and yea i've heard all those disgusting excuses america makes for nuking japan).
Really, if you leave iran alone, it has got nothing to do with you guys. are people really so dumb not to understand that its not Iran thats after US its the other way round. all because of oil. I believe that Ahmedinejad or whoever follows him would be considered the biggest traitors of persian history if they roll back their nuclear programme and turn a blind eye to this impending threat. Once having rid Iran of its WMD's America and NATO in their zest to loot Iran of its oil will make Iran worse than Iraq
December 11, 2007 6:53 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 11, 2007 06:53
It makes sense that Iran should continue to build her nuclear capacity since it looks like the US will one way or another will attack them whether they do or do not.
With their failure in Iraq, US has stumbled in the political arena. 2007 has been a hard year for them also in the economic arena. However, nor the lack of international and local support (or lets say the diminishing support of the Americans) neither the adverse affects of the `war` on US economy seems to have stopped them.
Now that the elections are coming up, I would like to hear more about you interpret the release of this report as a change in US policy or as you have put it where do you place this in that larger game? In other words, how would it get US what it wants?
December 11, 2007 6:30 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 11, 2007 06:30
BTW, I support Iran having nuclear weapons too, as well as nuclear energy capability. I think American arguments are absolutely moot. Every argument of how threatening Iran can be countered that America is more threatening, more demonstratively destructive and designing towards surrendering Iran's sovereignty for America's imperial desires. And Americans are too blind to see that they are a corrupting empire that exploits other people for their corporations' benefits.
Wonder why Russia went authoritarian? Or Venezuala? Or Ecuador? Or why China remains authoritarian rather than just follow America's leadership?
Did you know Australia is pulling out of Iraq? And Britain will be soon? And eventhough Spain had a terrorist attack of its own, it still withdrew out of Iraq. And did you know that the Pentagon wants to set up a new African Command, but the poor, pathetic countries of Africa are reluctant to host such a new American megabase because it will spell the end of their sovereignty and position them in every American venture, ecspecially the bad one? And did you know Russia, China, and some central Asian countries formed a security pact, the SCO, which is being formed to resist American and NATO encroachment into Asia? So it is plausible that Chinese troops could be on the borders of Europe becauase America is using NATO as a pretext for its imperial acquisition of East European nations like Georgia to weaken Russia and gain access to the Caspian sea basin and the surrounding natural resources of oil, gas, and metal ore.
And did you know America has been fomenting war in the Congo through Rwanda and Uganda in order to wrestle control of the resources of the region away from the Kinshasa based, EU tied, govt for American corporate designs?
And did you know America wants the secession of Darfur from Khartoum in order to gain access to the oil rights of Darfur and Eastern Chad?
And did you know that Somalia has oil, and the first American incursion into Somalia in 1991 was designed to bring back stability so America could claim its oil rights which Siad Barre awarded American companies and the starving Somalis was just a pretext?
And today there are American oil companies working to gain access to Somali oil in Puntland and elsewhere.
And the new puppet regime in Mogadishu is positioned to grant Somali oil rights to America.
So you imperialists need to face yourselves. You think you can justify invading any country and that you are above laws and morality? And from your home in suburbia, you think you are threatened by the entire world, so you must conquer the world to bring order and security? That's the language of Empire.
December 11, 2007 5:18 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 11, 2007 05:18
iran is as justified as any other country to have nukes. the problem does not lie in whether there are nukes or not. we can have tons of nukes like there were in the cold war without any of them being used. iran should make itself strong considering what is going on now in the mid-east. making nukes could be a way of doing this but it would be incredibly short-sighted. it would end up just like the former soviet union that went bankrupt in a arms race with the west. iran's best hope is to strengthen itself in all respects, in economics, social issues, scientific progress, blah blah. this is the only way to cut off the west's dirty meddling hands. iran can show al-qaeda & other extremists the way to get even with the satanic enemy, not by violent terrorism but by enlightened progress...
December 11, 2007 4:56 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 11, 2007 04:56
Neo Con imperialism runs thick in the veins of Americans these days. To no surprise, most all Americans accepted Bush's lies that the Iranian regime is trying to build nuclear weapons. The last I saw, nearly 50% of Americans still think Saddam had something to do with 9/11. I suspect most Americans support torture too, ecspecially as long as 24 is in the top 5 shows each season.
America is still an imperialist power (and many of these WaPo comments reflect that). And the Neo Cons, or whomever replaces them in the future, will still desire to conquer Iran NOT because of its THREAT (that's just a pretext, Iran is fairly cooperative on most things), but because of it RICHES: oil, gas, metal ore.
The American Empire hungers to dominates the world's resources in order to retain control over the larger masses which pose future challenges: namely India, China, EU.
Iran is just a stepping stone to the big rock of long term, global, supreme imperialism. That's what the PNAC stands for: Project for a New American Century. How can a century be claimed by any one nation? If it becomes a world empire with longevity.
December 11, 2007 4:55 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 11, 2007 04:55
检察长：
您好！
无锡人以刁著称。他们对我采取的策略是把我逼成坏人和神经病。他们的具体伎俩是一边大肆造谣说我也是贼和精神病，另一边破坏我的所有工作机会。我总是轻尔易举就能找到工作，在北京我已用行动证明了这一点。他们的策略是正确的，因为人没有钱的时候被逼只能去做坏事和苦恼患上精神病，这样他们的诡计就实现了。可他们是失败的！我身上只要有一点钱就能过很长一段时间（这和一年前的情况正好相反，身上有很多钱，却只能用一，两天），我从没想过去偷一分钱，我也发精神病，我能克制住男子汉的怒火，最理想地调节幅面情绪，同时发起最凶残的反击。他们造谣说我经常对女同事进行性骚扰，我打反击，叫领导向她们核实。事实竟是造谣的人自己脑子坏了，一见女人路过就扑上去抱，摸，捏，我一直都很文静，老老实实工作，从未非礼她们过。结果他们自己倒霉。 任何身体强壮的男人都有性欲，我的一惯做法是善待保险系数最高的女孩，得到她的完全同意后去开房间整夜做爱，粗野和偷摸不是我的性行为特征。
一计不 成，他们接下来造谣说我是神经病。绝大多数人患此病是终生的。但极少数坚强，理性的人是可以完全恢复的。我的症状只有在巨大压力面前出现轻度的抑郁焦虑，没有任何其他症状。被欺负时，我确实有强硬的反应，任何一个人都会有反应，不然要么是死人要么是真正的精神病。下一步，我会抓住造谣人的尾巴和弱点（那种人品质恶劣，混身是错）发起十倍的攻击，在压力下，他们的精神病症状全现来了，燥动，自语，发作，，经同事证实他们是糟巴神经病。玩了老半天，造谣的人自己是精神病患者。我总是向害我的恶人发起最猛烈的攻击，之前，我还把一些患精神病的罪犯送进监牢。我是不可以侵犯的，害我一点点，我会授予最凶残的十倍的反击。
我在上海工作时，办公室里6个人中5个精神病，其实我也是，只是症状最轻，没被发现而已。我工作过的无锡农业园区，现被改名为珊湖礁宠物乐园，32名员工中7人患有精神病，董事长和经理就是重度的精神病。我在北京的东四饭店绝大多数人是精神病人，那饭店更象是精神病医院。上帝，到处是精神病！
工资要等到20日才能领到，我现身上只剩一点钱。我又穷困了倒。这难倒是对兢兢业业工作，竭尽全力为国家和我最佩服的美国和我最关心的世界做好事的奖励吗？天哪！
为什么病婊子，屁眼虫能过上开心稳定的生活，偏偏我不能。
没关系。我能给自己一条生路：我正用英语写一本小说，向美国的迈克米兰出版社投稿。书中详细描述大到17大之前中国真实的投资环境和小到渗透到国人血液里的文化基因。另外，我一定靠我自己的力量争取到去美国和挪威的机会。
我已经想通了，我是应该得到世界的奖励的。害羞是真正的神经病。
我始终认为困境的重压是坚强自我，完善自我的时机，也是反击，重创邪恶的良机；我要做坚定，明智的胜利者，而不是可悲的失败者。
过去的一年，我只有智慧，勇气，冲动和年轻人的傻气和时不时的畏缩，是天生的毅力将全部串成一线。
我感觉那样做太疯狂，所以畏缩。感觉我能行，所以付出全部。事实是，那样做确实是疯狂的，但全都变成了de ja wo ( 梦中看到的，全都变成了现实)！
先是重创离我最近的重大腐败贪污团体—曼内斯曼石油天然气公司，我知道应该利用这起事件，逼迫祖国重创铺天盖地的腐败并修改共产党的党章和政治体制，还应尽全力拉近中国和我最热爱的美国之间的距离，去共同修补伤痕累累的地球，维护世界的真正和平和共同繁荣。
事实上，我还想为这两个我最爱的国家和世界，做的更多。我能，因为我能学习，思考，创造。。。向过去的一年那样。
我对比了我的方法和六四事件做法的区别：
我始终是单兵做战，没有一个人鼓励我，帮助我。我完全靠自己想办法。有时，狡猾，学习诸葛亮弹镇静曲，唱空城记，虚装声势，或装傻让对手产生错误判断。我必须充分利用各个实体之间的职能作用关系，和怀疑对抗关系。我只顾观察和等待。我尽全力维护自己的生命安全和身体健康。期间饱览祖国的大好江山，顶多患上了贫血和重感冒，以及连续一星期吃大量的多虑平和持续的紧张和害怕和贫穷。但今天，我一点都不害怕，今天明天一切都是美好的，每天充满喜悦，机遇，趣味和成功。我能理性，坚强地克服困难，信仰的力量可以克服瞬间的畏缩，抑郁和恐惧，我活力充沛，精神饱满地愿意面对任何挑战。我身体健康，没有任何疾病，上星期我领到了体检健康证明。健康证的编号是320204200711280080，发证日期是2007年12月2日。请你们去审查，核实一下。我是自豪的胜利者。
六四的参与者们他们怀着和我一样的气愤和梦想，采取的是有组织的大集体做战。2百多个主力军在天安门前一个月地下跪，绝食，示威，乞求，几十万支援军在外围摇旗呐喊。他们饱尝辛酸。他们把身体都搞坏了，有的饿成重病。却没有实现他们的梦想。因为他们只会乞求。而我的人生字典里根本没有乞求两个字。他们饿得不行了，情绪失控，从爱国蜕变成害国，引发武装暴乱。他们被抓进监狱，有的患上精神病和其他疾病，他们的人格和名声也被搞臭了。他们会痛哭，后悔一辈子。
我自始至终都能控制自己的情绪，尽力调节自身的状态，平静和微笑一直在心里和脸上。我决不做危害国家的事。明明我们的人也在贪污，我硬是要遮住中国屁股，大力展出洋屁股。 我只是偶尔暴躁。血性男儿都这样。比如，当我身上没一分钱，心衰体弱，害怕紧张地写crime details, clues and evidence and black lists 时。图书馆工作人员和政府派来的人动不动就骂我，向我施压，并且关闭网线。我不知道他们的名字，但我能清楚记住他们的大便脸。我愤怒。这不难理解。他们首先是穷要饭的精神病（经常自言自语或主动骂人），为了生存而去帮助那些官员。那些官员本身就是贪官，神经西西地认为我也会把摧毁他们。
六四参与者除了重创了他们自己，没能丝毫实现他们的梦想和愿望。腐败照样存在，而且愈演愈烈，到达今天的程度。中国和美国的关系反倒更加紧张。世界分为两派更加对立和明争暗斗。他们只不过是可敬又可悲的失败者。
我要得到诺贝尔和平奖，得到哈姆雷克的奖励，得到中国的奖励，联合国的奖励，得到所有有良知的人的肯定。
December 11, 2007 3:21 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 11, 2007 03:21
As seems to be the norm in present day political discussions, this columnist presents another heavily biased viewpoint when, as usual, the true answer lies in moderation. Mr. Domanic is correct when he condemns cooperative effort between the United States and Britain to over throw a democratically elected leader in Mohammad Mosaddeq in 1953 however; in his bombastic rhetoric, he fails to recognize the volatile domestic political situation that was being played out in the United States during this time period. The early 1950's were a time of intense rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union. A time that included not only the McCarthy Hearings, but also the Eisenhower Doctrine. When Mosaddeq sided with Iran's communist party in an effort to solidify his position, it raised more than a few shackles in Washington. Also, it should be noted that many of Iran's influential ulemas were ardent Mosaddeq detractors, and supported the coup that ultimately lead to his ouster. While this does not excuse the United State’s hypocrisy in thwarting Iran's attempt to instill a democratically elected leader, it does show the inherent bias in Mr. Domanic's argument. It is important to note that the United States, as pointed out by Mr. Domanic, is taking an unrealistic and belligerent stance towards Iran. Making extreme military threats, and labeling a country's defense force as a terrorist organization, is not the proper way to go about establishing peace and deterring nuclear efforts. It seems that the Bush administration is trying to reinstate the policy of Brinkmanship against a much lesser opponent. Unfortunately, this policy, has, and will continue to induce the type of attitude adopted by the Arab states following the 67' Arab-Israeli War. Iran will have no choice but to adopt a policy of belligerence, knowing that it cannot physically repel the U.S. but; in belligerency, it can frustrate U.S. efforts and gain global sympathy by playing the underdog. For both countries to actually gain from this experience, two events must occur: the United States must assume a less physically threatening stance towards Iran; and Iran must cease its nuclear ambitions. Nothing good can come of a volatile state, with such a large and disillusioned young population, possessing nuclear weapons. As the U.S. should have learned through countless past experiences, it cannot continue to try and impose its will on other nations. For beneficial a results, the U.S. truly use force as a last result and Iran must abandon its nuclear objectives.
