The issue of Iran building a nuke may arise, but it's almost irrelevant as far as it being used. As Chomsky stated, if Iran gives any indication they'll use it the country will be vaporized. Then we'll pretty much have our way with their oil. And it's a pretty safe guess they're aware of that. With the stories yesterday (and in the past) of Iran supporting Iraqi insurgents, it's also a pretty safe guess the U.S. would head them off at the pass and remove the regime upon the slightest indication they have a working bomb. The logic being that the bomb would be handed off to terrorists and brought to Iraq or over to U.S. soil. Whether that would happen is irrelevant too, but it would be speculated in the media as yesterday's stories indicate, and that's enough to get the public thinking it would happen. Iraq was destroyed on the false presumption of possessing nerve toxins. It doesn't take a genius to see how much more easily Iran would be taken out if the U.S. thought they had a nuclear bomb.

"And among those factions, there is unanimity on a few central points: Iran must continue to develop its nuclear weapons program, Iran must exert dominance throughout the region, ultimately, Israel must be destroyed (I’m sure we’ll get more into this later), and, finally, Iran must become the dominant power in the Muslim world (hence, the importance of destroying Israel). Accordingly, Iran represents a threat to America and our interests in the region."

This is the type of argument that drives me up a wall: Iran wants to dominate the region. Iran wants to destroy Israel. Therefore, Iran is a threat to America.

Well, no. "Therefore, Iran is a threat to Israel" is the logical statement.

To the extent that the US determines it is in our interest to protect access to resources and to the extent that the US CHOOSES to defend Israel, we have to consider the possibility of an Iranian nuclear threat in the region. But Iran is not a threat to America.

This is the kind of argument that got us into Iraq. Americans need to be told the truth. Are we threatened directly or is this just one of a number of potential threats and one of a number of priorities that need to be balanced in determining the greater good of the American people because the United States government is not in business to serve the interests of anyone else.

If a nuke armed Iran is an existantial threat to Israel - Hurrah!

Perhaps both will, as the US and USSR did, that nuking the other is a bad idea.

MAD in action.

Regs, Shaggy

The US military cannot just snap their fingers and "take out" Iran. We tried that in Iraq, and somehow our fingers got crazy glued together. It is time for our country to act like grownups for a change. Iran will eventually develop a nuclear warhead, and may even eventually develop a means of delivering that warhead. But, they are not the only nation that will do that. Any nation that really desires to do so will do the same.

The proper role for us to take in the world is to treat all nations as we would like to be treated by them. We need to drop the idea that we are the biggest, baddest, meanest kid on the block and just accept that we are just another kid.

Hoppy in Sacramento

I never thought Chomsky was a fool.  How foolish of me.  But then, I like being foolish if I'm in good company.

aMike

You meaning Seth Gitell.

He was a great philosopher of language and linguist. He's a terrible political commentator. Chomsky is exhibit one in the case against academics writing outside their field.

Wow, Seth makes some very compelling points, and if any of them were true, we would have real grounds for concern.

As it is:

At the point Iran achieves an ability to produce a nuclear weapon, a reality coming closer every day according to the International Agency for Atomic Energy

Note Seth's careful wording here. The ability to produce a nuclear weapon, as opposed to actually producing a nuclear weapon. Seth is speaking to Iranian potential, while couching it in such a way as to blur the distinction between a hypothetical and an active threat. By framing his words this way, Seth leaves us with the impression that they're going to create a nuclear weapon any day now, grounds for hysteria. But his actual careful words only speak to an accumulating Iranian technological prowess. Way to mislead! I say this not to harsh on Seth, really. I express admiration of his mastery of sophist techniques.

Oh, and that 'day by day' thing, while technically correct (in that day does follow day), leaves us with the impression of 'any day now.' The truth is, however, that best estimates in terms of actual Iranian capacity to produce a nuclear weapon suggest that this capacity will not mature for 5 to 10 years (the more hysterical say two, but they have a lot of qualifications).

Even five to ten years may be too short a window. A single nuclear weapon is all but worthless. Real deterrant/offensive capacity requires a stockpile of a weapons, which it takes time to build. And there has to be a realistic delivery capacity - missiles or long range bombers (preferably missiles) which take time to develop, and more time to adapt nuclear warheads to missiles.

So realistically, while Iran does advance day by day to some bright and sunny hypothetical moment when they could develop a nuclear weapon and pose their neighbors existential threats... that day is ten to fifteen years away. I guess Seth forgot to mention that.

Nations, such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Israel, immediately become subject to an immediate and, in the case of Israel, existential threat.

