The story is unfolding while we sit peacefully here in the USA.
Chuck has asked some poignant questions about what our government should do right now. Master Appeasement Artist John Kerry thinks we should open a dialogue and implement it with a trip to visit Iran. But that has been nixed by the Iranians.
Why? Maybe it's because the Iranian government is having more trouble with their citizens, than they want us to know about.
The Iranian government has clamped down on foreign journalists reporting on this series of events, but here is one video smuggled out of Iran that is certainly worthy of a look:
For more videos, take a look here at the others that are listed on the side of the page. Looks like it is bedlam, at least in some parts of the country.
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Monday, December 28, 2009
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Coming Full Circle: The Iranian Situation
As this blog watches and analyzes the events that are currently unfolding in Iran, one cannot help but see some things worth pointing out. It's worth noting that many times in someone's lifetime, history has an odd way of repeating itself and in ways that are quite telling and easy to read. But to be in tune with such things, some conditions must be met.
For one thing, a person must be able to grasp history. Reading is one way to learn about any event or era from the record books of time. But nothing beats the best way to understand such events, which is having lived through them up close and personal. Want to learn about the fall of the Berlin Wall? Ask someone who was alive and/or aware of his/her surroundings at the time.
In January 1978, there was a situation in Iran, not altogether unlike today.
Iranians were not happy. There was widespread corruption in the Shah's government, just as there is today. People generally mistrusted their leadership, they felt they were puppets being controlled by puppet masters and were losing patience with this arrangement. They felt like there was a death grip upon them.
Originally, the resistance was fueled more by nationalism and populism than for religious reasons. The Islamic part of the revolt was more the result of some slick opportunism on the part of Ayatollah Khomeini and his reactionary supporters. The Shah was seen as another extravagant monarch, who had sat upon a throne created for him by the "evil satanic forces" of the United States. There was a certain element of socialistic idealism being injected into the movement.
At the time, it took a lot of work to understand why Jimmy Carter was oblivious to the concerns of the Iranians. The near simultaneous scenarios that unfolded during his watch were not handled in a consistent manner.
Human rights was not an issue in Iran, as it was in Nicaragua. The U.S. needed Iran as an ally because it shared a border with the USSR, Nicaragua did not. Therefore, Carter overlooked the Shah's misdeeds committed in the reinforcement of his reign and Iranians resented it. At the same moment in time, the similar unrest was brewing (for similar reasons) in Somoza's regime and Carter actually catalyzed the revolution with his call for human rights.
Calling for greater freedoms in Nicaragua and at the same time supporting the Shah was not a particularly smart thing to do. The Iranians were not fools, they picked up on this quickly. They saw what was what, no one had to explain it to them.
So here we are today, in 2009. We have a similar spark igniting in modern-day Persia and the current President is sending similar mixed signals. Obama has postured himself to look weak, painted himself into a corner, and I think is making some major miscalculations in the process.
Because he has called for engagement of Iran and it's leaders without condition, he cannot take sides with the opposition, right now. The risk of this is minimal, unless this evolves into a situation where regime change does take place. At this point, the new regime would already feel alienated by the US. In a lot of ways, this isn't much different than 1979.
Obama's response to North Korea has been insufficient. They know it, and are pushing the envelope further. His affinity for Arab potentates has been overzealous. They know it, and are playing it for all they can. Now, we have this situation in Iran which on the verge of exploding, and where is Obama? On the fence, because he put himself there. Lack of firm responses will yield the same results every time and will encourage more foreign policy challenges.
Yes folks, this is the beginning of Jimmy Carter II (The Sequel). And you can see it all play out live, on a newscast screen near you. The summer of discontent is here, even the Iranians are having a tea party.
For all of you who are too young to remember the Carter years with his miserable leadership, you can now see it with your own eyes. Maybe those of you who thought we were just a bunch of "out of tune with reality" old people when we told you all of this, now you will learn history the hard way. But not to worry, think of the lessons you can now teach your kids someday, when they are wanting to elect an "out of touch" arrogant greenhorn.
For one thing, a person must be able to grasp history. Reading is one way to learn about any event or era from the record books of time. But nothing beats the best way to understand such events, which is having lived through them up close and personal. Want to learn about the fall of the Berlin Wall? Ask someone who was alive and/or aware of his/her surroundings at the time.
In January 1978, there was a situation in Iran, not altogether unlike today.
Iranians were not happy. There was widespread corruption in the Shah's government, just as there is today. People generally mistrusted their leadership, they felt they were puppets being controlled by puppet masters and were losing patience with this arrangement. They felt like there was a death grip upon them.
Originally, the resistance was fueled more by nationalism and populism than for religious reasons. The Islamic part of the revolt was more the result of some slick opportunism on the part of Ayatollah Khomeini and his reactionary supporters. The Shah was seen as another extravagant monarch, who had sat upon a throne created for him by the "evil satanic forces" of the United States. There was a certain element of socialistic idealism being injected into the movement.
At the time, it took a lot of work to understand why Jimmy Carter was oblivious to the concerns of the Iranians. The near simultaneous scenarios that unfolded during his watch were not handled in a consistent manner.