December 11, 2007 12:55 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 11, 2007 00:55
Agree that we need more creative leadership, both them and us.
Iran is a still an underdeveloped society. The enormous intellectual and economic might of the Persian people is being squandered by misguided mullahs.
The Iranian people are worse off today than at any point under the leadership of Reza Shah.
So much for the ideals of their revolution.
The Iranian people are getting ripped off again, and on a human level, deserve much better than their current government affords them.
The same can be said for us Americans.
December 11, 2007 12:36 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 11, 2007 00:36
I agree with you on the fact that bullying often causes a downward spiral of violence - and I would also agree that the US has much responsibility in causing that violence at a global level. Yet the response can't be 'going nuke' - need more progressive, creative and definitely more peaceful alternatives for deterrence. Maybe it is time we start thinking what these measures could be...
December 11, 2007 12:23 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 11, 2007 00:23
If Mustafa is so willing to accept the cold, geopolitical reality of neccesary deterrance, in the form of nuclear weapons, he must be willing to also accept the geopolitical dominance of America. He cannot have it both ways as he does when advocating accpetance of Iranian nuclear weapons. The actions which America undertook, specifically the coup of 53', was an action which fell squarely within the framework of cold war policy as did many other unsavory American actions which were to a certain extent uncovered during the church committee hearings of the 1970's. The point is that these were realpolitik actions taken by the US to preserve post war dominance and prosperity, but this does not exscuse them on a moral scale. Though the reaction of the Iranian regime to build a detterent against American and Israeli power is justified in this realpolitik sense, we must ask if it is justified in a moral sense. If you pose this question, then the central point of Mustafa's essay is rendered moot. You cannot bemoan American dominance in the world and then justify actions which run along the same lines. Or in today's parlance, "Don't hate the player, hate the game". If you want to take the moral high ground, and I believe that this article was a misguided attempt at doing so, you must take a moral stance against cold realist policies of all nations which inevitably increase the spiral of violence and despair in our world.
December 11, 2007 12:23 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 11, 2007 00:23
Mustafa should put the US way down on the list of those commiting "unending aggression." Pretty much all of Iran's neighbors want the Mullahs taken down, more than the USA does. Face it - besides China, who just wants Iran's oil (sound familiar?), Iran's totally corrupt theocracy doesn't have a single friend in Asia or Europe (gangsters in Lebanon don't count). Hell, even the Iranians themselves hate the Mullahs. Mustafa - how much are they paying you?
December 11, 2007 12:20 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 11, 2007 00:20
Make no mistake about it, Bush will not leave office without letting a few tomahawks fly. The targets have been chosen. We are at the ready.
Bomb Iran, Bomb Iran, ba, ba, ba, bomb Iran.
One the one side, we have a bunch of corrupt Iranian Mullahs. On the other, we have a bunch of corrupt American politicians. We have a village idiot as President, and Iran has one it's own, also president of the nation.
We have all sorts of bold pronouncements made on each side. The truth, however, is to be found somewhere in the middle.
Of course the Iranians are working on a nuclear capability. Who could blame them? Mustafa Dominic brings up a valid point. The Iranians look at a map and what do they see? We have them surrounded, for the love of God! They are next on the war monger wish list, and they know it.
It's only natural to want to defend yourself.
As far as Iran bombing Israel, forget about it. This would be suicide, would result in annihilation for the nation of Iran. The mullahs may be corrupt, but they are not stupid.
President Amen-then-jihad has said a lot of dumb things, but, ultimately, the Iranian regime is interested in advancing it's own economic interests.
The Iranians don't need the U.S.A. They are a nation obsessed with the idea of self reliance.
Get it?
December 11, 2007 12:15 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 11, 2007 00:15
Mr. Domanic with the exception of the coup d'etat you have conveniently managed to neglect decades of British involvement in 20th century Persia/Iran. Be careful of to who exactly it is you point your fingers.
You have also managed to neglect, as others have already pointed out, the U.S. numerous humanitarian efforts. As I recall both the US AND Great Britain both sent aid to Iran after the Bam earthquake. This of course is just the example of Iran.
The US had also sent aid to the USSR after earthquakes. Lets not forget Somalia '92 where the US sent food and aid and was attacked by locals. Yet somehow no one ever decides to remembers these. This is all in spite of the fact that after some of the US's worst natural disasters (Hurricanes Andrew and Katrina, The blizzard of 93, wildfires and earthquakes that have plagued california for ages, etc. etc.) where was the support for the U.S.? To put it bluntly, it wasn't.
Despite what you want to believe Mr. Domanic, the US is not as narcissistic as the rest of the world would have you believe.
December 11, 2007 12:15 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 11, 2007 00:15
This fool sounds like the leftist nuclear scientists who gave away the atomic bomb to the monster Stalin because "it would be a deterrent to America". As for his absurd rehashing of the Mossadegh plot in 1953 as somehow a justification for the totalitarian regime in Iran bent on reestablishing the caliphate, it is beneath human decency.
December 11, 2007 12:01 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 11, 2007 00:01
This fool sounds like the leftist nuclear scientists who gave away the atomic bomb to the monster Stalin because "it would be a deterrent to America". As for his absurd rehashing of the Mossadegh plot in 1953 as somehow a justification for the totalitarian regime in Iran bent on reestablishing the caliphate, it is beneath human decency.
December 11, 2007 12:01 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 11, 2007 00:01
I just read your article about America's policy toward Iran. It is well understood that the Bush policy is to get control of Iran
It is unfortunate, but true. It is so sad.
December 10, 2007 11:58 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 23:58
In a world where America and Iran were moral equivalents, he may have a point.
But that is not the case. Iran is state sponsor of terrorism, a state whose government has endorsed and materially supported genocide in Israel, and a state that brutally treats its own people. The current government in Tehran and this author are complete moral failures.
December 10, 2007 11:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 23:43
The cold war between the US and the Soviets worked quite well, for a time, as a deterrent to both sides. The only hope for peace in the Middle East is a NEW cold war, as Israel and the zionistas have made it perfectly clear they're more than willing to do "whatever it takes" to win their 4000 year old Holy War. Listen to Lyin' Joe Lieberman for 56.2 nanoseconds and you'll see what Israel is really all about.
December 10, 2007 11:40 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 23:40
I agree with you poit completely but I also think that there is another point that can be made. If Iran can manufacture their own nucleur fuel then they will have a cheap alternative to oil and can sell the oil they would normally use. This would make it even harder for the west to black mail them.
December 10, 2007 11:35 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 23:35
Never trust a guy named Mustafa.
December 10, 2007 11:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 23:20
I fully agree with the views expressed on this very intelligent analyst. Being a expatriate latinmerican professional with a strong interest in contemporary world history, I find this insighfull article totally true and only one isolated example of similar behaviour of USA thoroughout the world. To support this assertion, please spend some time to digest the views of another very intelligent and insightful journalist, who this time, bring us a much more documented and overwhelming set of incriminating evidence against USA abussive interventionist history, this time in Latinmerica.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=to6uNUTf8g4
December 10, 2007 11:17 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 23:17
Well said.
It is sad to read some of these ignorant comments, but not surprising, after all, they did elect an idiot as their president.
December 10, 2007 10:58 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 22:58
They mean to drive me crazy. But they fail. I ,only ,as normal man, have a little depression, anxiety and anger when bullied.
They do succeeds in driving me into poverty by shutting down all the possibilities of finding a stable job by means of spawning vicious rumors.
I even cannot afford to buy the cheapest shoes and a cheapest watch….
Doesn’t matter. Their IQ is too low. I can cope.
At the crucial moment when china, America, and the world are having a tough setback， worsening . I did something conducive within my dream and ability.
My contribution must be amply valued and rewarded.
I am now yearning to live and work in America with help of all the reward I deserve.
Yet still I will forward my suggestions for china on such fields as perfection of political pattern and population improvement and for the world peace keeping only if I can be treated fairly under your justice. .
With respect to the nuclear issue , we are all actually looking forward to the payoff by xmas.
I hereby would like to only write a sanguine poem for your refreshment.:
All for the dè jà wo
Big dream and heavy vexation slumbering into the wet woods.
Mist lingers no long
Dust flourishes impossible.
Because the last agile rain,
Glazes the purple and green leaves once rough
Blazes the brown blanches once weak
Moistens the bronze trunks once mash,
Rots the ugly weeds once crazy.
Nourishes the golden soil once desperate,
Singing larks ,blue and red , weave through the woods gaily,
Fresh fragrant breath of nature chimes the eternal moment.
Up the fringe , sshu….
The real dè jà wo homes in on the most acute creativity.
Marry chrismas!
December 10, 2007 10:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 22:55
I'm American and don't like the idea of Iran (particularly one led by a nut) with nuclear weapons. At the same time, I realize that the leaders of my own country have no sense about them and have lost a lot of credibility worldwide.
They not only started a war illegally and without just cause, they also conveniently failed to recognize the one benefit of having Saddam in power.
I'm at the point where I'm almost in agreement with the author. Iran with short-range nukes just might be what we need to get the US in shape and possibly out of the Middle East and focus on the crap going on at home.
Welcome Pax Iranica!
December 10, 2007 10:53 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 22:53
Nuclear weapons in the hands of IslamoFascist thugs
it totally unacceptable.
"Without America and with its own commodity wealth, the Middle East can still be a prosperous and peaceful region." is the statement of a complete moron.
If I ran a hedge fund and one of my managers made statements like this I would take a second look at his ability for rational analysis.
The Middle East is one big oasis of love, and the only thing this moron has going for him is that he doesn't have to live in it. This is just pathetic. Let's see...the last time the Islamic world did something positive in ANYTHING, literature, government, innovation...ANYTHING, was long before the fall of the Ottoman Empire. They did back then what the IslamoFascists want all Muslims to do today, which is forsake anything Western. We saw how well that worked for them when they became the "sick man of Europe"...now, we will be lucky if it isn't a mushroom cloud somewhere.
Fool!!!
December 10, 2007 10:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 22:52
It's hard to take someone seriously when they come from a country that is named after a bird that we eat on Thanksgiving.
But no, seriously. This turkish guy is all PO'd because by the American invasion, it's going to cause the kurdish people all across the region to rise up and demand independence from Iraq, and... you guessed it, Turkey.
So he's basically a turkish national who doesn't like that idea.
As to his other ideas, just utter nonsense. Iran doesn't have any support in the international community primarily because the country is run by a bunch of flaming religious nuts. In case you didn't catch the name it's the "ISLAMIC Republic of Iran".
You remember those guys, the ones who treat women like dogs, run airplanes into buildings, arrest women who name teddy bears "Mohammet" and turn themselves into bombs.
Then you say "Why does Iran not get respect".
The answer is obvious: "They don't deserve it".
December 10, 2007 10:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 22:41
is that short for Mitten Romney? That's a weird name.
December 10, 2007 10:39 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 22:39
If Mr. Domanic feels that American "aggression" is the principal cause of violence in the "peaceful" Middle East then I humbly suggest he open a history book or two. The predations of what is now named "Iran" began some four millennia before the United States existed and have continued without a break since. And if he feels that nuclear arms in the hands of the mullahs there is a stabilizing influence then he is delusional indeed.
December 10, 2007 10:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 22:30
Mustafa=idiot. I suppose WaPo needs eyeballs to drive ad sales, so they send in a bunch of clowns to make outlandish statements based on their "sophisticated geo-political understanding" of the world based on what? What a clown.
This has to be the greatest statement of all time:
"After meddling with Iran’s democratic system".
What a buffoon.
December 10, 2007 10:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 22:30
Our Lord made man in his own image and the man he created was flawed. In the 1930`s he saw perfection and will create man once again with the perfection he saw as his model. First all the less than perfect men have to be destroyed and he set that in motion by giving man "The Bomb".
I am far to modest to tell you who it was the Lord saw in the 1930`s.
Yes the Lord will take a rib, as needed, from me.
December 10, 2007 10:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 22:20
Mr. Mustafa makes some valid points. Certainly the foreign policy of the US under the Bush adminstration has been appalling. I think Mustafa understates the importance of the NIE on Iran however. I think it is a turning point, internally in this country -- a coup of sorts, and that it might well have changed the course of history.
Bush has been derailed - a huge thing. I hope the world gives America another chance.... There is an opportunity, in light of this mess that has been created, for US foreign policy to emerge as better than ever. The vast majority of Americans were complacent about foreign policy before Bush...I don't think that will ever be the case again. Our foreign policy has never lived up to the ideals of the average American....perhaps, in order to redeem ourselves, we'll actually become the leader we've always been alledged to be. I don't think an Iranian nuke will solve anything - ok...so long as we don't elect Giuliani....if that's the case...ok...I concede...
December 10, 2007 10:16 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 22:16
Somebody wrote:
"October 23, 1983 - A suicide car bomb attack against the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut kills 241 servicemen. A simultaneous attack on a French base kills 58 paratroopers.
In response, President Ronald Reagan ordered the battleship USS New Jersey, stationed off the coast of Lebanon, to shell the hills near Beirut. "
You forgot about when Reagan retreated from Beirut, thereby encouraging terrorists for generations.
Still, though, you have a very impressive recall of history.
Actually, come to think of it, what were we doing in Beirut, anyway? Or any of the other places you mention, aside from on Sept. 11? What were we doing there?
December 10, 2007 10:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 22:12
I hope the first nuke detonated by Iranian-sponsored terrorists is "at the London office of a global hedge fund." And I hope this jerk's family live within walking distance of his office.
Sorry to inform this jerk that he is able to engage in his slimeball line of work that contributes nothing to society due to the world order that America put in place.