Of course, Israel already has an estimated 200 to 400 nuclear weapons, and already has the delivery systems, as well as a hardened second strike capacity. So I don't think that they're really facing an existential threat. Given the vast gap, the best the Iranians could ever hope for is MAD, and it will be a while, even after they achieve technological capacity, for them to develop and harden enough weapons and delivery systems to achieve MAD.

As for Saudi Arabia, the UAE, etc., dropping nukes on those countries would be crapping in its own back yard. While its hypothetically possible for a future Iran to nuke the UAE, its pretty much guaranteed that Iran would eat the radiation fallout. It's also pretty unlikely that it would survive the political fallout.

Even if Iran refrains from an immediate, direct attack, it gains an ability to hold the whole region hostage as it did American hostages twenty-eight years ago.

ROTFL!!! Good one! Excellent! Well, there's no waving the bloody shirt here, is there? No appeal to inflammatory hysteria? I don't think I was out of high school when that happened.

Just for the record, how many Embassies did the Iranian hold hostage last year? The year before that? What's their record on hostage taking lately?

Nope, no one's waving the bloody shirt.

And among those factions, there is unanimity on a few central points: Iran must continue to develop its nuclear weapons program,

Wow. That's so amazing dude. What with them not having a nuclear weapons program at all. Or at least, not having an actual nuclear weapons program that anyone has been able to detect or conclusively prove.

Are the factions equally unanimous on Iran continuing its magical unicorn program? Or is there less of a consensus on other imaginary programs?

Bit of a problem there, wouldn'cha agree? It's true that Iran does have a civilian nuclear program, and is operating that program within the terms of the non-proliferation treaty. It's also true that some aspects of the civilian technology that they are pursuing and developing could be applied for military purposes. But a nuclear weapons program? No.

Still, I suppose we could be fair to Seth and say that what he really means is that the Iranian factions are unanimously in favour of a civilian nuclear power program, which at some point, might allow the hypothetical possibility of a military nuclear weapons program.

But as for unanimity of factions on the subject of proceeding to nuclear weapons? Nope, don't see it.

Ahminajad (sic) has several times stated publicly that his government has no desire and no wish for nuclear weapons.

And Supreme Ayatollah Khameini, who Seth makes much of, has publicly condemned nuclear weapons as 'un-Islamic.' Which poses a bit of a problem.

So, I'm not seeing the pro-nuclear weapons unanimity among Iranian factions. Sorry, Seth.

Iran is blameworthy in the terrorist murder of 220 U.S. Marines dead at the hands of a Hezbollah suicide bomber in 1983 (241 Americans total).

Given that Hezbollah was not actually established until 1985, I can only assume that Seth is attributing time travel capacities to either Hezbollah or Iran.

Do you think they use a time machine, or just slingshot around the sun really fast, like in Star Trek IV? Or maybe they use a time treadmill, like the Flash in comic books? A time tunnel? Fly backwards around the earth faster than the speed of light, like Superman?

Ah, what a strange world we live in. Still, I'll have to put aside these conjectures and simply observe that, Seth's assertion notwithstanding, there isn't any generally accepted conclusive proof that has lead to any broad consensus that Iran was behind the Marine camp bombing.

Yes, I know that there are conspiracy theorists who make the argument. Some of the same people, undoubtedly, who argue that Marilyn Monroe shot John F. Kennedy. Unfortunately, in both cases, these arguments have not reached the level of plausibility or general acceptance.

Iran, by way of its proxy has also been fingered in the 1985 kidnap of murder of Lt. Col. William Buckley.

How does one kidnap a murder? A murder is an act. You can't kidnap an act. I suppose you could kidnap a murderer.

Ah, but don't mind me, I'm just having a bit of fun with Seth's continuing meltdown.

Obviously he means "kidnap and murder" and is simply applying to his grammar the same rigorous effort he employs on his logic. Far be it from me to complain or take cheap shots. All power to you, Seth!

I suppose I could take the time to look up the real facts on Buckley, but then again, is there a point. 1985? How about something in the 20th century?

Why else would Iran now be aiding the Taliban?

Is Iran aiding the Taliban? Seriously. Is there any evidence for this from independent parties? Or is it coming from the same military/intelligence complex that got all hysterical about Iraq's wmds? From the same military/intelligence complex that makes all these threatening noises against Iran?

It strikes me that if Seth was to argue that our ally Pakistan is aiding the Taliban, or at least aiding and tolerating and entering into agreements with allies of the Taliban, I wouldn't argue with him. There's a lot of evidence of this, from a lot of independent sources, one of them being the Pakistani government.