Human rights was not an issue in Iran, as it was in Nicaragua. The U.S. needed Iran as an ally because it shared a border with the USSR, Nicaragua did not. Therefore, Carter overlooked the Shah's misdeeds committed in the reinforcement of his reign and Iranians resented it. At the same moment in time, the similar unrest was brewing (for similar reasons) in Somoza's regime and Carter actually catalyzed the revolution with his call for human rights.
Calling for greater freedoms in Nicaragua and at the same time supporting the Shah was not a particularly smart thing to do. The Iranians were not fools, they picked up on this quickly. They saw what was what, no one had to explain it to them.
So here we are today, in 2009. We have a similar spark igniting in modern-day Persia and the current President is sending similar mixed signals. Obama has postured himself to look weak, painted himself into a corner, and I think is making some major miscalculations in the process.
Because he has called for engagement of Iran and it's leaders without condition, he cannot take sides with the opposition, right now. The risk of this is minimal, unless this evolves into a situation where regime change does take place. At this point, the new regime would already feel alienated by the US. In a lot of ways, this isn't much different than 1979.
Obama's response to North Korea has been insufficient. They know it, and are pushing the envelope further. His affinity for Arab potentates has been overzealous. They know it, and are playing it for all they can. Now, we have this situation in Iran which on the verge of exploding, and where is Obama? On the fence, because he put himself there. Lack of firm responses will yield the same results every time and will encourage more foreign policy challenges.
Yes folks, this is the beginning of Jimmy Carter II (The Sequel). And you can see it all play out live, on a newscast screen near you. The summer of discontent is here, even the Iranians are having a tea party.
For all of you who are too young to remember the Carter years with his miserable leadership, you can now see it with your own eyes. Maybe those of you who thought we were just a bunch of "out of tune with reality" old people when we told you all of this, now you will learn history the hard way. But not to worry, think of the lessons you can now teach your kids someday, when they are wanting to elect an "out of touch" arrogant greenhorn.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Question For A Sunday
Let's set the stage with this story.
Nothing new here, let's read on:
Now, the question becomes this:
Did the Iranian athlete pull out because of his deep sincere belief in the Palestinian cause or was he merely afraid to place behind the Israeli athlete, knowing the retribution he would face when he returned home?
An Iranian swimmer pulled out of the Olympic Games men's 100m breaststroke heats on Saturday, just minutes before he was due to compete against an Israeli rival.
Mohammad Alirezaei's lane one was empty when the field left the starting blocks while Israel's Tom Beeri, starting in lane seven, finished fourth.
Nothing new here, let's read on:
During the 2004 Athens Olympics, Iran's judo world champion Arash Miresmaeili, one of the country's prominent gold medal hopes, refused to compete against Ehud Vaks of Israel in the first round out of solidarity for the Palestinian cause.
Miresmaeili, twice a winner of the flyweight world title, still received a 5,000-dollar award the Iranian National Olympic Committee had promised to medal winners and he was hailed by former President Mohammad Khatami for his stance.
Now, the question becomes this:
Did the Iranian athlete pull out because of his deep sincere belief in the Palestinian cause or was he merely afraid to place behind the Israeli athlete, knowing the retribution he would face when he returned home?
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Iran's Generation Landslide
Generation Landslide was a 1973 Alice Cooper song that had some meaning for the era it was written. But today in Iran, it may have some real meaning.
Here's a WSJ article you may have missed along the way.
(Emphasis is mine)
It has been my firm belief for many years now, Iranians are the most forward thinking people in the Muslim world. However, the problems we are currently facing with Iran do not originate from the rank and file citizenry.
No folks, the actions that threaten world peace and and seek to oppress artistic and cultural freedom within its own borders, lie squarely on the shoulders of a backward thinking government. This is a government that reversed almost all of traditional Persian influences that go back much further, than the implementation of Islam as the official religion and certainly the current regime.
As the article claims, the demographics of current day Iran are dominated overwhelmingly by younger people. As many of us already know, they can get restless when they see inefficiency and hypocrisy. And today, we are seeing just that in the Iranian leadership. So if it is so plain to those of us on the outside, you know they see it and live it on the inside.
With this in mind, I can see why the youth of Iran will someday reverse the backward courses that the firmly entrenched Islamic mafia-like government has taken the nation (that once sported Zoroastrianism as a religion and a Hebrew queen). I can see why they turn to anything that is not buried in a violent ideology that is rooted in hate and oppression.
It's only a matter of time before these dinosaurs die off or get so old, they cannot hang onto power. It's only a matter of time before these youth are empowered enough to assert their wishes and desires upon the older generation that has created a model of death and despair. The only problem I see with exercising patience is the advent of a nuclear weapon in the hands of these aging dinosaurs, and whether they want to go out with a bang. A big bang.
Here's a WSJ article you may have missed along the way.
(Emphasis is mine)
When Hassan Bakhtiar couldn't find a job last year, his mother told him to pray and read the Quran.
Instead, the 25-year-old aerospace engineer dropped in on a packed appearance by Alireza Azmandian, Iran's most famous motivational speaker and self-help guru. Now, he meditates by staring at a flickering candle and chants Mr. Azmandian's inspirational catch phrases.
Religion doesn't offer me answers any more," Mr. Bakhtiar says, after listening to Mr. Azmandian at a public auditorium in a shabby neighborhood of South Tehran. But, he says, "this seminar changed my life."