December 10, 2007 10:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 22:07
GS: Amen. How much in aid is Turkey or Iran giving to fight AIDS in Africa? Name me another country that will rush a whole aircraft carrier task force to fly humanitarian aid to those stricken in a mind-numbing Tsunami or devastating earthquake. The Russians? If thats global domination, be careful of what you wish for. Maybe the US won't be around or be able to afford such actions in the future. Then everyone will be crying the US is doing nothing.
December 10, 2007 10:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 22:03
Yes, nuclear, or as we now say here in the US, "nucular" weapons suck. But who are we to say who can have them and who cannot. Seems funny that Israel can have them, we can have them, but our enemies can't. I don't recall talk of invading Russia or China as they developed nukes.
We, as everyone else in the world has seen for a long time, are bullies. We pick on anyone who is not cooperating with us, unless of course, they might kick our ass.
I don't expect people to know about us using Iraq against Iran, supplying Saddam with WMD to use against them, or supporting brutal dictatorships in Iran, and everywhere else we've done this, and the list is long. How could they know about it? The US media doesn't cover it, but they sometimes allude to it, twenty or so years later. Chile, Phillipines, Indonesia, Argentina, Brazil, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Haiti, Iran, Cuba, Honduras, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc, etc. I'm sure I'm leaving out a bunch. Just as I'm sure it's happening in some 'stan' or another, right now. That's not democratic.
Instead of trying to beat down other nations, control their politics, and tell them what weapons they can and cannot have, it would be nice if we could focus on being a light in the world, and not merely a sword. With over 700 military bases worldwide, it's obvious what we have chosen to live by: The Sword. If we weren't constantly beating every other nation over the head, maybe we wouldn't have so much to worry about. Who do we think we are?
December 10, 2007 10:00 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 22:00
I think this oversimplifies the issues between the US and Iran. Many posts I read seem to forget recent history. Iran and the US did not come to loggerheads in the immediate aftermath of the Revolution. It was only after the Shah came to the US that they seized the Embassy. Secondly, and I think Mr. Domanic clearly misses the whole point of what the West has been saying about Iran, the NIE report notwithstanding. The US has emphatically and explicitly said they can live with aa Tehran civilian nuclear program. This is well documented, but you must have missed that. It is the uranium enrichment that is key. And if you even bothered to pay attention to the NIE, it also said it would only take a matter of months for Iran to turn back on their weapons program and get back to where they were. If you even had a clue to what is really at stake, it is the Europeans who are more worried about Iran then the US. But guess what we are "Leading" the oppostion to Tehran. Iran already has missles capable of hitting Southern Europe. Thats why they are nervous. And you think the Sunni countries aren't nervous? While I personally doubt if given a nuclear weapon, Iran would ever use it against Isreal, but Isreal is not a big country, so a nuclear strike would absolutely affect the Arab countries bordering Isreal. And I contest your ascertion that the US is heckbent on attacking Iran. We could have done that to Libya. They came clean, and look where that has led. And in fact the US is disarming most of their WMD's. They have fallen behind schedule, yes, but they are still progressing to eliminate all of their chemical and biological weapons, and are reducing their nuclear arsenal. Go back to finance, because you clearly don't have any mastery over this material.
December 10, 2007 9:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 21:52
ISLAM, THE PEACEFUL RELIGION?
September 11, 2001 - Terrorists hijack four U.S. commercial airliners taking off from various locations in the United States in a coordinated suicide attack. In separate attacks, two of the airliners crash into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, which catch fire and eventually collapse. A third airliner crashes into the Pentagon in Washington, DC, causing extensive damage. The fourth airliner, also believed to be heading towards Washington, DC, crashes outside Shanksville, PA., killing all 45 people on board. Casualty estimates from New York put the possible death toll close to 5,000, while as many as 200 people may have been lost at the Pentagon crash site.
Oct. 12, 2000 - A terrorist bomb damages the destroyer USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39.
Aug. 7, 1998 - Terrorist bombs destroy the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. In Nairobi, 12 Americans are among the 291 killed, and over 5,000 are wounded, including 6 Americans. In Dar es Salaam, one U.S. citizen is wounded among the 10 killed and 77 injured.
June 21, 1998 - Rocket-propelled grenades explode near the U.S. embassy in Beirut.
June 25, 1996 - A bomb aboard a fuel truck explodes outside a U.S. air force installation in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. 19 U.S. military personnel are killed in the Khubar Towers housing facility, and 515 are wounded, including 240 Americans.
Nov. 13, 1995 - A car-bomb in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills seven people, five of them American military and civilian advisers for National Guard training. The "Tigers of the Gulf," "Islamist Movement for Change," and "Fighting Advocates of God" claim responsibility, and wounding over 600.
February 1993 - A bomb in a van explodes in the underground parking garage in New York's World Trade Center, killing six people and wounding 1,042.
Dec. 21, 1988 - A bomb destroys Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. All 259 people aboard the Boeing 747 are killed including 189 Americans, as are 11 people on the ground.
As a result, two Libyan intelligence officers are charged with planting the bomb. They are eventually turned over by the Libyan government and tried. The trial, conducted in the Netherlands under Scottish law, begins in May 2000 and ends in February 2001. Abdelbaset Al Mohmed al-Megrahi is convicted and receives a life sentence. The other defendant, Al-Amin Khalifah Fhimah is acquitted.
April 1986 - An explosion damages a TWA flight as it prepares to land in Athens, Greece. Four people are killed when they are sucked out of the aircraft.
April 5, 1986 - A bomb destroys the LaBelle discotheque in West Berlin. The disco was known to be frequented by U.S. servicemen. The attack kills one American and one German woman and wounds 150, including 44 Americans
On Nov. 13, 2001 a German court convicted four people for the bombing. Verena Chanaa, a German national, was found guilty of murder and sentenced to 14 years in prison for selecting the site of the attack and placing the bomb. Yassir Chraidi, a Palestinian working at the Libyan Embassy and suspected of being the main organizer of the attack, was convicted of multiple counts of attempted murder and sentenced to 14 years. Two other embassy employees, Musbah Abdulghasem Eter, a Libyan, and Ali Chanaa, a Lebanese-born German and Verena Chanaa's former husband, were both convicted of attempted murder and sentenced to 12 years. Libya has refused to extradite five other suspects sought by German police, including members of the Libyan secret service.
December 18, 1985 - Simultaneous suicide attacks are carried out against U.S. and Israeli check-in desks at Rome and Vienna international airports. 20 people are killed in the two attacks, including four terrorists.
November 24, 1985 - Hijackers aboard an Egyptair flight kill one American. Egyptian commandos later storm the aircraft on the isle of Malta, and 60 people are killed.
October 7, 1985 - Palestinian terrorists hijack the cruise liner Achille Lauro (in response to the Israeli attack on PLO headquarters in Tunisia) Leon Klinghoffer, an elderly, wheelchair-bound American, is killed and thrown overboard.
August 8, 1985 - A car bomb at a U.S. military base in Frankfurt, Germany kills two and injures 20. A U.S. soldier murdered for his identity papers is found a day after the explosion.
June 19, 1985 - In San Salvador, El Salvador, 13 people are killed in a machine gun attack at an outdoor café, including four U.S. Marines and two American businessmen.
June 14, 1985 - TWA flight 847 is hijacked over the Mediterranean, the start of a two-week hostage ordeal. The hijackers, linked to Hezbollah, demand the release of prisoners being held in Kuwait as well as the release of 700 Shiite Muslim prisoners being held in Israeli and Lebanese prisons. U.S. Navy diver Robert Dean Stethem is killed and 39 passengers are held hostage when the demands were not met. The passengers are eventually released in Damascus after being held in various locations in Beirut.
April 12, 1985 - A bomb explodes in a restaurant near a U.S. air base in Madrid, Spain, killing 18, all Spaniards, and wounding 82, including 15 Americans.
September 20, 1984 - A truck bomb explodes outside the U.S. Embassy annex in Aukar, northeast of Beirut. The ambassador is injured and 24 people killed, two of whom were U.S. military personnel.
March 16, 1984 - CIA Beirut station chief William Buckley is kidnaped by militant Islamic extremists in Lebanon. He is said to have died after prolonged torture. His body was found on December 27, 1991 in southern Beirut, nearly eight years after his abduction.
December 12, 1983 - Shiite extremists bombed the French and U.S. Embassies in Kuwait, killing 6 and injuring over 80 people. The suspects were thought to be members of Al Dawa , a group supported by Iran and known for operating against Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
October 23, 1983 - A suicide car bomb attack against the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut kills 241 servicemen. A simultaneous attack on a French base kills 58 paratroopers.
In response, President Ronald Reagan ordered the battleship USS New Jersey, stationed off the coast of Lebanon, to shell the hills near Beirut.
April 18, 1983 - A suicide car bombing against the U.S. embassy in Beirut kills 63, including 17 Americans.
November 4, 1979 - Fundamentalist Islamic students took 52 Americans hostage at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Iran.
IMPEACHING BILL CLINTON FOR DOING NOTHING ABOUT THESE TERRORISTS ATTACKS WOULD HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL
December 10, 2007 9:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 21:48
How very typical a non-American stance. This is the same rhetoric about the United States that non-U.S. bloggers and editorialists have been making for the last seven years. Tell me Mr. Domanic, how hard have you actually pressed your finger on the pulse of the US nation? The vocal minority of oil bathing hyper-christian neo-cons you are using to justify your argument are just that... a minority. You do realize that now in Iran, as was the case in 2003 in Iraq, a majority of Americans would prefer to live and let live?
Considering how far more vocal average Joe America has been in what was the growing face of neo-con influence, your allegory of the gun on the wall will prove far from self-fulfilling.
While your point about the '53 coup is both valid and correct, your point that the United States is fully responcible for the state of Iran is at best a stretch of the truth. While it DID precipitate the actions leading to widespread unrest, it was the Iranian student activists themselves who conscienciously rallied under the banner of Khomeini aand extremism, supplanting one dictator for another. They were given the opportunity to bring a second Mossadeq to power, yet instead they chose the opposite.
You are right, change in Iran will only come from an organic, home-grown second revolution. It will come from the Iranian people. Likewise, the US populus will take care of it's own problems. With every new poll Bush and his hot-headed cabinet pulls back farther from their extreme fire-brand rhetoric. In a year he will hold no influence either. It will be the Americans, sir, NOT the Iranians or anyone else who keeps the U.S. government in check.
I would caution you not to continue with the conformist and trite habit of confusing what Bush says with the true will and want of the American people.
Finally, as for your asinine nuclear argument, NO country... not Iran, Israel, Russia or the US should have nuclear armaments. As it were, all the nuclear states need to continue to reduce and despose of their arsenals. The creation of even a SINLGE new nuclear warhead would setback all humanity and peace no less than 30 years. ALL countries in the world should be held accountable to the NPT. Although it isn't a good one, the only reason any country even still has nuclear weapons, is because there still are countries with nuclear weapons. Making more guns to stop war. I truly hope you see the fallacy in this.
December 10, 2007 9:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 21:43
I know the liberal Democrats hate their own country so badly that they would love Iran to have nuclear weapons. The liberals would let al-Qaeda and the Taliban have nuclear weapons also.
Let me put down a few reasosn why Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons.
PARTIAL LIST OF ISLAMIC TERRORIST ACTIVITIES
1968 Robert Kennedy assassinated
1972 Munich Olympics Sep-5,1972 (Black September)
1976 Entebbe Hostage Crisis, June 27, 1976
1979 Iran Hostage Crisis, Nov. 4, 1979 444 days
1979 Grand Mosque Seizure, Nov 20,1979
1981 Assassination of Egyptian President, Oct 6,1981
1982 Assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister, Sept 14, 1982
1983 Bombing of US Embassy in Beirut6, April 18,1983
1983 Bombing of Maring Barricks, Beruit, Oct 23,1983
1984 Hizballah Restaurant Bombing, April 12,1984
1985 Egyptian Airliner Hijacking, Nov 23,1985
1985 Rome Airport murders
1985 TWA Flight 847 hijacked, U.S. Navy diver murdered
1985 Achille Lauro hijacking, Homacidal maniac lived in saddams Iraq
1986 Aircraft Bombing in Greece, March 30, 1986
1988 Pan Am 747 Flight 103 Bombing, Lockerbie, 100's murdered
1988 Berlin Discoteque Bombing, Dec 21,1988
1992 Bombing in Israeli Embassy in Argentina, March 17,1992
1993 Attempted Assassination of Pres. Bush Sr., April 14,1993
1993 First World Trade Center bombing, February 26th, 7 Killed, Hundreds injured, Billions
1994 Air France Hijacking, Dec 24,1994
1995 Attack on US Diplomats in Pakistan, Mar 8,1995
1995 Military Installation Attack, Nov 13, 1995
1995 Kashmiri Hostage taking, July 4,1995
1996 Khobar Towers attack
1996 Sudanese Missionarys Kidnapping, Aug 17,1996
1996 Paris Subway Explosion, Dec 3,1996
1997 Israeli Shopping Mall Bombing, Sept 4, 1997
1997 Yemeni Kidnappings, Oct 30,1997
1998 Somali Hostage taking crisis, April 15,1998
1998 U.S. Embassy Bombing in Peru, Jan 15, 1998
1998 U.S. Kenya Embassy blown up, 100's murdered
1998 U.S. Tanzania Embassy blown up, 100's murdered
1999 Plot to blow up Space Needle (thwarted) 2000 USS Cole attacked, 17 U.S. Navy sailors murdered
2000-2003 Intifada against Israel - 100's dead and injured
2000 Manila Bombing, Dec 30,2000
2001 4 Commercial airliners hijacked, 250+ murdered
2001 World Trade Center attacked, 2800+ murdered
2001 Flight 93 murders
2001 Pentagon attacked, 180+ murdered
2002 Reporter Daniel Pearl, kidnapped and murdered
2002 Philippines American missionary, Filipino nurse killed
2002 July 4, El Al attack Los Angeles LAX, several murdered
2002 Bali bombing - 200 dead, 300 injured
2002 Yemen, French Oil Tanker attacked
2002 Marines attacked / murdered in Kuwait
2002 Washington D.C. sniper
2002 Russian Theater attacked, 100+ dead
2002 Nigerian riots against Miss World Pageant, 200 dead, dozens injured
2002 Mombasa Hotel Attacked, 12 dead, dozens injured
2002 Israeli Boeing 757 attacked by missiles, fortunately no one injured
2002 August Hotel bombing in Jakarta, Indonesia. 12 dead, dozens injured.
2003 Rusian concert bombing
2003 Phillipines airport and market bombing
2003 Foiled SAM plot in the USA
2003 UN Baghdad HQ Bombing
on and on and on and on their terrorism has gone .........