But Iran invading the Taliban? A group of people who believe that Shia should be killed with the same knives used to ritually slaughter goats? I dunno. Something's fishy there.

But anyway, even if we were to take Seth's question seriously, I could off the top of my head think of at least three reasons why Iran would deal with the Taliban.

* Tit for Tat - The United States sponsors, trains, funds and arms baluchi terrorists who are raiding Iranian territory from safe havens in Pakistan.

* Undermining a Threat - The United States keeps talking regime change and military strikes (all options on the table) against Iran. Might be a good idea to keep them busy and off balance in some other country, particularly one they might stage attacks from.

* Heroin - Afganistan, since the US moved in, has returned to number one as the worlds largest producer of heroin. A lot of that heroin goes into Iran and central asia, creating huge social problems. Perhaps they're trying to stop drug trafficking.

There's probably more, but you know, that's how it goes. Seth asked what he thought was a rhetorical question. But really, it's hardly rhetorical.

Iran training fighters in Iraq,

Proof? Just for the record, I think Seth is being sly with us again. I think that Seth is distinguishing between 'fighters' and 'insurgents.'

Iran is heavily connected with the Badr brigades, the militia of the SCIRI and Dawa parties. The problem is that the Badr Brigades are not insurgents, and SCIRI and Dawa are on America's side.

It seems that Seth wants to beat up on Iran for training and funding our allies?

I assume Seth's point here is not so much that Iran is seeking regional hegemony, but is stealing the bread from out of Halliburton's mouth?

aiding Hezbollah, which is destabilizing Lebanon,

More than Israel's randomly bombing the crap out of the country destabilized Lebanon?

As I understand it, Hezbollah as a political party in Lebanon is involved in some sort of ongoing political constitutional crisis which still needs to be worked out... but that's a far cry from destabilization. So far, no one in Lebanon is restarting the civil war.

The press is reporting the capture in Iraq of a Lebanese Hezbollah member, which points to an active Iranian hand in that conflict.

I'm confused. Are Hezbollah and Iran separate entities or not. Sometimes Seth refers to them as if they're separate, sometimes he refers to them as one and the same.

Is a Lebanese Hezbollah member automatically an Iranian secret agent? Do they get dual citizenship? Double super secret decoder rings? Questions, questions.

I note that the United States has approximately 20,000 insurgents or potential enemy collaborators or combatants in custody. So one Lebanese Hezbollah member would amount to 0.0001 of that number.

It's estimated that there may be as many as 100,000 insurgents. So that one Lebanese Hezbollah member would represent perhaps 0.00002 of the insurgency?

Wow.

And after four years of occupation, hundreds of thousands of acts of resistance, tens upon tens of thousands of insurgents, the United States has been able to capture how many Iranian agents?

One.

Which Seth says, points to an active Iranian hand in proceedings.

And he's actually Lebanese.

Ouch!

You know, I think that Seth's real message is that if the Iranians are that good, we might as well throw in the towel now and all start learning Farsi. If they're that good, they don't need nuclear weapons.

Ah, but I'm just gently funnin' with our pal, Seth. I love him like a brother, or sister, as the case may be, and I hope he takes my lightheartedness in the happy go lucky spirit with which its offered. There's a need for the sort of truth that Glen speaks. And equally, there's a need for the sort of whatever that Seth comes out with. Yin and yang, black and white, batman and robin, Ghandi and RuPaul. It's all part of the cosmic balance.

I for one, am eagerly awaiting Seth's next rumination on what to do about those Klingons. I hear that they've got photon torpedos. That's just bad news.

"My view is that Iran is a threat"

Valdron seems to think (if I might paraphrase) that this statement is BS, based on the evidence.

I agree wholeheartedly.

It's not only BS, it sounds suspiciously like Seth is a Lieberman/AIPAC agent.

Dude, seriously? I didn't realize there were so many Chomsky apologists here. I'll try to restrain myself.

For example, I won't say that the guy is a complete joke. I won't say that he is a hair-brained conspiracy theorist. I won't say that he is a insane ideologue. I won't say that he is a ridiculous caricature of the left.

Yeah, I'll watch what I say.

And among those factions, there is unanimity on a few central points: Iran must continue to develop its nuclear weapons program, Iran must exert dominance throughout the region, ultimately, Israel must be destroyed (I’m sure we’ll get more into this later), and, finally, Iran must become the dominant power in the Muslim world (hence, the importance of destroying Israel).