The self-help craze -- long part of life in the Western world -- is taking the Islamic Republic by storm. Iran is one of the world's youngest nations, with 70% of its 65 million under the age of 30. There's widespread disenchantment among young people with Iran's strict theocratic regime, which requires headscarves for women and bans alcohol. And jobs are scarce.
It has been my firm belief for many years now, Iranians are the most forward thinking people in the Muslim world. However, the problems we are currently facing with Iran do not originate from the rank and file citizenry.
No folks, the actions that threaten world peace and and seek to oppress artistic and cultural freedom within its own borders, lie squarely on the shoulders of a backward thinking government. This is a government that reversed almost all of traditional Persian influences that go back much further, than the implementation of Islam as the official religion and certainly the current regime.
As the article claims, the demographics of current day Iran are dominated overwhelmingly by younger people. As many of us already know, they can get restless when they see inefficiency and hypocrisy. And today, we are seeing just that in the Iranian leadership. So if it is so plain to those of us on the outside, you know they see it and live it on the inside.
With this in mind, I can see why the youth of Iran will someday reverse the backward courses that the firmly entrenched Islamic mafia-like government has taken the nation (that once sported Zoroastrianism as a religion and a Hebrew queen). I can see why they turn to anything that is not buried in a violent ideology that is rooted in hate and oppression.
It's only a matter of time before these dinosaurs die off or get so old, they cannot hang onto power. It's only a matter of time before these youth are empowered enough to assert their wishes and desires upon the older generation that has created a model of death and despair. The only problem I see with exercising patience is the advent of a nuclear weapon in the hands of these aging dinosaurs, and whether they want to go out with a bang. A big bang.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
The Arrogance Of Appeasement
One does not need to focus purely on Europe's woes during the 20th Century to see how appeasement in the face of threatened aggression, often fails. All we need to do is go back throughout the entire written history of the world and we will find examples of how civilizations and cultures clashed; and how certain ones used spoken threatening rhetoric, to bully and intimidate others.
Despite the fact that many in the past have unsuccessfully tried to appease their richer and more powerful adversaries, there have been many times when the more powerful ones imposed their wills on the weaker, anyway. Today, we have Iran threatening Israel. And today, we have a certain sector of the world population that firmly believe talking to the bully will prevent the bully from making good on their threats. Barack Obama believes it. He wants to sit down with the Iranian government and engage them in a conversation.
If Barack Obama were to be elected, what would he offer to Iran? What would be the objective of his talks? What realistic goal could be achieved by having a dialogue with an entity that has forced the conversation, with threats? We have seen this scenario before, and this modern version of past events isn't looking to be any different.
I can understand how many Europeans that still remember the wasteland made of their continent as a result of war, want to avoid it at all costs. I do not agree with it, but I understand it.
Despite this, let me pose even more pointed question for thought and consideration. What makes this generation so smug and so arrogant to think that this situation and these times we live in are so very different, from any other situation like this in history?
Despite the fact that many in the past have unsuccessfully tried to appease their richer and more powerful adversaries, there have been many times when the more powerful ones imposed their wills on the weaker, anyway. Today, we have Iran threatening Israel. And today, we have a certain sector of the world population that firmly believe talking to the bully will prevent the bully from making good on their threats. Barack Obama believes it. He wants to sit down with the Iranian government and engage them in a conversation.
If Barack Obama were to be elected, what would he offer to Iran? What would be the objective of his talks? What realistic goal could be achieved by having a dialogue with an entity that has forced the conversation, with threats? We have seen this scenario before, and this modern version of past events isn't looking to be any different.
I can understand how many Europeans that still remember the wasteland made of their continent as a result of war, want to avoid it at all costs. I do not agree with it, but I understand it.
Despite this, let me pose even more pointed question for thought and consideration. What makes this generation so smug and so arrogant to think that this situation and these times we live in are so very different, from any other situation like this in history?
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Deliberate Acts, Deliberate Purposes
As many of you may already know, there was a stand down situation in the Strait of Hormuz over the weekend.
To see the video, is a bit nerve-racking because of the intensity of the situation. So many emotions, so little time to process them and the event unfolding. The need to make the correct decision or risk disastrous consequences has a way of elevating one's sense of awareness or blood pressure, depending on the personality-type. This has to be the case here.
The objective behind this deliberately provocative act is still not known. But here are a few things to consider:
Although it's easy to second guess as to why the Navy didn't fire, it's not easy an easy thing to problem to solve. One has to consider the ramifications of such an act in a few seconds. The Commanding Officer of the group must not only consider the presence of explosives that could explode when within range of the Iranian boats, he must also consider the kind of explosives.
There is a distinct possibility the speed boats could be loaded with nuclear material that could have devastating consequences, if they were hit by Navy fire.
One thing we know is the act was purposeful and very likely directed by the Iranian government. It could have caused a big international incident, one that would have likely been discussed in UN focus groups for weeks to come, with no real solutions.
If the incident was designed to be a dry run, there will need to be some after action briefings producing a clear-cut policy on how to handle the next one, which could be the one that really sends the region into chaos, if not handled properly. Whatever the reasons behind the Iranians' display of poor judgment, there has yet to be one candidate address this. If there has been, I haven't heard them.