2003-2007 Way too many terrorist attacks by radical Muslims to fit in this post.
Qur’an 8:12 “I shall terrorize the infidels.
So wound their bodies and incapacitate them
because they oppose Allah and His Apostle.”
Qur’an 8:57 “If you gain mastery over them in battle,inflict such a defeat as would terrorize them,so that they would learn a lesson and be warned.”
December 10, 2007 9:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 21:43
I wish I could find the reference for this, but here goes: an Indian general was asked after the first Gulf War what lessons it had taught him. His answer: Get a nuclear arsenal or the USA will one day do that to you. If one looks at a map with Iran at its centre, that country is surrounded: US nukes potentially in Iraq and Afghanistan; Israeli nukes; Indian nukes; Pakistani nukes; Chinese nukes; Russian nukes. Of course they want to join the club. If we were in the same position, wouldn't we say that it was our leaders' duty to pursue nuclear weaponry?
December 10, 2007 9:38 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 21:38
Iran is too dangerous and irresponsible to have nuclear weapons. The man who made the statement above is a moron.
December 10, 2007 9:37 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 21:37
Maybe so. But if you are so concerned about the Middle East why don't you go back to Turkey and help your neighbours. America is the land of immigrants. Why don't you go there? Europe is not America and should never be allowed to become so. The world has great respect for Iranians because they live in Iran. The Turks... not so much
http://www.currybu.de/doener-kebap-doener-kebab.php
http://www.currybu.de/doener-sperma-im-kebab.php
December 10, 2007 9:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 21:36
You are correct sir, we (the Americans) are the problem along with Israel.
December 10, 2007 8:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 20:59
God God. I hope for the sake of your clients that you are a better trader and financial analyst than you are an observer of global affairs. You display the depressingly familiar paranoia, insecurity and just plain shallowness that unfortunately characterize elite opinion in formerly great societies, such as Turkey and Iran. Honestly, I feel sorry for you. There are plenty of perfectly rational arguments against US policy vis a vis Iran. You, however, have taken the easy, intellectually lazy path rather than engage in a serious criticism--rehashing the tired, often repeated rants of third world elites still bitter over your diminished status. You are not to be taken seriously.
December 10, 2007 8:47 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 20:47
Is this a joke?
December 10, 2007 8:33 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 20:33
you wrote: "....whereas her own aspiration for global domination is no secret to anybody." Well, America's "aspiration for global domination" is a secret to me, and probably a few others around the world. However, the US's manifold attempts over the years to genuinely assist various people groups in their quest for political freedom is no secret at all. To be sure, the attempt to establish the essentially western thought processes of modern Democracy may be lost on non-western nations, and could easily be misconstrued or misrepresented as Imperialistic, but many see the task as noble and prudent. None of the 40 or so nations in which any type of democratic form of government has been established since WWII are in Arab lands, and it looks like the odds are it will remain so.
Is the US, it's people, it's government, perfect? Far from it , just like everyone else. Have there been horrible mistakes, lies, and blunders? It is after all, a human society we are talking about. And yet, envied and much sought after. Have they tried to help more people and people groups than any country in recorded history, responding to the cry for aid time and again at great national cost? Most certainly. The desire and will to do good is here, and will continue to be, despite the failures and fallings in the execution of such. How the US-Iran-Iraq relationships will pan out is something only time can unfold, but the best causes and directives of America will ( and must) continue to be driven by a hope that all men can live free. Try to give the US some credit for the great amount of good it has done ( or tried to do) as well.
December 10, 2007 8:25 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 20:25
to attack america's world domination attempts/acts, one must think of alternatives. if the world need a dorminate power, which country do we want? I am from China but I still pick U.S. Russia/China/India are all far from ready. Eroupe can be a candidate but it is not a single country. America is losing its moral high ground though, because it's been too selfish lately.
December 10, 2007 8:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 20:20
I commend washington post to publish this commentary.
The best solution is, everyone give up on nuclear weapons. since this is not possible, iran should have some options. but in reality, this will bring harm to iran.
The only good option for Iran is, give up on religous rule of government. open up the country and be more like turkey. after that, Iran can have nuclear weapons to protect itself.
December 10, 2007 8:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 20:10
To Joe, Steve, and other whacko neo-cons:
You guys are delusional. I just pray that your president doesn't start WW3 before he leaves office. Your mental state is so far out of whack with reality it is obscene. It's almost like you guys are schizophrenic. There are no facts that get in the way of your delusional world order. NIE says no nukes? Discredit the report. Dems against the war? Dems are traitors. I'm here with you in the USA lifeboat and you guys scare the hell out of me. Iran isn't the enemy, you are. You guys want war at any cost. The definitive picture of traitors in America is the American right and the neo-cons -- bent on war with everyone to satisfy their Id complex that they'd risk killing us all. You guys need to be locked up and the key thrown away. Too bad our civil rights and due process of law gets in the way of that possibility for world peace. In other words, it's the very freedom you conservative guys hate so much that keeps you guys safe. But you know what? Thanks to your wholesale shedding of our civil rights, it might not be long before we can lock you guys up and throw away the key. Hallelujah, Praise the Lord when that day comes!
December 10, 2007 8:04 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 20:04
Maybe Iran should open up its country to the rule of law, and the natural rights of freedom and liberty born to every person. Maybe Iran should drop the jihad and start living in peace with their neighbors.
Let freedom ring, Mustafa. Let the bells of liberty and freedom ring throughout the world.
December 10, 2007 7:53 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 19:53
you wrote: "....whereas her own aspiration for global domination is no secret to anybody." Well, America's "aspiration for global domination" is a secret to me, and probably a few others around the world. However, the US's manifold attempts over the years to genuinely assist various people groups in their quest for political freedom is no secret at all. Give the US some credit for the great amount of good it has done as well.
December 10, 2007 7:45 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 19:45
So much hatred and mistrust on both sides. The more I read the more I realize there are two camps. Zealots (who occupy both sides) and realists.
Zealots just seem to repeat the party line. "They are evil, look at what they do; we are justified in our actions......."
Reality is both sides are responsible for many deaths in the name of “Insert political doctrine here".
Personally I’m tired of Zealots from both the east and west. Too many innocent lives are taken.
December 10, 2007 7:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 19:43
"vote for Jenna Jamison for president"
-"the truth hurts"
Who the hell is Jenna Jamison? I assume she is some sort of pornstar? Looks like you have been watching a little yourself you idiot. You can't lecture us when your people gang-rape women and get away with it, fly an airplane into a building, or put a bomb on the back of a three year old kid and send him on suicide mission, etc. Go home to your crappy house/life and your ugly, hairy, veiled wifes.
December 10, 2007 7:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 19:42
So much hatred and mistrust on both sides. The more i read the more i realize there are two camps. Zealots (who occupy both sides) and realists.
Zealots just seem to repeat the party line. "They are evil , look at what they do, we are justified in our actions......."
Reality is boths sides are responsioble for many deaths in the name of " Insert political doctrine here".
Personally i'm tired of Zealots from both the east and west. Too many innocent lives are taken.
December 10, 2007 7:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 19:42
We have more than enough.
If the Iranians want a bomb, we should give them one.
Where, in Iran, do you suppose they would like it?
December 10, 2007 7:39 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 19:39
Ar last! Someone stating the obvious.
December 10, 2007 7:13 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 19:13
At last! Someone stating the obvious.
December 10, 2007 7:11 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 19:11
This man speaks a lot of truth, and a big chunk of the American public won't like it.
Just think: Saddam did not have WMDs and Iraq was invaded anyway. Maybe if he actually had them, the U.S. would have stayed out. What are Iranians to think? Damned if you do, damned if you don't, but at least if you do you have a chance to retaliate, so we give them no option but to seek nukes.
This is a monster of our own creation.
Of course the Iranian theocracy is monstrous, but we're just feeding it what it needs to grow: threats from abroad.
The way Israel deals with these issues is a lot better--- keep it quiet, keep a close watch, and bomb away when necessary. They did it to Iraq in 1981 and they recently did it to Syria.
Unfortunately, our current administration is led by a saber-rattling dunce with no knowledge of history. Please let someone with a keen strategic mind be elected in 2008. If not that, at least someone who got good grades in college.
December 10, 2007 7:11 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 19:11
Actually I wanted to call out the AIPAC clowns. I don't know whether you AIPAC clowns relaize your behavior towards arabs are so reprehensible, that it makes us the rest of the world realize that Hitler may have been right about you folks.
December 10, 2007 7:11 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 19:11
Thanks for telling it as it is, Mr. Domanic. I'm laughing at these AIPAC supporters who tell us Iran would be a threat to global security if it acquires nuclear weapons, when in fact the only country to use nuclear weapons is Israel.
December 10, 2007 6:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 18:59
Dear Heidar
last I checked Isreal has never threatened the extermination of any nation. I don't think Russia, or the USA or France has done so either in the modern era.
So when the leader of a country, that is actively trying develop its nuclear program towards something that could potentially produce WMD, calls for the anihilation of another state, people tend to be a bit worried.
By the way, a Shia bomb would inevitably produce a Sunni bomb. To think that if Iran gets one noone else in the middle would get one is naive and potentially dangerous.
The last thing we need is an arms race in the middle east ...
December 10, 2007 6:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 18:48
Ah, I think we have someone here experiencing the frisson of supporting what he sees as noble third-worlders standing up against the man - without, of course, the inconvenience of actually living the country he's boosting.
And so Iran, a real country, gets its struggles and complexities simplified and thrust onto the stage of Mr. Domanic's mystery play. Well play-acted sir! Well play-acted! You have turned a real country's situation into the digital equivalent of an angsty under-graduate's Che shirt.
December 10, 2007 6:45 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 18:45
Please explain what Isreal's right to exist as a jewish nation has anything to Iran or what this Mustafa Dominic clown has written ?
I see a lot of people trying to tie the two things together.
Wilywascal ...what are you ex- Hitler Youth or something ?
December 10, 2007 6:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 18:42
I believe the Kurds should find much wider support from international community to protect themselves from this unending Turkish aggression and the only way to do that is to have a nuclear deterrent. The greatest danger in the Northern Iraq is Turkish meddling. Abdullah Gul's earlier remarks about assuming the Northern Iraq was a chaotic place before Turkish intervention were a grave distortion of truth. Without Turkey and with its own commodity wealth, Northern Iraq can still be a prosperous and peaceful region.
December 10, 2007 6:24 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 18:24
Mr. Mustafa Damonic is correct in stating historic facts and analysing them. It is obvious that some readers do not like the truth and instead attack the messenger. They show no reasoned counter to his assertions. Nobody, in an ideal world, wants Iran to get nuclear weapons; and even now it is desireable that nuclear bombs are defused and peacefully dismantled and Iran is reassured with international guarantees that it will be left alone. Will the U.S. take steps in that direction instead of hurling threats and insults at Iran and its loud-mouth president? Pakistan is much more dangerous and it already has nuclear weapons (Pakistan has been the main state culprit in harboring and promoting the worst fanantic trouble makers). India too has nuclear weapons and so does N. Korea now, not to mention the unmentionable Israel. It is an affront to Iranians and millions and millions of fair minded people around the world to suggest that of course the Israelis and the western world are too civilized to and will never use their weapons and Iranians are savage idiots and will promptly throw their weapons, if they ever get one, on Israel or anyone else. It is that incredible attitude behind the U.S. policy that galls the civilized world, including Iran and propells them to nuclear madness. Sad, but true!
December 10, 2007 6:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 18:21
I agree fully with the analysis. If I were an Iranian, I would feel compelled to develop nuclear weapons with American troops on two of my borders and a history of intervention in Iranian sovereignty.
December 10, 2007 6:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 18:19
How pleasant to read this! What I don´t understand is that how it is possible that this administration and this president is still playing its tricks and lying its way not only out of its former lies but into the direction of the next completely unjustified war.
I can´t believe that the American people are completely stupid. It seems however that they listen and believe what is coming from the White House but don´t look at what is happening in reality.
What me as European doesn´t worry is the presence of a disturbed idiot, wherever. What does worry me a great deal is the presence of a disturbed idiot with a very great deal of power and not being able to influence things for the better.
Not any nation-state should be treated the way Mr. Bush (and his admin.)is treating Iran. Who the hell does Mr. Bush thinks he is? God? Yeah, I actually do fear that is his problem.
December 10, 2007 6:17 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 18:17
Saeed:
how can you write this when your culture doesnt even give equal rights to woman?
"There is one world with one, equal, humanity. There are no exceptions, no chosen people, no master races. And the rules apply equally to EVERYBODY.
"
December 10, 2007 6:13 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 18:13
While I disagree with the position that a nuclear Iran would be a good thing, it is refreshing to read someone who knows the history behind the headlines. In the end, America's stumbling destabilizing of the Middle East may prove better than the previous strategy of holding our breath--only time will tell.