Mr. Gittel, could you please be more specific here about precisely which Iranian government statements you have in mind with respect to the need to develop a nuclear weapons program, the goal of dominance in the region and the goal of dominance in the Muslim world? Statements from fairly recent history would be most appreciated.

Yet while the country as a whole is different than the conventional wisdom here, we should have no illusions about who is running Iran, the "Supreme Leader", Ayatollah Khamenei, the Revolutionary Guards, and its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

This seems a bit too simple to me. My understanding, and admittedly that is only based on a limited amount of reading, is that governmental powers in Iran are quite distributed and complex, with various ministries, the Expediency Council, the Council of Guardians and the Majlis - along with the three power centers you mention - often pulling in contrary directions and checking the freedom of action of the other bodies.

Iran had a revolution in 1979. As with most cases of revolutionary regimes, they carried out a very revolutionary brand of foreign politics in the early years, but since then have have come more and more to resemble a normal state pursuing its national interest in conventionally intelligible terms. It has opened up tremendously to develop more normal relations with countries all over the world, except the US which still prefers a policy of sanctioning and isolating Iran. That doesn't mean that there is nothing left to be worried about, but I don't think the situation is as worrisome as you portray it.

In my opinion, it would be a bad thing if Iran developed nuclear weapons. It is a bad thing when nuclear weapons are proliferated to any state that did not have them before, particularly in the Middle East. The US and other countries should follow a policy of promoting a de-nuclearized Middle East. And we should constructively engage with Iran to hammer out agreements on a series of outstanding issues of concern to both countries.

However, if Iran were to develop real nuclear weapons, their arsenal would be small, and there is no reason to think that they could not be deterred in the usual way from using them.

I think what is really going on at this point in history is this: Iran is clearly an emerging power, and is playing an increasingly important role in it's region and the world. It seems rational and inevitable that the US and Iran will eventually move toward rapprochement and better relations. But the US already has friends in the region. As Iran's influence on US policy grows, the influence of current friends will decline in relative terms. Those friends are thus fighting back diplomatically to preserve their hold on US policy in the region, and their special relationships. The Saudis have been particularly aggressive about calling on their long-time allies in US government circles to mount and organize an anti-Iran propaganda campaign. Israel has joined in as well. But my guess is that these are just the growing pains of an evolving regional balance of power, and will be seen to be so from the perspective of a not-too-distant future.

Incidentally, the real facts on William Buckley are that he was apparently tortured, but died of pneumonia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Francis_Buckley

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/wbuckley.htm

What would Iran do with a nuclear weapon?

I'd worry more about nuclear armed Pakistan.

While I generally agree with your point, a Jihadist desire for death/ascension is different than communist fanaticism because of the religious change. Same with China.

It's a greater threat because we are far far weaker after the Bush years that we have been in a long time and because most of our "friends" think we are morons and wouldn't mind if we suffered a little bit.

He makes assertions in the field of linguistics and leaves it to others to find data to prove or disprove his hypothesis often refusing to engage (his comments on the Piraha recursion).

a Jihadist desire for death/ascension is different than communist fanaticism because of the religious change. Same with China.

In vulgar but more honest language: "Them n*gg*rs is KRAZY! KAAA-RAZY I tells you! No telling what dey gonna do! Dey be KRAZY in de haid!"

Yeah, sure, whatever. Truth of the matter, heavy ideological indoctrination, and patriotic hysteria has proven to be as or more efficacious at motivating suicidal behaviour by individuals or groups than mere religious fervour.

Both the CIA and KGB and various special forces were under certain circumstances indoctrinated to suicide upon capture. Suicide missions of one sort or another, sometimes deliberate, sometimes through inept leadership, are a staple of American and European military history. Japan, for its part initiated the Kamikaze, not as a religious program, but a patriotic one. Both Germans and Russians showed suicidal ferocity in WWII. Vietnamese during their war also expressed their political views in the form of suicide, and not necessarily for religious purposes.

Moreover, its difficult if not impossible to say that a religion which generally discourages suicide, is less likely to produce kill crazy suicide machines than one which ostensibly encourages it. Both Christianity and Judaism, for instance, discourage suicide as a means of solving problems, but are fairly approving of death incurred fighting or struggling for a good cause. Christianity in particular has a long history of Martys, some of them quite violent, while Judaism has Masada.

While there may be some extremist muslim groups who are quite bought into the notion of killing themselves (and lots of other people) as a way into heaven, the key is that they are extremist and deviant. But then, the Solar Temple and People's Temple have shown even more dramatic suicidal tendencies.