The next President will need to show the American people he/she can handle the kind of pressure incidents like these. I think it's a fair question to ask when evaluating the vote that we will all cast, in November.
To see the video, is a bit nerve-racking because of the intensity of the situation. So many emotions, so little time to process them and the event unfolding. The need to make the correct decision or risk disastrous consequences has a way of elevating one's sense of awareness or blood pressure, depending on the personality-type. This has to be the case here.
The objective behind this deliberately provocative act is still not known. But here are a few things to consider:
Although it's easy to second guess as to why the Navy didn't fire, it's not easy an easy thing to problem to solve. One has to consider the ramifications of such an act in a few seconds. The Commanding Officer of the group must not only consider the presence of explosives that could explode when within range of the Iranian boats, he must also consider the kind of explosives.
There is a distinct possibility the speed boats could be loaded with nuclear material that could have devastating consequences, if they were hit by Navy fire.
One thing we know is the act was purposeful and very likely directed by the Iranian government. It could have caused a big international incident, one that would have likely been discussed in UN focus groups for weeks to come, with no real solutions.
If the incident was designed to be a dry run, there will need to be some after action briefings producing a clear-cut policy on how to handle the next one, which could be the one that really sends the region into chaos, if not handled properly. Whatever the reasons behind the Iranians' display of poor judgment, there has yet to be one candidate address this. If there has been, I haven't heard them.
The next President will need to show the American people he/she can handle the kind of pressure incidents like these. I think it's a fair question to ask when evaluating the vote that we will all cast, in November.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Will Russia Supply Iran With Air-Defense System?
The AP is reporting it will happen.
Putin has made it clear he opposes U.S. deployment of an air-missile defense shield in eastern Europe. For whatever reasons fathomable, the Russians simply do not want it.
Whether or not the Russian government is serious about doing this, whether or not the system could be as effective as touted, remains yet to be seen. But, one thing we cannot rule out here is Russia may be using this as a bargaining chip for us to re-think our stance on the European deal (like the deal in the 60s that was produced from the Cuban Missile Crisis).
Russia is preparing to equip Iran with a powerful new air defense system that would dramatically increase its ability to repel an attack, Iran's defense minister said Wednesday.
The S-300 anti-aircraft missile defense system is capable of shooting down aircraft, cruise missiles and ballistic missile warheads at ranges of over 90 miles and at altitudes of about 90,000 feet. Russian military officials boast that its capabilities outstrip the U.S. Patriot missile system.
Putin has made it clear he opposes U.S. deployment of an air-missile defense shield in eastern Europe. For whatever reasons fathomable, the Russians simply do not want it.
Whether or not the Russian government is serious about doing this, whether or not the system could be as effective as touted, remains yet to be seen. But, one thing we cannot rule out here is Russia may be using this as a bargaining chip for us to re-think our stance on the European deal (like the deal in the 60s that was produced from the Cuban Missile Crisis).
Sunday, December 09, 2007
PYY Sunday Reader
IBD Says Debate In Bali Shut Down
The UN is there to discuss global warming, but what about those that have data that contradicts UN data? Answer: It's disregarded. These global warming people have their minds made up and if you present evidence that shows otherwise, it's only going to make them dig in deeper. That's science, the UN way.
The Latest VDH Essay
As usual, he does not disappoint. He has such writing talent, coupled with great substance.
WSJ: The NIE Report Really Is Bush's Fault
But it's not like the HateBush.Com people think. For some fresh perspective, give this one a read.
The UN is there to discuss global warming, but what about those that have data that contradicts UN data? Answer: It's disregarded. These global warming people have their minds made up and if you present evidence that shows otherwise, it's only going to make them dig in deeper. That's science, the UN way.
The Latest VDH Essay
As usual, he does not disappoint. He has such writing talent, coupled with great substance.
WSJ: The NIE Report Really Is Bush's Fault
But it's not like the HateBush.Com people think. For some fresh perspective, give this one a read.
Friday, December 07, 2007
Reaction Mixed On The NIE Report
In regards to the recent NIE report that indicates Iran has suspended its nuclear program in 2003, it interesting to note reactions.
I have already linked to Fore Left's reaction:
Then, we have the Islamic Republic News Agency's response:
No story like this can be complete without HateBush.Com's countless different ways to say it's all Bush's fault, and how he lied. Here's one title of one post, there are many others like it (but this one is especially funny):
And now, there's John Bolton's response:
Two of these reactions are opinions put forth by people that have no agenda, rather they are thinkers that seek to put forth a possible explanation. The other two are political propaganda pieces that have a specific agenda.
Who you choose to believe indicates whether you have the ability to put forth your own theories or merely rely on scripted material that others think for you. It may very well be that the two thinkers here are wrong, but they may not be. The point is, one can fully expect the responses from the two propaganda pieces, they are similar to most responses they put out in response to events that have deeper meaning, than what normally appears on the surface. The other two are from careful thought processes, completely devoid of a predetermined desired outcome.
There are things we may never know about why this report now contradicts what has been the conventional wisdom, concerning Iran's nuclear program. I have some thoughts, but I don't always articulate them here. I have many possible scenarios that have run through my head of late, but I will save them for another day.