As far as the NIE its just CYA. Why?
The Bush administration's foreign policy with regard to nuclear proliferation is incompetent.
They have agreed to help India with their nuclear energy program despite India's refusal to join the international nonproliferation regime. Worse, they have supplied Iran with nuclear technology.
We call India a "democracy" despite the fact that they openly discriminate against Muslims, Christians and dalits (the "untouchables"). Iran, hypocritically is criticized for similar behaviors.
Further exemplifying the double standards at play, Israel is called a democracy despite their oppression of those who live in the occupied territories and outright banning of Christian proselytizing in Israel. Yet they, like India, are deemed worthy of trust with their nuclear arsenal.
Our intelligence agencies say that N. Korea tested a nuclear weapon. By their sabre-rattling and refusal to negotiate, Bush and his cronies essentially forced them into openly defying the International Atomic Energy Administration (IAEA). After the cat is out of the bag; now they negotiate.
We refused to negotiate when Iran was allowing IAEA inspectors to monitor their nuclear program. Now that our hardline has caused Iran to kick out the IAEA inspectors, we say we want to negotiate but we must impose economic sanctions on Iran because they are not cooperating with the IAEA.
Now we say that our intelligence shows that Iran abandoned their nuclear weapons program years ago; once again after the fact. How convenient. With their track record, how do we know our intelligence is even right about their conclusion that Iran used to have a weapons program.
When they have finished chasing their tails and are long gone the rest of us may well be left with the task of picking up the Bush team's pieces, the countless body bags and the burial of the dead.
December 10, 2007 6:11 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 18:11
The beautiful thing about this article is it proves the hypocrisy that is writh in the fabric of america, and her people are blinded by her hubris. As I read in another article here not long ago, the american people are mostly unaware of the atrocities she has subjected other nations too, these things are footnotes of american history yet the names of the chapters of other nations history. The odd part is that 'we' believe we will be allowed to do this forever and wont pass the same way as fallen empires of yesterday. Trust me the Visigoths are at the gates.
December 10, 2007 6:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 18:10
Enough with the Mossadegh garbage. The truth is that the Islamic fanatics--Ayatollah Kashani comes to mind--were active partners in the subversion of Mossy's government. For their successors to be complaing about now is a little too rich. The US didn't oust Mossadegh anyway. The Iranians did. The US elected to help the dissentients because we believed in good faith that Mossadegh's instability and incompetence was paving the way for a Soviet takeover.
December 10, 2007 6:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 18:09
you are right, they should get a Nuke, if Putin has not already given them one.
since they have no ICBM capability, they can then launch it at Tel-Aviv, Riyadh, Ankara,or Hopefully, at your office in London's Financial District.
Since the U.S is the only Nation with the Capability to actually knock one down after it has been launched, i really don't see why we should spend billions protecting any one else but us.
It is time for some good, old fashioned american isolationism again.
December 10, 2007 6:08 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 18:08
I don't know why we would applaud Iran.
The NIE said that Iran had an illegal weapons program till 2003. It was illegal under the non-proliferation treaty which Iran signed. And, the report is clear that Iran can re-start these activities at any time.
So, Iran was making the world more un-safe by conducting illegal activity. Just because it has stopped committing illegal nuclear weapons research does not make me feel safer.
I wouldn't cheer a burglar just because he stopped breaking into houses.
But, because Iran is not actively breaking the treaty at this time, I think we should talk with them about their future intentions before taking any tough measures.
December 10, 2007 6:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 18:06
The author is absolutely correct when he says that the United States is a bully and the greatest threat to peace in the world today.
But the proliferation of nuclear weapons is NOT the way to combat American aggression. Sinking to America's level is NOT an answer - and will only lead to nightmare.
Instead there needs to be greater solidarity and co-operation between nations in standing up to American violence and threats. In particular, individual Americans must be made aware of the death and destruction that has been done in their names over the years. They must be educated out of the ignorance that has made American atrocities possible.
Finally, Americans, like their axis partners the British and the Israelis, must be encouraged to abandon what is essentially their inately racist concepts of themselves. For the Americans this is the idea of 'exceptionalism'. For the Israeli's it is the idea of the 'chosen people'. or the British it is the concept of 'being special' that Blair described in his farewell speech. These views are the same as the 'master race' ideas of the mid-20th century, and they are what permit the breath-taking hypocricy of the US-UK-Israel axis.
There is one world with one, equal, humanity. There are no exceptions, no chosen people, no master races. And the rules apply equally to EVERYBODY.
December 10, 2007 5:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 17:59
Hey, my question is where do all the hot American girls like to party in DC? I love American women. Anyone want to marry a young, Iranian man who has only a little chest hair? I'd like to have green card and open a Italian leather store in Georgetown.
December 10, 2007 5:45 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 17:45
" x:
If it's one thing learned from Iraq, is that the American military machine use larger, more destructive bombs, with precision(optional, of course) to rid the the world of this Muslim menace threatening the Christian world. This is the opportune moment in history. Better use it before we lose it!"
If there's one thing we can learn from you, X, that is you are a complete idiot!
Sorry for being personal but this is beyond acceptable.
December 10, 2007 5:38 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 17:38
Mr Domanic,
I appreciate your comments regarding America's dealings with Iran, however it would be prudent for you to remember a few items. First, when speaking about America, remember that you are referring to policymakers in Washington and not the entire population. The opinions on such matters as Iran are as diverse as they are based on any deeper knowledge of the relationship the U.S. holds with Iran or any other country. Second, I find it odd that you would be so surprised by the Intelligence findings given the fact that a majority of the population was unconvinced that invading Iraq was a plausible idea to begin with. The Intelligence community has received its fair share of negative press with more to come over the recent CIA destruction of the 'torture tapes'. However, when looking at the government as separate entities rather than as a whole, it becomes clear that there is a grass roots move afoot to right the wrongs of these last few years. An excellent example of this is reflected in the Climate Convention taking place in Bali where several U.S. Senators are seeking, of their own accord, to propose climate policy change in the U.S., given the certain knowledge that the current administration is averse to any such action. Third, America has been and will continue to be about preserving its national power. One of the requirements for our success has been our dependency on resources that enable our economy and our market to move forward. Oil is certainly a big part of it and will continue to be so in the future. Are we so negatively perceived from others in pursuing our own national objectives and protecting our own national interests? I will admit that our diplomatic efforts have given way these past few years to more forcible methods. It is my hope that we return to a policy of engagement rather than intervention, but until that decision is made, we must continue to utilize all facets of national power to protect our vital economic framework. Third, in my opinion, U.S. global domination could not be further from the truth. We have a policy of active engagement not domination. We would not nor could not sustain any efforts towards global domination. The diversity of cultures, governments, economic focus, and more are not in the least bit sustainable by one nation. The U.S. removed itself from the Bretton Woods arrangement of the post WWII world because it realized that it could not simultaneously pursue its own national strategy and continue to maintain the groundwork for the international political economy. It wasn't possible then, nor is it today. Fourth, nuclear proliferation of any type and by anyone will become an increasingly serious problem in the future. Iran absolutely has the right to pursue its own nuclear ambitions under the guidelines of the IAEA. However, peaceful nuclear ambitions and the nuclear deterrent you discussed are very separate issues. I ask you to consider carefully what you wrote regarding the 'peaceful and prosperous Middle East' and show me a time of peace in this region (or define peace in the Middle East).
In closing, I would ask you in your future pieces to consider your position in society. You rely on oil each and every day just like the rest of us. A policy of non-engagement in areas where our national (dare I say world) interests lay may in fact require reformulation of existing foreign policy, but it is certainly not an acceptable course of action given shifting dynamics in today's world. It is easy to be a critic, the world already has too many of those. Please offer real solutions which reflect careful consideration and research before becoming just another critic.
December 10, 2007 5:37 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 17:37
Iron Sheik, I will put my sized 13s steel tipped boots up where the sand collects. USA is #1! You Iranians are barely out of the bronz age, we will bomb you back to the pre-stone age. No nukes for you and, more importantly, no thongs for your women.
December 10, 2007 5:33 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 17:33
Hmmmm, let me think about why the West if afraid of Iran. Maybe because Iran supports terrorists, advocates wiping out another sovereign country, threatens its neighbors, takes diplomats hostage, abuses and denies fundamental rights to half its citizens, what else? We're not idiots, a rabid dog should be put down.
December 10, 2007 5:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 17:29
As long as people in power threaten the use of atomic weapons like georgie did in Iraq and Iran, the rest of the world has a right, a need, a moral justification, to pursue atomic weapons. We can hear all the claptrap about children and mine sweeping and fear our enemies but more importantly THEY fear us. We dropped nukes on civilians in order to save our soldiers and hasten the end of a war. No other country has ever done this. We should fear others like they fear us. We once had the genie in a bottle and WE let it out. Now we threaten its use far to often, and wonder why others want to be able to threaten us with the same? We made the bed and yes it may just be the end of everything. Welcome to the world we created, its knocking at the door and we have to answer.
December 10, 2007 5:25 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 17:25
Mr. Domanic's point is all well and good, except that there is really no proof that any Middle Eastern country will or has any intentions on developing democratic institutions without US intervention/meddling.
Mr. Domanic seems to imply that had the US not intervened in Iran, it would somehow have developed its civil society.
The ideas of democracy, pluralism, religious freedom and minority rights isn't catching on and is -- as can be seen in Iraq -- fervently opposed by the regimes and the dominant/ruling peoples in the Middle East.
Perhaps, an argument can be made that there is too little intervention in the Middle East and the international community, but most realistically the United States, has not applied pressure consistently to all countries with undemocratic practices.
December 10, 2007 5:24 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 17:24
Hey, who took my post off the comments? I will put you in my camel clutch and make you pay. Iran good, Iranians good, Tehran #1, USA number #2!!!
Anyone want to date?
December 10, 2007 5:17 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 17:17
I could not agree more, while the US, the West and Israel stockpile WOMD, the cry foul about a simple nuclear reactor in Iran. It is funny that Brasil is building nuclear power plants right now, but noone is complaining!! It is a policy of hate,,, hating anything called Muslims. The good news is, which is bad news for the US, the west and Israel, this will not stop Iran and other Muslim countries from developing nuclear weapons, it is just a matter of time, so deal with it.
December 10, 2007 5:15 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 17:15
Interesting argument, Mustafa. I propose another initiative: let us call the international community's attention to the need for Greece and Cyprus to build an atomic arsenal so that they may be relieved from the fear of domination by the sensual and hegemonic Turks. Hell, might as well let the Armenians have a few too. Lord knows they have reason to be fearful.
December 10, 2007 5:08 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 17:08
If it's one thing learned from Iraq, is that the American military machine use larger, more destructive bombs, with precision(optional, of course) to rid the the world of this Muslim menace threatening the Christian world. This is the opportune moment in history. Better use it before we lose it!
December 10, 2007 5:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 17:06
THe United States haas been screwing the Iranians at least since the CIA overthrew the Mossadegh government in 1953 after they nationalized the oil industry. The Iran-Iraq war, the shootdown of the Iranian airliner, it never ends. The whole thing is about OIL. Let the US take a hike! I wish Putin would simply arm the Iranians with nukes, then what would Bush/Cheney do?
And the hypocrisy of sanctioning the Israeli nukes in the region. Iran and others in the Middle East have been asking for a nuclear-free region, and Bush, Cheney, Rice and the other stooges remain silent in response.
December 10, 2007 5:02 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 17:02
The reality is that if Finland or Brazil or
Estonia builds nukes its not really a problem.
Lets be quite honest Iran and the whole planet
would be better if the Shah were still in power.
Hey lets be more frank, we would all be better
off if the British Empire still stood and ruled
that part of the world!!! A lot better off!!!
What most people here lack the gumption to
say is that Martin Amis is right about
the Islamic world. It's simply a failed
civilization. Doesn't matter what kind of
government they have. The neocons are fools
for thinking that they can be rescued by
democracy. The left is just as bad for being
all multicultural and treating them like "equals".
Keeping nukes out of the hands of the lot of
them should be a matter of common sense for
everyone who doesn't want the planet to be
brought down with this failed civilization.
Had we all had the required gumption this guy
would have be kicked out of London and the
west. Let him go live in Iran.
December 10, 2007 4:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 16:55
Absolutely! In the history of our two countries the USA has been the aggressor. Iran never over through OUR elected government. They NEVER supported an American dictator. The OIL interests have always been the problem for our two peoples. The American people could not tell you what happened yesterday let alone in our history. Iran has lived in it's boarders for far longer than our history has even been recorded! I do not agree with many of the things the religious regime forces on it's people, but that is their choice, not mine.
December 10, 2007 4:53 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 16:53
I must be the only one that believes Iran when they say they do not want nuclear weapons. But what good can they do? If they want to be left alone, and I can understand that attitude - they should negotiate deal with the USA. We will let them be.
December 10, 2007 4:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 16:41
Any race / religion that leverages human bombs, doesn’t give equal rights to woman and demonstrates barbarianism on the level not seen since the dinosaurs should perhaps consider burning the Koran and firing allah and mohamed.
December 10, 2007 4:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 16:41
Wathing all you libs froth with glee at the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran is hilarious. The irony of your typically self-hating position is that the aggrieved nation whose cause you seem to champion is ruled by folks who would line all ya'll up first for the DecapitationFest that would usher in the era of their 12th Imam and new global Caliphate.
All you America haters think your resentful condemnations of your own country makes you intellectual, cutting-edge thinkers. In fact, it reveals your complete stupidity. In the land of the Mullah's you people are the first to go.
