For the past 5 years, Iran has been lambasted as the bastion of evil. A nation full of radicals, zealots bent on developing nuclear weapons so they can wipe out Israel. An enemy of good, seeking to destabilize Iraq through their proxy fighters. The rhetoric has been intense, the propaganda convincing. Support for an attack grew. If it weren't for such dire situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a world economy skating on thin thin ice, I believe an emboldened Israel and US would have already attacked.
Now, a few recent press releases indicate that an attack, for now at least, has been postponed.
1) A truce has been agreed between Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and a Shi’a resistance group called the "League of the Righteous" (Asa'ib al-Haq), formerly framed as Iran's proxy army bent on destabilizing Iraq. With this truce in place, the argument that Iran is the source of continued calamity in Iraq, will not hold much water.
2) According to a U.S. government intelligence estimate made public Thursday, Iran will not be able to produce enough highly enriched uranium until 2013, setting a notably later date than any recent intelligence estimates thus far. This runs completely counter to the claims of the hawks in US and Israel claiming we have no time to waste in dealing with Iran's nuclear weapon producing capability.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I wonder what the point of this article is. It sounds like an article that was put out by Achmedinejad. This article seems to be telling us -
ReplyDelete1) Iran wants the US to succeed in Iraq and Iran has no bad intentions towards the US or Isreal. Proof of that is that we finally gave up the proxy war in Iraq.
2) Iran won't have a nuclear weapon for 3 1/2 more years, so chill! No one ever finishes projects early, so it's definitely not going to be till 2013, so the US can just relax until about 2012. the US should just sit back and let them develop a nuclear weapon. Just because their leaders and entire army chant 'death to america' every morning doesn't mean they are a threat.
That would be funny if you were debating the 'hawks' in the US or Isreal.
ReplyDeleteThey say - "There's no time to waste!"
you say - "Dammit people, there IS some time to waste, so lets waste it!"
The point of this post is not to debate what level of threat Iran actually represents (although our opinions totally disagree on that as well). The point is to point out the change in rhetoric coming from the US government. They are sending very visible signals of their short-term intentions [or lack of]. And these markedly contrast to what was the rhetoric even 6 months ago.
ReplyDeleteIt represents the changing level of confidence the US has in thinking it could actually pull of an attack on Iran. It represents a huge shift in the US's willingness to publicly back Israeli foreign policy whims. It represents, the fragility of the world economy...
I dunno. The rhetoric seems the same as 6 months ago to me. Obama was talking about what a threat Iran was and how we need to invade pakistan.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, technology keeps expanding and so is hate, so I believe it's only a matter of time before the nukes start flying.
Black people were sure we'd never have a black president in their lifetimes.
You're sure Iran isn't going to send nukes in our direction.
I'm not sure of anything. Maybe Iran won't do anything to us ever, maybe they will. I don't have the answers to what to do about it, but diplomacy sure isn't going to work. I think even if we stopped being allies with Isreal, Iran leaders would still hate us because our way of life influences their people to protest and seek freedom.
I wouldn't be too hard on any of our leaders that are afraid of Iran. Imagine what Iranians would think if America's leaders chanted "death to Iran" every morning.
I don't know why you worry about Isreal anyway. I think worst case scenario, if Isreal took over the whole world, then the world would be like Isreal. Not a bad place from what I understand.
I sure wouldn't want the whole world to be like the Muslim world. I like to see our women and wouldn't like being forced into religion.
I think this blog has been getting a little stale lately. To make it more interesting, I think you should post more stuff about Isreal, because it would be interesting to get to the bottom of whether they are the evil empire you think they are, or if your ideas about them are formed from generations of people bred to hate the people that killed Christ, like I think. It's really hard for me to understand dislike or hatred of Isreal. I havent seen any recordings or video of jew bankers trying to destroy the world, my parents visted Isreal and said it was a nice trip, they don't opress their people, they treat women well, don't force their religion on people. If you blame all war on them, I can easily debate that. If you blame some wars on them, you might be right, but the evidence seems shakey to me.