For now, you can buy into these reactions or you can come up with your own. But, I caution everyone not to buy into sources that have specific objectives of steering your thoughts into a ditch that has been dug and re-dug, many times over. Analytical thinking is a healthy thing, but robotic acceptance of thoughts that are intended for mind control, is anything but.
Update:
Here is a poll indicating the percentage of Americans that think Iran has stopped nuclear program. Evidently, not a lot of people aren't buying the report.
I have already linked to Fore Left's reaction:
...we saw one of the weirdest attacks in modern history over the eastern Syrian desert in the end of summer with Israeli jets and special forces crushing something out there. That we still don't know precisely what is itself high evidence it was something major, perhaps deal-altering. Perhaps one of the sticks in the carrot bag?
Then, we have the Islamic Republic News Agency's response:
Government spokesman Gholamhossein Elham said on Wednesday that the report released by US National Intelligence Estimates (NIE) put an end to the dispute over Iranian nuclear program.
He told reporters on the sidelines of Conference of Judiciary Chiefs of the Islamic Countries that it is a confession on the part of the US administration that they wasted the time of the international community for political objectives by bringing up unfounded allegations against Iranian nuclear program.
No story like this can be complete without HateBush.Com's countless different ways to say it's all Bush's fault, and how he lied. Here's one title of one post, there are many others like it (but this one is especially funny):
White House Reveals Bush Lied: Was Told In August Iran’s Nuclear Program ‘May Be Suspended’
And now, there's John Bolton's response:
All this shows that we not only have a problem interpreting what the mullahs in Tehran are up to, but also a more fundamental problem: Too much of the intelligence community is engaging in policy formulation rather than "intelligence" analysis, and too many in Congress and the media are happy about it. President Bush may not be able to repair his Iran policy (which was not rigorous enough to begin with) in his last year, but he would leave a lasting legacy by returning the intelligence world to its proper function.
Two of these reactions are opinions put forth by people that have no agenda, rather they are thinkers that seek to put forth a possible explanation. The other two are political propaganda pieces that have a specific agenda.
Who you choose to believe indicates whether you have the ability to put forth your own theories or merely rely on scripted material that others think for you. It may very well be that the two thinkers here are wrong, but they may not be. The point is, one can fully expect the responses from the two propaganda pieces, they are similar to most responses they put out in response to events that have deeper meaning, than what normally appears on the surface. The other two are from careful thought processes, completely devoid of a predetermined desired outcome.
There are things we may never know about why this report now contradicts what has been the conventional wisdom, concerning Iran's nuclear program. I have some thoughts, but I don't always articulate them here. I have many possible scenarios that have run through my head of late, but I will save them for another day.
For now, you can buy into these reactions or you can come up with your own. But, I caution everyone not to buy into sources that have specific objectives of steering your thoughts into a ditch that has been dug and re-dug, many times over. Analytical thinking is a healthy thing, but robotic acceptance of thoughts that are intended for mind control, is anything but.
Update:
Here is a poll indicating the percentage of Americans that think Iran has stopped nuclear program. Evidently, not a lot of people aren't buying the report.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Iran Proposes Alternative To Annapolis
In a move that is not at all surprising, the Iranian government has proposed an alternate meeting.
From this opening statement in this very short article, most intelligent people can effectively surmise that the meeting Iran is proposing will not have peace as a long-term objective.
Translation: These groups are planning to come to Tehran within the next week or two and they are all the Palestinian groups that are struggling to destroy Israel.
In other words:
The strip of land in question (which was once barren and fruitless before 1948) belongs to the Palestinian people and there is no process or deal that is acceptable, short of all Jews vacating it permanently, so that the Palestinian militant groups can turn it back into a barren and fruitless war zone, once again.
As much as I would like to applaud the efforts of the Annapolis conference, I cannot get very optimistic. As long as the current government in Iran is in power, there will be no peace in the Middle East. Pledging millions of dollars in 2006 is nothing new. Ask them about the billions that have been pumped into Hezbollah and others, since the regime was installed in 1979.
As long as oil is a necessary commodity throughout the world, these people will have funding for terror operations. As long as states such as Iran and Saudi Arabia use their huge oil revenues to finance this hatred, it will not go away anytime soon.
Iran said on Tuesday that it had invited Palestinian militant factions to a meeting in Tehran aimed at countering a US-hosted Middle East peace conference seeking to kickstart the peace process.
From this opening statement in this very short article, most intelligent people can effectively surmise that the meeting Iran is proposing will not have peace as a long-term objective.
"These groups are planning to come to Tehran within the next week or two and they are all the Palestinian groups that are struggling for the freedom of their land," government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham told reporters.
Translation: These groups are planning to come to Tehran within the next week or two and they are all the Palestinian groups that are struggling to destroy Israel.
In other words:
The strip of land in question (which was once barren and fruitless before 1948) belongs to the Palestinian people and there is no process or deal that is acceptable, short of all Jews vacating it permanently, so that the Palestinian militant groups can turn it back into a barren and fruitless war zone, once again.
Iran is one of the most vocal backers of Palestinian militant groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad and pledged millions of dollars in 2006 to the then Hamas government crippled by a Western aid cut.
The Islamic republic does not recognise Israel and its President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has provoked outrage by calling for the Jewish state to be wiped off the map.