December 10, 2007 4:40 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 16:40
The mullas are using the oldest trick in the book - find an outside "boogyman" (the US, ISRAEL, Jews, Christians, etc.) and get your citizens (serfs?) to focus their hatred on them rather than on their own corrupt government.
It happens everywhere, including here in the US, but to different extents and extremes.
The trick is that its a trick. The real enemy in the MidEast is the corrupt leadership, especially the royal families, who keep the masses ignorant and in poverty, while the "princes" live a life of excess and dunken debauchery that would have made caligula blush.
Someday, people in Arab countries will overthrow their leaders. If the people who take over are educated in more than the koran, the new leadership will be fine. If the ones that take over are religious zelots, the citizens of those countries will be even worse off than they are now.
As long as Arab minds are controlled by religious fanatics, Arabs are toast.
As the quality of education in the Arab world increases and Arabs realize that not everything they need to know is in the Koran, and realize that there are many kinds of knowledge, and many good books, they will be fine.
Until then, they will continue to be used as Pawns by their political and religious leaders
as they have been for thousands of years, and will continue to suffer and bring suffering to others.
December 10, 2007 4:40 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 16:40
Adding another nation to the list of nuclear powers will make the Middle East more unstable given the statements of the President of Iran and his goal of wiping Israel off the map. If Iran gets nukes, they will use them, I have no doubt. That's why Israel will destroy have no choice but to destroy their capability at same point with a preemptive strike.
December 10, 2007 4:39 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 16:39
The mullas are using the oldest trick in the book - find an outside "boogyman" (the US, ISRAEL, Jews, Christians, etc.) and get your citizens (serfs?) to focus their hatred on them rather than on their own corrupt government.
It happens everywhere, including here in the US, but to different extents and extremes.
The trick is that its a trick. The real enemy in the MidEast is the corrupt leadership, especially the royal families, who keep the masses ignorant and in poverty, while the "princes" live a life of excess and dunken debauchery that would have made caligula blush.
Someday, people in Arab countries will overthrow their leaders. If the people who take over are educated in more than the koran, the new leadership will be fine. If the ones that take over are religious zelots, the citizens of those countries will be even worse off than they are now.
As long as Arab minds are controlled by religious fanatics, Arabs are toast.
As the quality of education in the Arab world increases and Arabs realize that not everything they need to know is in the Koran, and realize that there are many kinds of knowledge, and many good books, they will be fine.
Until then, they will continue to be used as Pawns by their political and religious leaders
as they have been for thousands of years, and will continue to suffer and bring suffering to others.
December 10, 2007 4:37 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 16:37
I never thought sitting idly by as citizens are kidnapped, diplomats and spy masters are terrorized and then killed, and having marines killed and their barracks destroyes equated to bullying. Orwellian, perhaps; provactive, sure; accurate premise, no.
December 10, 2007 4:37 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 16:37
You are an idiot
When Iran talks about wiping Israel of the face of the earth, is a country that should not have any nuclear weapons. I don't care about political correctness, so I suggest you go back where you came from and stop making money from the country you hate so much
December 10, 2007 4:37 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 16:37
Mustafa,
Excellent and coherent piece.
Oy!:
Being a racist apartheid militaristic jewish occupation theocracy,israel has been murdering and ethnically cleanesing Palestinians for sixty years-yes U are right,every time israel murders a Palestinian, it mourns them!!!
If U want the truth visit the scholarly and informative WWW.PLANDS.ORG which spells out israel's barbarities and atrocities:a state that was built by terrorism and ethnic cleansing and maintained thus far by brutal state terrorism and a fromidable nuclear arsenal-on and about which the US and the West is completely MUTE.
israel's nuclear arsenal is the cause of all the insecurity and instability in the whole ME-and its monopoly of the nukes is the main reason for its intransigent and militaristic adventures and occupation in the region-which is scarring Iran and others to seek defensive and deterent nuclear weapons.
The US would have never invaded Iraq,had it had a deterent nuclear arsenal-and its imperative that Iran and other Arab states acquire nuclear deterent weapons to keep regional peace, defend themselves against israel and any potential neocon invasion.
israel is an existential threat to the Iran and the Arab World.
Finally,why is all this deadly silence on israel's 300 nuclear war heads while it occupies all of historic Palestine as well as Syrian and Lebenese lands??? Iran never aggressed upon any nation nor is it occupying any one's lands.
December 10, 2007 4:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 16:36
"Therefore I believe the Iranians should find much wider support from international community to protect themselves from this unending American aggression and the only way to do that is to have a nuclear deterrent."
The author encourages the Mullahs on the path of developing a nuclear arsenal as a "deterrent" against attack by the U.S. despite the fact that America had the capability, since long before the inception of the current regime, to obliterate Iran without fear of retaliation. Their deterrent then is dependent on an imperialistic, hegemonic bully, etc., etc. that inexplicably waits decades while a hostile power develops weapons under its nose. Hopefully the Iranians will show similar forbearance once they finally have their arsenal, but, in the meantime, they have certainly done well in choosing an enemy. Meanwhile, the Post is to be congratulated for providing a forum that conclusively (though, perhaps unintentionally) demonstrates that Americans have no monopoly on idiotic opinions.
December 10, 2007 4:35 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 16:35
He didnt say that he wanted iran to have nuclear weapons, he said it was in their best interests. He's right.
Its a pathetic shame that he's right, but isnt it obvious? Set aside the debate over whos the badguy here, all governments do bad things... anyone remember nagasaki or hiroshima? Mutually assured destruction works, its sick and its scary, but as an alternative to war and terrorism (poor man's war) it begins to look very attractive. The real question is, is it practical or even possible to force the rest of the world to play by our rules?
December 10, 2007 4:34 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 16:34
He didnt say that he wanted iran to have nuclear weapons, he said it was in their best interests. He's right.
Its a pathetic shame that he's right, but isnt it obvious? Set aside the debate over whos the badguy here, all governments do bad things... anyone remember nagasaki or hiroshima? Mutually assured destruction works, its sick and its scary, but as an alternative to war and terrorism (poor man's war) it begins to look very attractive. The real question is, is it practical or even possible to force the rest of the world to play by our rules?
December 10, 2007 4:33 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 16:33
Join the fun at Global Power Barometer too on whether the "new Iraq" can "stand up" to Iran
December 10, 2007 4:33 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 16:33
Arab countries are stuck in the dark ages.
Until they get rid of their monarchies and seperate church and state they'll always be under the control of their princes and mullahs.
Eventually, there will be revolutions in each of the Arab countries.. If those revolutions are started by college students and the middle class, they have a chance of building a successful modern society.
If the revolution is religion based, they'll be worse off than they were before.
December 10, 2007 4:32 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 16:32
I agree with the author.
I generally think that global nuclear disarmament is a good thing. However, it is the height of arrogance for the USA to claim that it (and UK and France and Israel) can have nukes, but the "lower life forms" like Iran and Pakistan cannot. Since when does religion dictate sanity? Christians and Jews have behaved just has hateful as muslims throughout history.
And we must mention the influence of the pro-Israeli lobby on the US government: in many ways the US acts to do the bidding of Israel, including disarming its neighbors.
The US promulgates so much anti-muslim propaganda. Im glad some alternative viewpoints are aired.
December 10, 2007 4:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 16:30
http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/us-presidents.html
You decide.
December 10, 2007 4:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 16:29
Kudos to Mustafa for coming up with the alternative viewpoint. America or atleast Israel giving up it's Nukes should be part of the negotiations with Iran. If not, nuclear deterrence is the only way to avoid mutual annihilation.
Double standards and American and Israeli propaganda dont fool the majority of the world. All of this nonsense is about oil and Israel. In fact most of it is about Israel and I speak on behlaf of the rest of the world 'non-muslim and non-judeo-christian'.
I wonder how much dough Joe here, get from AIPAC??
December 10, 2007 4:27 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 16:27
The mullas are using the oldest trick in the book - find an outside "boogyman" (the US, ISRAEL, Jews, Christians, etc.) and get your citizens (serfs?) to focus their hatred on them rather than on their own corrupt government.
It happens everywhere, including here in the US, but to different extents and extremes.
The trick is that its a trick. The real enemy in the MidEast is the corrupt leadership, especially the royal families, who keep the masses ignorant and in poverty, while the "princes" live a life of excess and dunken debauchery that would have made caligula blush.
Someday, people in Arab countries will overthrow their leaders. If the people who take over are educated in more than the koran, the new leadership will be fine. If the ones that take over are religious zelots, the citizens of those countries will be even worse off than they are now.
As long as Arab minds are controlled by religious fanatics, Arabs are toast.
As the quality of education in the Arab world increases and Arabs realize that not everything they need to know is in the Koran, and realize that there are many kinds of knowledge, and many good books, they will be fine.
Until then, they will continue to be used as Pawns by their political and religious leaders
as they have been for thousands of years, and will continue to suffer and bring suffering to others.
December 10, 2007 4:26 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 16:26
To Robert of Los Angeles...why should we die to save Israel's existence? Didn't we do enough when we saved your behind in WWII? Now my children have to die to save Israel? I say NO. Let the Mullahs get their weapon and wipe out Israel. They're a nothing but a pain in the butt anyways.
December 10, 2007 4:26 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 16:26
The basic premise he presents is wrong. Deterrent against America, absurd - when between the US and Russia there are 97% of nukes. The real reason for Iran's program is and always will be Israel. And Israel, not so secretly a nuke power, has no option but to think ANY Iranian program is an EXISTENTIAL threat, and therefore the US has no option but to guarantee that does not happen. One nuclear bomb, or even its threat, can ruin everyone's day.
December 10, 2007 4:17 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 16:17
Whatever position one takes in the long and complicated debate over US-Iranian relations, continued proliferation of nuclear arms should never be part of the equation. Anyone who suggests nuclear weapons as a viable leverage point, regardless of the "side" they are taking, should be ashamed of themselves.
December 10, 2007 4:16 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 16:16
December 10, 2007 4:14 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 16:14
The Islamic Republic of Iran: (1) murders, imprisons, and tortures political dissidents, (2) murders, imprisons, and tortures university students, (3) murders and denies a decent life to Baha'is,(4) imprisons homosexuals, (5) dresses down women, and (6) demands the return of Bahrain (four months ago) as a long-lost province.
Despite these facts, the author states that Iran should build a nuclear-arms capacity.
Apparently, the author believes that the Islamic Republic of Iran is presently short a few victims and needs to tally some more.
December 10, 2007 4:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 16:10
I wish the world were as simple as presented by Mr. Dominic but I don't believe that it is. To pretend that the sources of all of Iran's problems lie at the doorsteps of the U.S. or that nuclear weapons will solve these same problems is absurd.
The ridiculous discussion of the reason for the NIE is so over-the-top that it doesn't merit comment. It simply proves that Mr. Dominic's understanding of America is obviously extremely limited. If we weren't discussing nuclear weapons here I would have a good long laugh about those statements and the twisted paranoid search for Mr. Dominic's understanding of the NIE event. I realize that in Turkey popular television shows suggest that the CIA creates earthquakes to harm Turks but really..... :)
I don't want the U.S. to go to war with Iran but I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons either. I don't believe that the Middle East or Iran will be safer if they do. Is the world safer because North Korea has nuclear weapons and sells the technology to the highest bidder? Is the world better off because Pakistan is politically in flames and has nuclear technology that has also been sold as well?
Even though I vehemently opposed the Iraq War I don't believe that this war is the source of all problems in the Middle East and in fact, I believe that Iran understands this better than most and certainly better than Mr. Dominic. Does he seriously believe that Iran has not supported the Shia militias in Iraq and leveraged the war for maximum influence throughout the Middle East? Does he believe that they have not been the money behind Hezbolla and Hamas? On the other hand, he's not in the Middle East but tucked away in safety in London where political discussion is open so how would he know?
Until the Middle East decides that ethnic groups can live together peace will be in short supply, not just in Iraq but throughout the region and this has little to do with U.S. policy.
I don't want to go to war with Iran but I don't want to give Iran carte blanche to promote the lunacies of its dictatorial theocracy either. I believe the U.S. should continue to oppose the Iranian nuclear ambitions - for the sake of the entire world.
December 10, 2007 4:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 16:07
Thank you, Mustafa, for saying what should be said more often. I agree completely. I would only add that the US is in violation of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, which obliges it to undertake nuclear disarmament at the same that smaller nations commit not to acquire nuclear weapons. The message is clear: we can have these weapons, and threaten to use them as we please, but you can't. As you point out, Iran has every reason to consider its security in deadly peril.
December 10, 2007 4:01 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 16:01
Bravo!
December 10, 2007 4:00 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 16:00
Bravo!
December 10, 2007 4:00 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 16:00
As long as the Turks bully the Kurds, the Kurds require a nuclear deterrent.
December 10, 2007 3:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 15:59
Apologist for the Iranian monsters.
December 10, 2007 3:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 15:59
Is this man on crack?????
December 10, 2007 3:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 15:59
Spoken like a true NATO Ally
December 10, 2007 3:57 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 15:57
The writer offers an important and sobering perspective, How would we react if the U.S. had been the target of the Iran interventions such as the U.S. has launched against Iran?
I hope that this information and perspective is brought up in the debates of both Republican and Democrat candidates (Ron Paul, to his credit, is way ahead of the pack on this) and in discussions in the White House, Congress and elsewhere. Ronald Regan, to his credit, too, was on the right track in seeking the elimination of all nuclear weapons. Hopefully, we can get back on the Regan track and be successful in reaching the goal.
As Jesus said, Blessed be the peacemakers." May our predominantly Christian nation put that directive front and center. Heaven forbid that we (and others) should have to have the experience of the use of nuclear weapons again (vastly more numerous and powerful than in 1945) with likely horrific devastation, immediately and subsequently (compared to which 9/11 would approach insignificance), to get us on track and to success in eliminating nuclear weapons.