Current studies on suicide bombers have tended to show that the vast majority are not religiously motivated at all. The guys who hijacked the planes on 9/11 spent their last day in a lap dance bar. Rather, they are motivated and energized by political beliefs. The strongest of these is repelling a foreign invader from home territory where there are no other viable means of resistance.

Personally, I see this whole 'dat n*gg*r is KAH-RAAZY!!!' or if you'd prefer 'Jihadist desire for death/ascension' as a dangerous and misleading attitude on several levels.

First, it lends itself all too easily to racism and propaganda, by characterizing the Muslim as a fundamentally different and alien creature. The Muslim becomes a being unlike ourselves, whose motivations and actions are both alien, inscrutable and relentlessly dangerous. The image of rational actors making decisions is replaced with the image of subhuman slavering hordes, climbing over border fences, bodies wrapped in dynamite, wild eyed and searching for the nearest Dairy Queen full of children. While its a very exciting image, its not helpful.

Second, it creates a false sense of singularity and a-historicity. The notion is that these 'KRAZY n*gg*rs' or 'death crazed Jihadists' are something unprecedented and unique. The communists weren't this bad! The Nazi's weren't this bad! The Kaiser wasn't this bad! The Confederacy wasn't this bad! And so on down the line. The idea is that because our 'death crazed jihadists' pose an altogether new and novel threat, never seen before, they are much more dangerous than previous adversaries and this then allows the discussion to enter unprecedented and bizarre directions. Brutal options become thinkable. Torture? 'We have to torture them n*gg*rs, they is KAH-RAZYY!!' Bombing civlian populations cities in countries under American occupation? 'We have to do it, these death crazed Jihadists won't be stopped otherwise.' Rape rooms, Mass Murder, Secret Prisons, Preventative War, War of Choice, War of Conquest, Nuclear Options, Genocide... all becomes thinkable or desirable, where it was clearly unacceptable in the cold war... because 'Everything is different now, we facing KAH-RAZY n*gg*rs/suicide worshipping Jihadists, who are not rational like the old Communists and who are liable to do anything!'

Finally, this sort of bumper sticker mentality becomes an excuse to avoid thinking about the larger picture. Slap a KRAZY label on, we don't have to think about who these people are, where they come from, what motivates them, and how their agenda, tactics and strategy are shaped. This is, in my view, disastrous. Such superficial thinking makes for good television or parlour room pontification, but in the real world, when you have an enemy you beat that enemy by understanding their strengths and weaknesses, by assessing their resources, and anticipating their agenda, tactics and strategy.

Good thing you won't say that. He's not a conspiracy theorist--that's stupid. Unless you count thinking that the Iraq War wasn't fought for noble reasons and that you can't believe the what the US government says as "conspiracy theorizing". Then yeah, that there Noam is one crazy dude.

oh you two...
get a room!

Thanks for the heads-up.

It's not only BS, it sounds suspiciously like Seth is a Lieberman/AIPAC agent.

Unsubstantiated opinion!

The HORROR! THE HOOOORRRROOORRR!

What you do, to go back to the original question, is to use the kinds of thing Greenwald talks about to negotiate with and pressure Iran so that it gives up the idea of nuclear weapons (if indeed that is really the case) before it gets them.

I know that many would rather scare themselves with fantasies and wring their hands about what a terrible world it could be, but it's going to be a long time before Iran has a nuclear weapon, and we need some good thinking and negotiating NOW!

Of course I won't do that, that's silly. But I do expect you to ask me to back up my statements if you have cause to question them. Reality rules, as Seth learned (I hope) on his visit to this site.

And what's your problem, specifically?

My problem?
My problem is with all these short comments I got twisted around and thought I was responding to Reece.

But he fails to address a central problem: what to do if and when Iran develops nuclear weapons?

Well, one thing's for sure, WE KNOW WHAT IRAN IS GOING TO DO WHEN THEY GET NUKES, because their leaders have been telling us for the past few years. Instead of giving any of my own opinions about what they may do with nuclear weapons, just let me supply some newspaper articles quoting Iranians themselves. If you have a problem with these quotes, don't blame me, these are NOT my words or opinions!

World Leaders Condemn Iranian's Call to Wipe Israel 'Off the Map'

Washington Post Foreign Service

Friday, October 28, 2005; Page A16

LONDON, Oct. 27 -- Leaders around the world on Thursday condemned a call by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Israel be "wiped off the map."

"I have never come across a situation of the president of a country saying they want to . . . "wipe out another country," British Prime Minister Tony Blair said at a summit outside London of the 25 leaders of the European Union's member states.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair, right, and French President Jacques Chirac, left, were among the 25 European Union leaders who excoriated Iran. (Pool Photo/by Patrick Kovarik Via Associated Press) Blair said Ahmadinejad's comment was "completely and totally unacceptable."