"...it would be interesting to get to the bottom of whether they [Israel] are the evil empire you think they are"
ReplyDeleteDont put words in my mouth. We are talking about state interests here. I talk about the US and Israel together when it comes to foreign policy decisions the US makes, because they are allies. Because they make decisions together. Because many of the top people in the US government, media, corporations are jewish and therefore support Israeli foreign policies. Most of those that aren't, are afraid not to support Israeli policies because they will get labeled an anti-semite immediately. Especially when it comes to the middle-east, you cannot seperate the two. You cannot blame the war on them, but they have a huge stake in anything that happens in their region.
They could become a beacon of peace or one of war.
They can try support minority (or even majority) rights in Israel when it comes to muslims, or they can continue their landgrabs and discrimination.
On the other hand, don't I support Iranian or muslim radicalism either. They are to blame for the current conflict as well.
But lets not forget who the agressors are. Who's ally has invaded, err... sorry liberated, a neighboring country? Iran hasn't attacked any neighbors in this century. USIrael has Iran surounded. You would act like a raging pitbull as well if you were cornered by dogs much bigger than you threatening to attack.
But again these are state interests we are talking about. Iran wants to defend its territorial integrity and its system of rule & law.
The US and ISrael want to secure their power in the region. Israel wants more land, land lived on by Palenstinians. They want drinkable water, water flowing from Lebanon and Jordan, and they want oil; oil found on the lands of the arabs. The US want oil, hegemony and a nice return on investment. Thats why they make perfect allies. And thats why you cannot seperate the two when talking about foreign policy decisions in the middle-east.
Change cannot come through force. War will only breed more radicalism and hatred. If we want to cvhange the way the muslims live, lets set a good example. They admired us for decades, before we started meddling in their affairs, attacking them further will only makes things worse. Especially if we cannot win. And this is what the US is beginning to see...
Attacking Iran will make things much for everyone.
"Let's not forget who the agressors are."
ReplyDeleteWhy is it the jews can not have just ONE country in this world, not really asking for much, just ONE, not 20 odd or more like muslims have already, JUST ONE country where jews were actually there before muslims, where muslims build a holy site, not their 1st, 2nd or even 3rd most holy site, on top of a JEWISH one. Istanbul where muslims convert a church into a mosque should be handed back. We need to understand a lot of the countries today where muslims are they took by force, if we agree to muslims demands of extinguishing Isreal, who is next? And why are muslims are allowed to keep conqurered land but anyone else has to hand it back to muslims? They are trying to take over everywhere and that is not scare mongering its a FACT.
Islam gets concessions; infidels get conquered
What they capture, they keep. When they lose, they complain to the U.N.
By Raymond Ibrahim, RAYMOND IBRAHIM is a research librarian at the Library of Congress. His book, "The Al Qaeda Reader," translations of religious texts and propaganda, will be published in April.
December 5, 2006
IN THE DAYS before Pope Benedict XVI's visit last Thursday to the Hagia Sophia complex in Istanbul, Muslims and Turks expressed fear, apprehension and rage. "The risk," according to Turkey's independent newspaper Vatan, "is that Benedict will send Turkey's Muslims and much of the Islamic world into paroxysms of fury if there is any perception that the pope is trying to re-appropriate a Christian center that fell to Muslims." Apparently making the sign of the cross or any other gesture of Christian worship in Hagia Sophia constitutes such a sacrilege.
Built in the 6th century, Hagia Sophia — Greek for "Holy Wisdom" — was Christendom's greatest and most celebrated church. After parrying centuries of jihadi thrusts from Arabs, Constantinople — now Istanbul — was finally sacked by Turks in 1453, and Hagia Sophia's crosses were desecrated, its icons defaced. Along with thousands of other churches in the Byzantine Empire, it was immediately converted into a mosque, the tall minarets of Islam surrounding it in triumph. Nearly 500 years later, in 1935, as part of reformer Kemal Ataturk's drive to modernize Turkey, Hagia Sophia was secularized and transformed into a museum.