As much as I would like to applaud the efforts of the Annapolis conference, I cannot get very optimistic. As long as the current government in Iran is in power, there will be no peace in the Middle East. Pledging millions of dollars in 2006 is nothing new. Ask them about the billions that have been pumped into Hezbollah and others, since the regime was installed in 1979.
As long as oil is a necessary commodity throughout the world, these people will have funding for terror operations. As long as states such as Iran and Saudi Arabia use their huge oil revenues to finance this hatred, it will not go away anytime soon.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Who Wants An Iranian Nuke?
VDH answers this question in his latest column.
Take time to read it and you'll see why I think he is one the premier op-ed writers in America. He has a way of laying it all out on the table.
Take time to read it and you'll see why I think he is one the premier op-ed writers in America. He has a way of laying it all out on the table.
Monday, October 08, 2007
Beating The War Drums
Look on any left-wing website and you may not have much trouble reading articles, posts, and/or comments about neo-cons beating the war drums on Iran. One such article can be found here.
The debate even makes its way into Congress, on occasion. But, is it fair to characterize this as a neo-con attitude? Is it fair to pin this entirely on the "war-mongering" GOP?
If we read this article, we see that Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State under President Clinton, is doing her share of banging the skins, so to speak.
It can even be said that Hillary is using drumsticks, as we can see from her website:
Dems seem to be positioning themselves for what may be the inevitable. If they win back the White House, they may be forced to face a stark reality here, which is why I think they are taking similar positions that many in the GOP have been and are taking. In all of this, I haven't heard anything different from the Administration.
Where the difference lies will be in identifying the cause. Note this tidbit, also from Sen. Clinton's site:
Blame who you want, call it what you want. It is what it is. And it's not going away.
But, if you think that we are all in the current state we are in, solely because of the Bush policies in Iraq, you might want to re-think that thought. Iran has been working on this kind of thing long before Iraq was ever invaded. Their goal, since the fall of the Shah, is to export Islamic revolution everywhere possible, using any means possible.
I do not support war at this time. But how can war be avoided, if sanctions aren't implemented and given an adequate amount of time to have an effect? Those that scream the loudest about the irrational nature of beating the war drums, need to recognize that waiting longer to implement them, only makes war more likely. The time to sanction Iran is before they get a bomb, not after.
The debate even makes its way into Congress, on occasion. But, is it fair to characterize this as a neo-con attitude? Is it fair to pin this entirely on the "war-mongering" GOP?
If we read this article, we see that Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State under President Clinton, is doing her share of banging the skins, so to speak.
Former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright does not rule out a war against Iran in the nuclear dispute between Tehran and the international community.
'This last resort can never be given up completely,' the Czech-born Albright who also served as US ambassador to the United Nations, told Prague-based CT1 television.
It can even be said that Hillary is using drumsticks, as we can see from her website:
As I have long said and will continue to say, U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. And in dealing with this threat, as I've also said for a long time, no option can be taken off the table.
Dems seem to be positioning themselves for what may be the inevitable. If they win back the White House, they may be forced to face a stark reality here, which is why I think they are taking similar positions that many in the GOP have been and are taking. In all of this, I haven't heard anything different from the Administration.
Where the difference lies will be in identifying the cause. Note this tidbit, also from Sen. Clinton's site:
In dealing with the threats posed by the Iranian regime, which has gained its expanding influence in Iraq and the region as a result of the Administration's policies....
Blame who you want, call it what you want. It is what it is. And it's not going away.
But, if you think that we are all in the current state we are in, solely because of the Bush policies in Iraq, you might want to re-think that thought. Iran has been working on this kind of thing long before Iraq was ever invaded. Their goal, since the fall of the Shah, is to export Islamic revolution everywhere possible, using any means possible.
I do not support war at this time. But how can war be avoided, if sanctions aren't implemented and given an adequate amount of time to have an effect? Those that scream the loudest about the irrational nature of beating the war drums, need to recognize that waiting longer to implement them, only makes war more likely. The time to sanction Iran is before they get a bomb, not after.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Sarkozy Still Getting It
Some have said I needed to reconsider my view on President Sarkozy, because of some things I wrote in a recent post. That was then, just after Kouchner made his now famous statement that many were irritated over. But fast forward to today, and we still see Sarkozy stating what many have been saying now for a long time.
By all appearances, it seems like he knows that this must be looked at this, realistically. And the reality here is, Iran must be stopped from getting a nuclear weapon. He knows that it makes no sense whatsoever to continue to sit idly by, while the time is being well-used by the Iranians to advance the research process. He knows the stakes are high.
Lately, there has been much written about this, new, brave, and bold vision of Le Presidente. Earlier, we had this story about Sarkozy's grand ambitions to invoke and bring about a new era of change for France. Before that, we had his post election comments, which sound resoundingly like those he has been making of late. We heard his clearly toned statements then, we here them now.
I could go on posting links to articles on this, but what's the use?
Like here in the States, politics being the beast that it is, he will continue to be demonized by many. Right now, the apologists are waging their war of words campaign to discredit the President, by making him Bush's pit bull. I am sure the mainstream French press hammers him daily. I am sure that many are calling him a warmonger.