December 10, 2007 3:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 15:52
The esteemed panelist says that Mid-East can still be peaceful and prosperous if left alone by America. Really. Forget USA's intervention and saving the nation of Kuwait from Saddam whose next stop would have been unholy country of Saudi Arabia and Allah knows what he would have done there.
The fact is Muslims , since the times of Mohammed (PBUH) have been fighting and killing each other. In order to save their religion they needed to expand and conquer new areas and thus the reason for a nomadic (but extremely expansionist and violent) "religion" to have spread all over.
December 10, 2007 3:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 15:49
I am more amazed at some of the comments than at the original article, most of which is correct in my opinion.
I am amazed at the ignorance of the US public, as represented by many of those posting comments, about the past history of US interference in the affaisrs of other nations, including Iran. Behind this ignorance is clearly the arrogant view that nothing else matters but the opinions of the US governments and it's captive media.
Such ignorance and arrogance will lead to continuing loss of the freedoms, which have been fought for over the years. Already, the Bush-Cheney regime has whittled many of them away. Soon torture will be acceptable and the rights of the accused as negligible as the victims housed in the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp.
December 10, 2007 3:45 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 15:45
Logic and debate are very detached from the things Mustafa is suggesting. Many contributors have tried to effectively articulate Iran’s vast crimes against other countries in the region, its own people and the world. A few contributors have defended such actions and the comments of Mustafa. However the fact of the matter is this topic should of never reached that point. This topic isn’t about Iran and its history with the west. It’s about a mad man that stood in front of the world and predicted the end of Israel. It’s about a mad man on a quest for nuclear weapons to facilitate that prediction. Its about a rouge state that the international community has had enough of and will deal with.
Ultimately its about a nation that made its own choices, took its own stances and will now pay the price.
December 10, 2007 3:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 15:41
That such a concept would even be expressed demonstrates how far America has fallen.
On 9/12 we had the sympathy of the entire planet, but thanks to a megalomaniac cocaine-snorting C student bolstered by a bizarre alliance between Christo-fascist fundamentalist end-timers and ultra-right-wing militant Isrealis, all that good will has been turned to hatred and suspicion.
Meanwhile the perpetrator of 9/11 still runs free.
December 10, 2007 3:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 15:41
The USA, in it's incredibly expensive role as policeman of the world, has once again decided to order a country around. Telling Iran what to do won't work anyways, as Pakistan, India, and a host of other marginal states now have nuclear weapons. The cat is out of the bag. How safe is China? What happens when technology is developed in the future that creates weapons as or more dangerous than nuclear weapons? The US needs to work on economic ties to all these countries, and stop the posturing. It is costing the US Treasury trillions, and putting our once great nation at a terrible risk.
December 10, 2007 3:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 15:29
Why should the Palistinians suffer for something that happened in Germany (Europe)? If the holocaust happened, Germany should be the land of the Jews, not the newest nation of Israel.
December 10, 2007 3:28 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 15:28
Michael O,
The opposition to the Reza Palavi regime at the time of the Islamic Revolution was pretty complex. The secular student movement found itself in an inconvenient alliance with the Islamists largely because of the overwhelming American support of the Palavi regime. Street demonstrations at the time used the Mossadegh ouster as a rallying point. That part, at least, was clearly a nationalist movement.
Unfortunately, as is often the case in power vacuums, the ensuing environment lent itself to a takeover by the most committed power. Those were the Islamists. In that sense, the American ouster of Mossadegh and support of the Shah had the unintended consequence of creating the Islamist threat -- much as the bombing of Cambodia created the Khmer Rouge.
December 10, 2007 3:17 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 15:17
To all of those - including Mustafa - who constantly trot out the Mossadeq business as the original sin that started the bad blood between Iran and the U.S.: Can any of you substantiate that? Can you point to any statement made by the Mullah regime, confirming that the invasion of the US embassy and the taking of the hostages was payback for whatever happened in 1953?
December 10, 2007 3:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 15:03
The author brings up an interesting point that needs to be further articulated.
Possibly the single biggest contributing factor to increased American aggressiveness in foreign affairs is the fact that there really are no negative consequences for doing so. We have a full-time professional military so the sacrifice of service is not distributed among the population. Bumper sticker patriotism appears to be the extent of anyone's "patriotic" duty. We are also so overwhelmingly militarily capable that the human costs are nearly insignificant.
Changing that force equation through an assymetric means appears the only way to deter American action. We seem loath to deter Russia's descent into the resurrection of Stalinism because they are bristling with nuclear weapons (and because Bush "read Putin's soul" and saw a good man). We are similarly reluctant to take aggressive action against the Chinese because of their links to our economy. It appears that the only way to prevent a rogue president from going nuts is to make such action disproportionately expensive.
December 10, 2007 3:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 15:03
Isreal might not send their own children into the mine fields, but they have no problem killing young children in the Gaza Strip or bombing all of Lebanon killing innocent women and children, which was using American bombs to kill all those innocent people. People get real, no country is innocent during war time and the biggest problem everybody do not want to be a CHRISTIAN OR A DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY.
WHAT IS GOOD FOR YOU DOES NOT MEAN IT IS GOOD FOR ME, WHICH AMERICA AND THESE OTHER SUPERPOWERS BELIEVE IN.
December 10, 2007 2:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 14:59
Maybe the Kurds need a nuke too. As far as I am concerned, the middle east and surrounding countries can all go to hell. Turkey included. I am no Bush lover. I just can't stand your centuries old stupidity towards each other. Grow up already.
December 10, 2007 2:57 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 14:57
Very well thought out and written comment. If the past 7 years has made anything clear, its that the posession of a nuclear bomb is the only protection one has in the face of U.S. agression. Just compare the different fates of North Korea and Iraq. If you have been declared part of the 'axis of evil' (pardon the repitition of this moronic phrase), then a nuclear bomb is your only sure defense.
Unfortunately, the Bush administration has undermined and castrated the hard-won multilateral mechanisms that resulted from the bloodshed of WW II. We have been plunged back into the darkness of the law of the jungle, where nations' only defense comes from having the ultimate weapon. What seemed unthinkable since the end of WWII (I'll leave out the issues of Vietnam, Afghanistan, Panama, etc) - namely the invasion of another country for its resources - has become the reality of the world situation again.
Iran's government would be irresponsible not to obtain nuclear weapons. How would we react if our government identified a real threat and then did not do everything it could to prevent that threat. The same thing is happining in Iran - and it's our (U.S.'s) fault.
December 10, 2007 2:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 14:52
A long as any country in the Middle East, including the United States and Israel, have nuclear weapons, no one is safe. A rigorous and enforceable inspection regime for a nuclear free zone in the Middle East is the only way forward. Israel's illegal nuclear complex at Dimona has to be opened and their hundreds of illegal nuclear weapons demilitarized. Simultaneously, Iran must let the IAEA back into their country and give them free and unfettered access to all facilities. Saudi Arabia has offered to host a conference to build a framework for a nuclear free zone and should be taken up on that offer. There are such nuclear free zone frameworks in South America, the South Pacific and Africa, so there are examples to work from.
Until the nuclear haves-U.S. and Israel-take positive steps towards dismantling their own nuclear stockpiles, other countries will continue attempt to protect themselves by building their own deterrent.
December 10, 2007 2:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 14:50
More nukes is never the answer.
December 10, 2007 2:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 14:44
I'm a proud American, but I have to agree with Mustafa. We meddled in another country's government, denying the populace to right to make their own choices, then were shocked--shocked!--when they had finally had had enough.
How quickly we forget our own history, that which we often claim to hold so dearly. As he points out, we have no problems advancing our own interests in nefarious ways, but our quick to vilify and condemn others (typically confined to only those deemed foe when that proves expedient) of doing the same, even when theirs is strictly regional while ours empirical. It's just pure, blatant hypocrisy; there is simply no other explanation or rationale that suffices.
This isn't to condone hostage-taking or theological repressive governments. Nor do I wish to see Iran or any other country aquiring or maintaining nuclear weapons. However, Iran's current society is actually quite advanced when compared with some of its neighbors that the US supports. Unfortunately, our current administration's fear-mongering, Israeli-driven Middle East foreign policy, and narrow ideology, have worked to prevent the public from considering Iran's actions and people fairly from a broader perspective.
Surprisingly unmentioned here--but a key argument--is Israel's aggressive posture and bullying that constitutes another critical factor driving Iran towards possessing a nuclear capability. With some 300 nukes of its own, Israel is the pink elephant in the room that makes US hypocrisy impossible to ignore. And how is it that a non-signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, a rogue nation with a constant history of human rights abuses and ignoring international law (and which introduced the widespread use of terrorism as an effective tool to the region) has the chutzpah to point fingers or make demands of others that they themselves are unwilling to meet?
If I could be allowed a small pre-emptive attack of my own: For those whom will invariably label these observations anti-Semitic; you couldn't be further from the truth. But then, it is evidently not truth you seek, but obfuscation.
December 10, 2007 2:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 14:43
I'm a proud American, but I have to agree with Mustafa. We meddled in another country's government, denying the populace to right to make their own choices, then were shocked--shocked!--when they had finally had had enough.
How quickly we forget our own history, that which we often claim to hold so dearly. As he points out, we have no problems advancing our own interests in nefarious ways, but our quick to vilify and condemn others (typically confined to only those deemed foe when that proves expedient) of doing the same, even when theirs is strictly regional while ours empirical. It's just pure, blatant hypocrisy; there is simply no other explanation or rationale that suffices.
This isn't to condone hostage-taking or theological repressive governments. However, Iran's current society is actually quite advanced when compared with some of its neighbors that the US supports. Unfortunately, our current administration's fear-mongering, Israeli-driven Middle East foreign policy, and narrow ideology, have worked to prevent the public from considering Iran's actions and people fairly from a broader perspective.
Surprisingly unmentioned here--but a key argument--is Israel's aggressive posture and bullying that constitutes another critical factor driving Iran towards possessing a nuclear capability. With some 300 nukes of its own, Israel is the pink elephant in the room that makes US hypocrisy impossible to ignore. And how is it that a non-signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, a rogue nation with a constant history of human rights abuses and ignoring international law (and which introduced the widespread use of terrorism as an effective tool to the region) has the chutzpah to point fingers or make demands of others that they themselves are unwilling to meet?
If I could be allowed a small pre-emptive attack of my own: For those whom will invariably label these observations anti-Semitic; you couldn't be further from the truth. But then, it is evidently not truth you seek, but obfuscation.
December 10, 2007 2:38 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 14:38
Name of the game is commonsense. Threats don’t work, as they come to haunt you, may be from a different source, at a different time.
We don’t have much time left in between establishing a peaceful world or head for another war.
Choices need to be made keeping a long vision, short visions have failed and will fail.
In a war, no body gets hurt, other than common people. Real war starters, find easy heavens in other countries.
Only in last 100 hundred years, we have made real meaningful progress, in terms of really knowing one another, and that too at the cost of several wars.
We will be real stupid, if we don’t pause and think, towards which direction we need to head now.
Iran is paranoid and you can’t blame them for it. The bigger powers need to put them at ease first, before taking about dismantling their nuclear program, which they claim, is not for offensive purposes. Of course they are lying, but we need to accept their reasons for lying.
Fast media is playing a bigger role than we are wiling to accept, and people are not willing to accept wars without any rules. It is not a good idea to start a war over this.
So the option that we are left with is, talking to them, pursuing them to move away from this deadly technology, that will do much more harm, than they understand at this point, or ready to absorb the damage that comes with this deadly force.
We personally think, the world community needs to work relentlessly 24/7 to find a energy solution. Once that is found and made available, all countries need to dismantle their nuclear arsenals to put every body at ease.
Russians and Americans have made lot of progress and rest of the world needs to follow.
Bottom lines are:
(1)Find a permanent energy solution.
(2)Keep communication lines open.
(3)Let the commonsense be the next Super power of the world.
Sincerely
Amar Duggal
Atlanta Ga USA
December 10, 2007 2:37 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 14:37
And one other thing Mr. Mustafa... Please, if you hate America sooo much, take someone else's money and don't post in American papers. As to the Post, what is wrong with you? Do you really hate your own nation so much that you think it is a good thing if an avowed enemy of America becomes a nuclear threat?
December 10, 2007 2:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 14:36
dangerous , dangerous words my friend.
Perhaps if Iran swore not to produce nuclear weapons it would not have the US breathing down its neck. Perhaps if Irans elected leader retracted his words of wanting to "wipe out" Isreal, they would not have the West breathing down its neck. Perhaps if Iran wasen't trying to upset the balance of power in the Gulf region and instal pro fascist forces in Lebanon it wouldn't have the US and the west breathing down its neck.
get my point ...
December 10, 2007 2:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 14:36
Mustafa,
Did Turks complain about the the 1953 coup in Iran? Did Turks object to the Shah when he was in power? Or did Turks cooperate militarily? Welcome an anti-communist neighbor during the Cold War? Welcome a neighbor equally committed to rejection of a Kurdish national government?
I think your complaints about American power and influence are redolent of habitual followership. Turks followed Americans and Europeans during the Cold War. Turks try to follow Europeans into modernity and prosperity in the EU. You follow Persian and Arab sentiments in an age that publicly rejects American leadership and secretly bows to it.
One begins to wonder, Do Turks have any directions they would like to pursue independently?
December 10, 2007 2:35 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 14:35
Klem-
Your far leftist rant withstanding- you obviously don't understand the world from a geopolitical perspective.
Iran is run by a theocracy where we are not. They make comments about wiping Israel off the face of the earth and financially and with weapons support terrorism.
Kool Aid must your real staple there, pal.