Protests aimed at keeping the pope out of Hagia Sophia rocked Istanbul right up to the morning of his visit to the site. Contrast that intolerance with the tolerance granted Muslims in regard to the Al Aqsa mosque — this time, an Islamic site in Jerusalem annexed by Judaism. Unlike the permanent Muslim desecration of Hagia Sophia, after Israel's victory in the 1967 war, the Jews did not deface or convert the mosque into a Jewish synagogue or temple, even though the Al Aqsa mosque is deliberately built atop the remains of the Temple Mount, the holiest site of Judaism and, by extension, an important site for Christians. Moreover, since reclaiming the Temple Mount, Israel has granted Muslims control over the Al Aqsa mosque (except during times of crises).
All this illustrates the privileged status that many Muslims expect in the international arena. When Muslims conquer non-Muslim territories — such as Constantinople, not to mention all of North Africa, Spain and southwest Asia — those whom they have conquered as well as their descendants are not to expect any apologies, let alone political or territorial concessions.
ReplyDeleteHerein lies the conundrum. When Islamists wage jihad — past, present and future — conquering and consolidating non-Muslim territories and centers in the name of Islam, never once considering to cede them back to their previous owners, they ultimately demonstrate that they live by the age-old adage "might makes right." That's fine; many people agree with this Hobbesian view.
But if we live in a world where the strong rule and the weak submit, why is it that whenever Muslim regions are conquered, such as in the case of Palestine, the same Islamists who would never concede one inch of Islam's conquests resort to the United Nations and the court of public opinion, demanding justice, restitutions, rights and so forth?
Put another way, when Muslims beat infidels, it's just too bad for the latter; they must submit to their new overlords' rules with all the attendant discrimination and humiliation mandated for non-Muslims. Yet when Islam is beaten, demands for apologies and concessions are expected from the infidel world at large.
Double standards do not make for international justice. Either territorial conquests are always unjust and should therefore be ameliorated through concessions, or else they are merely a manifestation of the natural order of things — that is, survival of the fittest.
If some Muslims wish to wage eternal jihad until Islam dominates the globe, they are only being true to Islam and its doctrines as they understand it. However, in that case, where the world is divided into two warring camps, Islam and Infidelity — or, in Islamic terms, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War — how can these Muslims expect any concessions from the international community? The natural conclusion of the view that "might makes right" is "to the victor go the spoils."
The fact that Turkey conquered Constantinople more than 500 years ago does not prevent the Turkish government from returning Hagia Sophia to Christendom today, which would undoubtedly be a great gesture. But of course that can never be. The Muslim world would undergo a "paroxysm of fury" if a Christian pope dares pray in the conquered church; what would the Muslim world do if Hagia Sophia were actually converted back to a church?
ReplyDeleteBut perhaps Muslims cannot be blamed for expecting special treatment, as well as believing that jihad is righteous and decreed by the Almighty. The West constantly goes out of its way to confirm such convictions. By criticizing itself, apologizing and offering concessions — all things the Islamic world has yet to do — the West reaffirms that Islam has a privileged status in the world.
And what did the pope do in his controversial visit to Hagia Sophia? He refrained from any gesture that could be misconstrued as Christian worship and merely took in the sights of the museum. Moreover, when he was invited into the Blue Mosque nearby, he respectfully took off his shoes and prayed, eyes downcast, standing next to the the grand mufti of Istanbul like a true dhimmi — a subdued non-Muslim living under Islamic law and acknowledging Islamic superiority.
And therein is the final lesson. Muslims' zeal for their holy places and lands is not intrinsically blameworthy. Indeed, there's something to be said about being passionate and protective of one's own. Here the secular West — Christendom's prodigal son and true usurper — can learn something from Islam. For whenever and wherever the West concedes ideologically, politically and especially spiritually, Islam will be sure to conquer. If might does not make right, zeal apparently does.