In Iran, Arming for Armageddon

Friday, December 16, 2005; Page A35

. . . Everyone knows where Iran's nuclear weapons will be aimed. Everyone knows they will be put on Shahab rockets, which have been modified so that they can reach Israel. And everyone knows that if the button is ever pushed, it will be the end of Israel.

But it gets worse. The president of a country about to go nuclear is a confirmed believer in the coming apocalypse. Like Judaism and Christianity, Shiite Islam has its own version of the messianic return -- the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam. The more devout believers in Iran pray at the Jamkaran mosque, which houses a well from which, some believe, he will emerge.

When Ahmadinejad unexpectedly won the presidential elections, he immediately gave $17 million of government funds to the shrine. Last month Ahmadinejad said publicly that the main mission of the Islamic Revolution is to pave the way for the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam.

And, as in the Bible the second coming will be accompanied by the usual trials and tribulations, death and destruction. Iranian journalist Hossein Bastani reported Ahmadinejad saying in official meetings that the hidden imam will reappear in two years.

So a Holocaust-denying, virulently anti-Semitic, aspiring genocidist, on the verge of acquiring weapons of the apocalypse, believes that the end is not only near but nearer than the next American presidential election. This kind of man would have, to put it gently, less inhibition about starting Armageddon than a normal person. Indeed, with millennial bliss pending, he would have positive incentive to, as they say in Jewish eschatology, hasten the end.

To be sure, there are such madmen among the other monotheisms. The Temple Mount Faithful in Israel would like the al-Aqsa mosque on Jerusalem's Temple Mount destroyed to make way for the third Jewish Temple and the messianic era. The difference with Iran, however, is that there are all of about 50 of these nuts in Israel, and none of them is president.

The closest we've come to a messianically inclined leader in America was a secretary of the interior who 24 years ago, when asked about his stewardship of the environment, told Congress: "I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns; whatever it is we have to manage with a skill to leave the resources needed for future generations." But James Watt's domain was the forest, and his weapon of choice was the chainsaw. He was not in charge of nuclear weapons to be placed on missiles that are paraded through the streets with, literally, Israel's name on them. (They are adorned with banners reading "Israel must be wiped off the map.") It gets worse. After his U.N. speech in September, Ahmadinejad was caught on videotape telling a cleric that during the speech an aura, a halo, appeared around his head right on the podium of the General Assembly. "I felt the atmosphere suddenly change. And for those 27 or 28 minutes, the leaders of the world did not blink. . . . It seemed as if a hand was holding them there, and it opened their eyes to receive the message from the Islamic Republic."

Negotiations to deny this certifiable lunatic genocidal weapons have been going nowhere. Everyone knows they will go nowhere. And no one will do anything about it.

Iranian fatwa approves use of nuclear weapons

Last Updated: 12:12am GMT 19/02/2006 (Telegraph-UK)

Iran's hardline spiritual leaders have issued an unprecedented new fatwa, or holy order, sanctioning the use of atomic weapons against its enemies.

In yet another sign of Teheran's stiffening resolve on the nuclear issue, influential Muslim clerics have for the first time questioned the theocracy's traditional stance that Sharia law forbade the use of nuclear weapons.

[Missiles beside a portrait of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei]

One senior mullah has now said it is "only natural" to have nuclear bombs as a "countermeasure" against other nuclear powers, thought to be a reference only to America and Israel.

The pronouncement is particularly worrying because it has come from Mohsen Gharavian, a disciple of the ultra-conservative Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi, who is widely regarded as the cleric closest to Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Nicknamed "Professor Crocodile" because of his harsh conservatism, Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi's group opposes virtually any kind of rapprochement with the West and is believed to have influenced President Ahmadinejad's refusal to negotiate over Iran's nuclear programme.

The comments, which are the first public statement by the Yazdi clerical cabal on the nuclear issue, will be seen as an attempt by the country's religious hardliners to begin preparing a theological justification for the ownership - and if necessary the use - of atomic bombs.

Hezbollah's Goal: "Going After [the Jews] Worldwide"

Posted August 10, 2006 | 06:27 PM (EST) (Huffington Post)

Never before or since in world history has a tyrannical regime sought to murder all of the members of a particular racial, religious, ethnic or cultural group, regardless of where they live--not until now. Hezbollah's aim is not to "end the occupation of Palestine," or even to "liberate all of Palestine." Its goal is to kill the world's Jews. Listen to the words of its leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah: "If Jews all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide." (NY Times, May 23, 2004, p. 15, section 2, column 1.) Nasrallah is one of the most admired men in the Muslim and Arab world today. Hitler made similar threats in Mein Kampf but they were largely ignored. Nasrallah has a reputation for keeping his promises.