Yet, he still continues to hammer back. And although I can find nothing that would indicate he wants war, he is still keeping up the pressure. You cannot warn the world of something, unless you spell out what that "something" entails. He seems to know that by backing down now (like Chirac would have), there could be no real viable solution to this problem.
Looking at this man's first few months in office, he certainly has made a shift in policy and has made good on what he said he'd do. With all of this, I wonder if this guy might just turn out to be France's Ronald Reagan, before it's all said and done.
By all appearances, it seems like he knows that this must be looked at this, realistically. And the reality here is, Iran must be stopped from getting a nuclear weapon. He knows that it makes no sense whatsoever to continue to sit idly by, while the time is being well-used by the Iranians to advance the research process. He knows the stakes are high.
Lately, there has been much written about this, new, brave, and bold vision of Le Presidente. Earlier, we had this story about Sarkozy's grand ambitions to invoke and bring about a new era of change for France. Before that, we had his post election comments, which sound resoundingly like those he has been making of late. We heard his clearly toned statements then, we here them now.
I could go on posting links to articles on this, but what's the use?
Like here in the States, politics being the beast that it is, he will continue to be demonized by many. Right now, the apologists are waging their war of words campaign to discredit the President, by making him Bush's pit bull. I am sure the mainstream French press hammers him daily. I am sure that many are calling him a warmonger.
Yet, he still continues to hammer back. And although I can find nothing that would indicate he wants war, he is still keeping up the pressure. You cannot warn the world of something, unless you spell out what that "something" entails. He seems to know that by backing down now (like Chirac would have), there could be no real viable solution to this problem.
Looking at this man's first few months in office, he certainly has made a shift in policy and has made good on what he said he'd do. With all of this, I wonder if this guy might just turn out to be France's Ronald Reagan, before it's all said and done.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Iranian President's Big Day In America
Many aren't happy he's here and plan to communicate it.
But, as you may guess, he has his big day planned for a day when most people have to work. So the only ones that can turn out in force are students or those that do not have to make a living. Because of this I do not think the crowds will be as large, had he turned up on, say, a Saturday.
But if his very presence isn't enough to anger decent people, here we have a dean at a prestigious university defending their invitation to have him speak:
Imagine how Jewish students must feel about this.
At Columbia, the military is not welcome, the minutemen are not welcome. But the head of a terrorist state is welcome and now apparently, Hitler would be, if he were still alive.
That's the hypocrisy of the Elitist Left.
Critics of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad started protesting even before the hardline leader made his scheduled arrival in New York for planned speeches at a high-profile university and the United Nations that have aroused a storm of opposition.
But, as you may guess, he has his big day planned for a day when most people have to work. So the only ones that can turn out in force are students or those that do not have to make a living. Because of this I do not think the crowds will be as large, had he turned up on, say, a Saturday.
But if his very presence isn't enough to anger decent people, here we have a dean at a prestigious university defending their invitation to have him speak:
Imagine how Jewish students must feel about this.
At Columbia, the military is not welcome, the minutemen are not welcome. But the head of a terrorist state is welcome and now apparently, Hitler would be, if he were still alive.
That's the hypocrisy of the Elitist Left.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Political Tennis: Showdown With Ahmadinejad
This one doesn't involve weapons, it involves a test of wills. Iranian President Ahmadinejad has announced plans to visit Ground Zero, during his upcoming visit to New York.
At first, Mayor Bloomberg entertained the idea.
Then, they thought better of it.
That should be the end of it, right? Well, think again.
Now, the Iranian President apparently has announced that he intends to visit it anyway.
Now, its the NY officials' turn to reply. What will they reply with? Stay tuned.
UPDATE:
Well, now it appears he will back down and not visit. He even seems surprised that Americans would be insulted from his proposed visit. You have to laugh, otherwise you'd cry.
At first, Mayor Bloomberg entertained the idea.
Then, they thought better of it.
That should be the end of it, right? Well, think again.
Now, the Iranian President apparently has announced that he intends to visit it anyway.
Now, its the NY officials' turn to reply. What will they reply with? Stay tuned.
UPDATE:
Well, now it appears he will back down and not visit. He even seems surprised that Americans would be insulted from his proposed visit. You have to laugh, otherwise you'd cry.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Times: Israel Hit Syrian Nuclear Cache
Thursday, I posted a piece on the recent raid conducted which reportedly resulted in a Syrian target being destroyed. Friday, I posted an update on that post, with some sketchy speculation.
Now, there is more information being released, discovered, or has somehow come to light that gives us something more to chew on, while we try to understand this better.
It's easy to speculate from where I sit without having the resources that the London Times has access to. The article seems to do a good job of presenting what they have learned, up to this point. And I do not find it to be unreasonable in its assumptions. But in this kind of thing, one can never be 100% sure, if the picture we see is 100% clear.
Having worked for government before, I have had several incidents occur that I had first hand knowledge of. Yet when I read the account in the newspaper, it looked nothing like it happened. In some areas, it was similar but not exact. So one must always view what they read, with a critical eye.
The general consensus seems to be that there was in fact, nuclear material involved, very possibly from North Korea. The purpose of that material seems to be very much in question. But the two entities that can settle the speculation, Syria and Israel, are remaining very tight-lipped. This is forcing media outlets to dig and piece together information slowly.