December 10, 2007 2:32 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 14:32
"If Iran -- a rogue nation whose support for terrorists is well known and documented -- develops nuclear weapons, we should deliver an warning to Iran that makes clear what we will do if nuclear devices are EVER used against America or American interests anywhere in the world.
Whether those devices originate in Iran or from a location/ownership that cannot be ascertained, we will assume that Iran was the source -- no degree of plausable denial will be accepted.
Should a device -- bomb or dirty bomb -- be used, Iran would have 2 hours before it's country will be reduced to nuclear rubble. If Iran wants to proceed to develop nuclear capability under this understanding of responsibility, it is free to do so. Be forewarned though -- neither Iran nor its surrogates will be able to use these devices and live."
Dubya, that you? or is it Lord Darth Cheney?
December 10, 2007 2:26 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 14:26
colorado,
That is the very nature of deterrence. It appears you understand it. I suspect they do as well.
December 10, 2007 2:24 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 14:24
If Iran -- a rogue nation whose support for terrorists is well known and documented -- develops nuclear weapons, we should deliver an warning to Iran that makes clear what we will do if nuclear devices are EVER used against America or American interests anywhere in the world.
Whether those devices originate in Iran or from a location/ownership that cannot be ascertained, we will assume that Iran was the source -- no degree of plausable denial will be accepted.
Should a device -- bomb or dirty bomb -- be used, Iran would have 2 hours before it's country will be reduced to nuclear rubble. If Iran wants to proceed to develop nuclear capability under this understanding of responsibility, it is free to do so. Be forewarned though -- neither Iran nor its surrogates will be able to use these devices and live.
December 10, 2007 2:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 14:21
To those who bring up the Iranian hostage crisis as a justification for aggressive policy:
If a foreign government assassinated even the most unpopular American president and replaced him with an unconditional monarch that it controlled, I would be the first person to jump the fence of their embassy with shotgun in hand. I would view this as my sovereign duty as an American. I would consider anyone who didn't follow me to be a coward and a traitor.
When we assassinated Mossadegh and replaced him with the puppet Shah Reza Palavi, we put those wheels in motion.
December 10, 2007 2:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 14:21
To Rick...
How about you look up the minefield clearing and the childrens' martyr brigades. It is well documented by many sources that are not all American.
Now that I have adressed that, how about you adress all of the other points. Also, since when has it been a good thing for there to be more nulear weapons in the world. This is not about Neo-con chest thumping. This is about plain facts.
Nuclear weapons are not nice things. Since the bottleneck in developing them is actually in the production of fissionable material, I fail to understand anyone who is breathing easier over the latest intelligence report. Saying that you are developing a fuel cycle - but not atomic capacity is a distinction only a politician could make. It is not good physics.
Further, notions of mutally assured destruction as a deterrent do not have the same value if one side believes they get to sport with 72 virgins in heaven.
Anyone who thinks that there is not a problem here is an utter fool.
December 10, 2007 2:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 14:21
Of course Iran should be able to have nuclear weapons. The most dangerous and biggest nations have nuclear weapons and I feel all countries should have the same type of weapons the next country have. The most dangerous country is America. I guess it's based around the cowboy attitude.
December 10, 2007 2:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 14:19
While most reasonable people are aware of American mistakes in dealing with Middle East policy over the years, it is madness to think that the world will be a more secure place if Iran has a nuclear weapon. Articles like this always ignore certain things, like Iran's support for Hamas and Hizbollah, or the sickening comments from Iran's president. According to Mr. Domanic, there is no probem on this earth that cannot be blamed on the United States.
December 10, 2007 2:16 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 14:16
I just watched a movie called Zeitgeist. It is the most sobering and frightening thing I have ever seen. The very survival of our world and our way of life depends on everyone knowing what is in this film. It is available on line. For the sake of everything and everyone you love, watch this film.
December 10, 2007 2:15 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 14:15
We don't need more nuclear powers but a more intelligent citizenry.Then Ahmadinejad would not have been elected and the US would not have chosen one who can't pronounce the iranian presidents name over one who since has won a nobel price and an oscar.
December 10, 2007 2:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 14:10
MUSTAFA DOMANIC is right; Iran has every right to protect itself against Bush's terrorism.
As a US citizen, I cannot accept the Republican's blood-for-oil neoimperialist crusade against Islam
1) b/c our attack on Iraq was illegal (where are the WMDs?).
and 2) b/c in an era of "free trade," there is no hope that US can occupy the Middle East to force oil producing nations to hand over their natural resources under threat of violence. We are already bankrupting ourselves (4 trillion!!), and we are losing--
Jefferson said it: FORCE CANNOT MAKE RIGHT
The last 7 years have been the most destructive in the US since the Civil War; and it no surprise that it's the great grandsons of the Confederates that are destroying the COnstitution and trying to turn the world into a slave plantation.
December 10, 2007 2:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 14:10
I find your argument compelling, and in the abstract, I agree with your conclusions.
Since I don't live in the abstract, however, I think it would be a pretty good idea to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. In the real world, a nuclear Iran is either a step towards the dissolution of Western hegemony or a step towards nuclear war.
Scary prospects. Do you expect something better to rise from the ashes? Or do you predict different outcomes?
December 10, 2007 2:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 14:09
So suck it up you retarded and unconditional Bush Fluffers!! This is the bottomline environment youve created...go "Nukular" and this hill billy who would not have been able to get a job bagging my groceries if it wasnt for his daddy and their family name will wimper away from you. Or he may bomb and invade you cuz Israel told him to! For the rest you back-county fools instead of attacking this commentator based on his name which youre so obviousely doing stick to the content and topic. Otherwise based on your Muslim stereotyping go back to moldesting little boys in your churches and turning your little girls into porn stars, hey its the fastest growing industry in the U.S. Im sure youll vote for Jenna Jamison for president next hey if your gonna give your back end be a pro about it!!
December 10, 2007 2:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 14:06
444 days! That is how long the Iranians held our people. Why should the US put up with a nuke capably Iran? Why should the US try to deal with a man who doesn't even believe that the holocaust killed millions of people, regardless of whether they were Jewish people or not? Why should the US try to deal rationally with a country that is headed by a religious zealot, who is doing everything in his power to bring about the next World War, so that it can fulfill some religious predictions that other 'twelvers' believe will come to pass? I am not a Christian, or a Muslim, or a member of any other organize mind control religion, and I am damn sure not in favor of anymore religious zealots having their figures on the buttons of nukes... one in our own country is enough.
December 10, 2007 2:05 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 14:05
Attitudes such as Mustafa Domanic's is an extremely valid reason for the United States to maintain their vigilance and targeting directly into the Middle East, centering on Tehran. If Tehran desires to become a nuclear target: so be it.
December 10, 2007 2:02 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 14:02
Who would you trust with your children - Iran, who sent its children to walk through minefields while fighting a 10 year war with fellow Islamic country Iraq; or Israel, where they mourn each death, Israeli or not?
The main appeal of the Bomb is the deterence factor. Israel hasn't used it and won't except as a last resort when threatened with imminent destruction. Iran fails that test miserably. They have said they want to use it against Israel, and Israel is certainly not looking to kill all the Iranians, or Arabs, or Muslims, or anyone else.
This is not a USA vs USSR deterence. Iran with the Bomb would lead to mushroom clouds in many different places.
Oy!
Oy!
December 10, 2007 2:02 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 14:02
Mr. Domanic chronicles well the history of the animosity between the US and Iran. It's too bad that few Americans have taken the time to read about the 1953 CIA coup that ousted Mossadegh. After 25 years of rule under the tyrannical Shah, it is not surprising that the Iranian people rose up and overthrew him. It is also understandable that the people of Iran have a real ambivalence about the political leadership of the United States.
One one hand, the people of Iran hold in high regard the principles on which American was founded. But in another way, many Iranians distrust and fear America because of her past dealings with their country. The ascendancy of the mullahs and their antipathy towards the US government is a natural outgrowth of that fear and distrust.
December 10, 2007 2:00 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 14:00
Joe,
Though I'm not of the disposition to apologize for the behavior of the Iranian regimes, I would like to point out that we have the convenience of pontificating from a relative position of safety. Should the strategic shoe be on the other foot, one might expect far different results.
Examine the wholesale destruction of civil liberties after 19 medieval primatives crashed planes into American buildings. Similarly hostile actions happen in Iran with regularity and yet we don't see this as justification for the repression of political opposition. Should the US be threatened with overwhelming military force across a reachable border, we could expect the end of our own democratic experiment.
If you are truly concerned with the welfare of Iranian liberal political development, I suggest you work toward a less aggressive American policy in the present.
December 10, 2007 1:47 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 13:47
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me -- unless you assume that Americans are so irrational that they are not susceptible to deterrence.
The US has not honored its commitment under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to reduce its own nuclear stockpiles. We can't have it both ways.
Joe, your "children clearing minefields" story sounds like the same sort of "Iraqis are stealing baby incubators from Kuwait" propaganda our disinformation services cooked up to stoke their war machines. I hope the hook, line, and sinker don't snag when they come out your other end.
December 10, 2007 1:46 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 13:46
The ability of neo-cons and other Iran war hawks to hold two contradictory ideas at the same time never fails to fascinate. Since the release of the NIE the hard right has argued these two incompatible positions, both designed to discredit the NIE: 1.) that the report says nothing new -- Iran is still developing nuclear technology and so remains a dangerous place; and 2.) that the authors of the report have severely compromised American security by challenging the administration' central pretext for war.
And let's not kid ourselves. War is what they wanted. What else could John Bolton have meant when he accused the NIE's authors of advancing their own "agenda," since by all accounts taking war off the table was the signature accomplishment of the report. My guess is that the 16 intelligence agencies, with the secret urging of the Joint Chiefs, felt the US was being rushed into another reckless war and so needed to head this war-mongering off at the pass.
If the dramatic finding of the report -- that Iran is not now pursuing nuclear weapons -- is not matched by the specific details contained in the report, perhaps that is because American intelligence knows this is not an administration that crafts foreign policy to match actual intelligence, but rather uses intelligence to support a pre-conceived ideological agenda. When the two don't match it's the intelligence, not the policy, the administration and its supporters discredit. It's important for people to understand what a radical change that is.
One final point: Neo-con chest-thumpers say that if Iran suspended its weapon program in 2003 it's because they were cowering at the shock and awe of American military might after the Iraq invasion. But the more likely reason is that the US did Iran a great favor by eliminating the main reason Iran wanted nukes -- a WMD-possessing mortal enemy in Saddam Hussain. Without Saddam and without Iraqi WMD Iran had no reason for nukes -- except perhaps now to thwart being next on the George W. hit list.
December 10, 2007 1:46 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 13:46
North Korea didn't have nuclear missiles in 2003, nor do they have real nuclear missiles today. (The amount of force from their test, is doable with conventional explosives)
There are defintely cynical reasons to suspect that the US chose Iraq instead of North Korea, but they have much more to do that North Korea is under the Chinese sphere of influence, and that the Seoul, with a metropolitian population of 23 million or so, is within range of North Koreas artillery, and would have been shelled in the event of an invasion.
December 10, 2007 1:46 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 13:46
This Mustafa guy is a fine addition to the nutjob sector on the WP panel. "Meddling with Iran's democratic system"? "Support secessionism"? "Support Iraq's assault on Iran"? "help military groups destabilize Iran"? What the hell is he babbling about?
This whole alleged conflict between Iran and the U.S. is the brainchild of the Mullahs. They started it as soon as they came to power and have maintained it ever since. While bilthely concocting imaginary causes to the "conflict", Mustafa does not seem to have heard about the Iranians' assault on the U.S. embassy and the holding of U.S. diplomats as hostages for more than a year. Since then, there has not been a single U.S. administration who has not tried to make diplomatic overtures to Tehran and resolve the problems. No one even knows for sure what the Mullahs' problems are. They should get a life and so should Mustafa.
December 10, 2007 1:45 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 13:45
While we are at it. When will the Orientalists in the Modern Left start talking about personal responsibility? I do not debate that the United States did many wrong things in it's past policy with Iran. I do not debate that the policy was terrible.
In the thirty years since then, it is not as if the Iranis "just couldn't help themselves" from becoming so brutal, threatening and beligerent. The people in the Mideast need to also not be barbarians.
December 10, 2007 1:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 13:36
The only reason North Korea was not attacked by the U.S. was because North Korea has nuclear missiles.
Now if you are Iran, what would you do?
December 10, 2007 1:32 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 13:32
He's got a point. That is the main tenet of "freedom". Nobody likes an ultimatum dictated to them.
December 10, 2007 1:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 13:31
You must be kidding. I wish you were kidding.
The reality is that Iran is a brutal theocracy that sent children to clear minefields in special "martyrs brigades."
Pause and consider this. The Mullahs in Iran had a problem with Iraqi mines during the war with Iraq. The mines killed soldiers and destroyed valuable quipment. The solution, get children to hold hands, sing about Allah and go stomping into the mine field.
The same regime that did this is in power. They are one of the worlds largest supporters, financial backers and trainers of terrorism. They are intimately connected with the unrest in Lebanon and they continually threaten war with Israel. They are beligerent to the Saudis as well. In fact, they and the Saudis play a very complex and sick game of chess over regional dominance.
Letting them get atomic capacity would be about as bright as letting a chimpanze have a loaded revolver. Nothing good can come of it. So please, take your foolish propaganda elsewhere. Not everyone in America is fooled by you.
December 10, 2007 1:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 13:29
Excuse me but ANY child can tell you that making a bigger global pile of nuclear death isn't going to deter the NEO-CONS to do anything but bomb the hell out of you.
You sir, are an idiot.
Go back to blogging on finance. You obviously know nothing about peace making.
December 10, 2007 1:23 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2007 13:23