His genocidal goals--to kill all Jews--were proven by two recent statements. He has warned the Arabs and Muslims to leave Haifa so that his rockets can kill only Jews. And he apologized for causing the deaths of three Israeli-Arabs in Nazareth, when a Katuysha struck that religiously mixed Israeli city. Hezbollah also worked hand-in-hand with Argentine neo-Nazis to blow up a Jewish community center, murdering dozens of Jews.

Nasrallah is a modern day Hitler, who currently lacks the capacity to carry out his genocide. But he is an ally of Iran, which will soon have the capacity to kill Israeli's five million Jews. Listen to what the former President of Iran has said about how Iran would use its nuclear weapons:

Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former president of Iran, has threatened Israel with nuclear destruction, boasting that an attack would kill as many as five million Jews. Rafsanjani estimated that even if Israel retaliated by dropping its own nuclear bombs, Iran would probably lose only fifteen million people, which he said would be a small "sacrifice" from among the billion Muslims in the world.

Now listen to the current President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who denies the Nazi Holocaust, but calls for a modern Holocaust that would "wipe Israel off the map."

Despite these anti-Semitic and genocidal threats, some of the hard left admire Nasrallah and his bigoted organization, as well as Iran and its anti-Semitic president. Others do not seem to take his threats seriously.
For example, the notorious Jewish anti-Semite Norman Finkelstein has said, "looking back my chief regret is that I wasn't even more forceful in publicly defending Hezbollah against terrorist intimidation and attack."

Finkelstein's hatred of Jews runs so deep that he has actually implied that his own mother, who survived the Nazi Holocaust, may have collaborated with the Nazis. If so, collaboration with evil seems to run in the family, because Finkelstein has clearly become a collaborator with Hezbollah anti-Semitism and Nazism. Finkelstein's website is filled with Hezbollah promotion, including breathless reprints of Nasrallah speeches. Noam Chomsky, who works closely with Finkelstein, has said of Finkelstein that he is "a person who can speak with more authority and insight on these topics [Israel and anti-Semitism] than anyone I can think of."

The Iran-Hezbollah axis is the greatest threat to world peace, to Jewish survival, to western values, and to civilization. Those like Finkelstein, who support Hezbollah, and even those who refuse to fight against this evil, are on the wrong side of history. They are collaborators with Islamo-fascists--today's version of Nazism.

Looks like the lunatic fringe is out.

When you refer to the "lunatic fringe" are you talking about the guy who posted these quotes from the Iranian leadership "verbatim." Or are you trying to say that this guy who quoted these quotes is considered "the lunatic fringe for quoting them "verbatim?"

Fanitcal, radical Iranians have spoken and we have to listen to their quotes "as they have spoken them?" To criticise the man who prints those quotes is unbelievably "ignorant," you fu**ing douchbag. This guy specifically said that he was just quoting news stories without any opinion! If you don't agree with his posting Iranian news, and you don't agree with the Iranians who MADE THOSE QUOTES, you are an idiot! I can never figure out why people in America fail to listen to the Iranian's quotes and take them verbatim. Is it just wishful thinking that they are peaceful or are you just full of asshole ignorance?

I'm hearing some extreme positions on both sides of the issue, with the truth not always black and white.

There are individuals in Hizbollah and the Iranian government that unquestionably have made extreme statements. In some cases, there have been reports that translation may not be quite correct. Ahminijad's and other threats have been translated variously as a desire to wipe out the state of Israel, or against all Jews.

The structure of power elites in Iran needs to be understood. Even if a close clerical advisor to their President has genocidal ideas, the President of Iran does not control their military. The military comes under their Supreme Leader, Khateimi.

By no means are their clerics stating one position. Some indeed appear to be genocidal, while Khateimi has spoken against nuclear weapons.

It is clear that deliverable nuclear weapons are not imminent, although a small number could be, in a number of years. Such proliferation needs to be monitored, as policies developed, but the threat is certainly not as immediate as from North Korea, Israel, Pakistan or India -- all non-NPT nuclear states.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Howard,

if I remember correctly, during the Reagan years there were some in his administration, and perhaps Reagan himself, who were speaking positively of a limited nuclear war. Fast forward to today and Ahmadinejad and you see the difference in how well some propoganda has advanced as the Reagan limited nuclear war was not given the degree of condemnation and paranoia you see with Ahmadinejad. Maybe Ahmadinejad is getting so much condemnation and press because he threatened Israel and not Russia?

What would Ahmadinejad do with a nuke if he had one?

Is the idea of Ahmadinejad dropping a nuke on Israel any worse than our destruction of Iraq? ( I condemn both )

I'm sorry Unahomer. You seem to have misread me.

I said that Bill B. was the lunatic fringe. I'm inclined to lump you in that category as well. ;)

Have a nice day.

Valdron says:

Note Seth's careful wording here. The ability to produce a nuclear weapon, as opposed to actually producing a nuclear weapon.

Heh, this reminds me of the time Bush mentioned that "Saddam sought WMDlike materials."

WTF are WMDlike materials?

Valdron says;

"I plan to enjoy Seth."

I'm not touching that with a 10' pole.

As they say in Warsaw, 10' Poles are treated much the same as 800-pound gorillas: any way they want.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

RogerGathman

There's a certain odd logic to neo-con arguments. The argument in 2003 was that we would win in Iraq and could use that as a base to win in Iran. Real men, back then, wanted to go to Teheran. Now the argument is that we've lost in Iraq - so now we really need to go to Teheran.

Seth's case would be much better if he argued for what he assumes: that Iran wants to achieve hegemony in the Middle East, destroy Israel, and produce nuclear weapons - and if he didn't push obvious factoids, like the idea that Iran (instead of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) is arming the Taliban.

When Iran was lead by Khomeini, whose phrase about wiping Israel off the face of the map was quoted by Ahmadinejad, Israel seemed to not only retain its sang froid, but engaged in massive arms trading with Iran. In fact, in the late 80s, Israel's prime minister was quoted as wishing that the U.S. would drop its objections to recognizing Iran. What happened?

Iraq ceased to be a threat is what happened.
There's no reason to believe that Iran has any of the goals that Seth attributes to them. Certainly there is no reason to believe that Iran is trying to wipe Israel off the map in any sense more serious than McCain's comment about bomb bomb bomb Iran means that the U.S. is actually going to bomb Iran. In both cases, it does indicate volatile and hostile sentiment. To prepare for a world in which Iran has a nuclear weapon, then, the U.S. should be meeting with Iran with carrots and sticks, including recognizing Iran and legalizing economic activity with Iran, in return for assurances about Israel. The U.S. shouldn't be posturing about bombing Iran, which makes no sense. Iran has firstly done nothing to the U.S. - or, I should say, nothing major - since the revolution in 1979 overthrew a government forced upon Iran by a U.S. sponsored and led coup. In the account book of acts "committed against", the U.S. is still in the red vis a vis Iran.

Since it would seem an obvious first solution that the U.S. should try to make Iran agree to not attack Israel, even if you believe Seth's list, why does he not even mention negotiation towards that goal? Is it that he is afraid that such negotiation might demand concessions from Israel? I think so. I think behind the hysteria about bombing Iran is the cold eyed calculation that anything is better than confronting the unviability of a situation in which Israel has to make concessions - such as evacuating the settlements on the West Bank and handing real authority over to the Palestinians. This would not be the end of Israel by any means, but it would be the end of one rightwing dream of Israel, a greater Israel that would, itself, have hegemony in the Middle East. There is a lot of projecting in Seth's picture of Iran - turn it about, and you get the behavior of Israel towards, say, its economic regional rival Lebanon.

The neocons run foreign policy theory like a crooked gambling house - they always win. But American foreign policy should not be about always winning, but adapting the best possible stance in the face of circumstances of limited power. We spend way too much time, money and blood in the Middle East - let's create a system that can take care of itself so that the U.S. is not incessantly intervening.

<guffaw></guffaw>  Another good'n.

aMike

However, I fully believe that the U.S., Israel. Russia, China, Britain, etc. have had these weapons for decades and have shown restraint and we KNOW they will continue to show restraint if necessary. But Iran is an unknown factor! Given the radical, fanatical rhetoric that has been pouring out of Tehran for the last 25 years, we DO NOT KNOW if they are trustworthy with the BOMB and me or you or nobody can say for sure if they will be, and given the articles I posted I am convinced they are NOT trustworthy.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

If I may add to this, in a spirit of trying to be helpful, it's worth considering the technological as well as the political aspects. :-) Valdron is in a poor position to say

He's like some of the wackier Republican congressmen. Like that guy who had the cafetaria rename 'freedom fries.'

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]