Check the article out, if you haven't already. The one thing that you can put together after reading this is: Whatever the reason those materials were there, it was for no peaceful purpose.
Now, there is more information being released, discovered, or has somehow come to light that gives us something more to chew on, while we try to understand this better.
It's easy to speculate from where I sit without having the resources that the London Times has access to. The article seems to do a good job of presenting what they have learned, up to this point. And I do not find it to be unreasonable in its assumptions. But in this kind of thing, one can never be 100% sure, if the picture we see is 100% clear.
Having worked for government before, I have had several incidents occur that I had first hand knowledge of. Yet when I read the account in the newspaper, it looked nothing like it happened. In some areas, it was similar but not exact. So one must always view what they read, with a critical eye.
The general consensus seems to be that there was in fact, nuclear material involved, very possibly from North Korea. The purpose of that material seems to be very much in question. But the two entities that can settle the speculation, Syria and Israel, are remaining very tight-lipped. This is forcing media outlets to dig and piece together information slowly.
Check the article out, if you haven't already. The one thing that you can put together after reading this is: Whatever the reason those materials were there, it was for no peaceful purpose.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Did Israelis Hit Syrian Nuke Site?
For those that thought Israel was being a good puppet of the U.S. empire and emulating its imperialistic friend, you may want to think again.
The NYT is reporting that Israeli forces did, in fact, hit specific targets in their recent air raid.
Looking at this with an analytical eye, we can see why the possibility of this is reasonable to consider. North Korea (NK) is trying to get back into the good graces of the world community after drawing ire from reasonable people, everywhere. They have announced that they will shut down their program. Why would that be so?
Maybe, because they have what they want, now?
With the bulk of the R&D completed, the rush to get into compliance may be precipitating a fire sale. Dumping these excess materials to someone that desperately wants to have them, would not only help them get ready for inspection, they would yield some cash for restocking Kim Jong Il's cognac inventory. When money gets tight, I guess one has to sacrifice a little luxury.
No, I am confident that Israel had a good reason to hit the targets that no one wants to talk about. They are not about bragging, they are about protecting its citizens.
But back to the issue at hand.
NK had a reaction, let's look at part of that reaction:
I cannot help but wonder if they haven't been paid for the materials yet and are trying to politically caress the Syrians here. But yet, it's been known that NK, Iran, and Syria have been missile trading partners, for awhile now. So in essence, I fail to see the big surprise. This alliance isn't new at all and it has been watched.
But watching can only take you so far. When something is seen that threatens the safety and security of a nation, it is at that point, the watching has to stop and the acting has to begin. Evidently, Israel has made its transition from observer to participant. Watching them install whatever they were apparently installing, seemed to concern them enough to act. This is something we sorely need to look at in rest of the Western world, or we may catch fire while watching.
The choice is ours.
ADDENDUM:
VDH has a new essay and as usual, he hits the ball right out of the park. It somewhat pertains to this post's topic (or it will when the world's condemnation machine for Israel gets cranked up, over this affair).
The NYT is reporting that Israeli forces did, in fact, hit specific targets in their recent air raid.
After days of silence from the Israeli government, American officials confirmed Tuesday that Israeli warplanes launched airstrikes inside Syria last week, the first such attack since 2003. Syria has lodged a protest at the United Nations in response to the airstrike, accusing Israel of “flagrant violation” of its airspace. But Israel’s government has repeatedly declined to comment on the matter.
Looking at this with an analytical eye, we can see why the possibility of this is reasonable to consider. North Korea (NK) is trying to get back into the good graces of the world community after drawing ire from reasonable people, everywhere. They have announced that they will shut down their program. Why would that be so?
Maybe, because they have what they want, now?
With the bulk of the R&D completed, the rush to get into compliance may be precipitating a fire sale. Dumping these excess materials to someone that desperately wants to have them, would not only help them get ready for inspection, they would yield some cash for restocking Kim Jong Il's cognac inventory. When money gets tight, I guess one has to sacrifice a little luxury.
No, I am confident that Israel had a good reason to hit the targets that no one wants to talk about. They are not about bragging, they are about protecting its citizens.
But back to the issue at hand.
NK had a reaction, let's look at part of that reaction:
North Korea lashed out Tuesday at Israel for invading Syrian airspace last Thursday, its official news agency said.
"This is a very dangerous provocation little short of wantonly violating the sovereignty of Syria and seriously harassing the regional peace and security," a spokesman for the DPRK Foreign Ministry was quoted as saying by the Korean Central News Agency.
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea strongly denounces the above-said intrusion and extends full support and solidarity to the Syrian people in their just cause to defend the national security and the regional peace," he added.
I cannot help but wonder if they haven't been paid for the materials yet and are trying to politically caress the Syrians here. But yet, it's been known that NK, Iran, and Syria have been missile trading partners, for awhile now. So in essence, I fail to see the big surprise. This alliance isn't new at all and it has been watched.
But watching can only take you so far. When something is seen that threatens the safety and security of a nation, it is at that point, the watching has to stop and the acting has to begin. Evidently, Israel has made its transition from observer to participant. Watching them install whatever they were apparently installing, seemed to concern them enough to act. This is something we sorely need to look at in rest of the Western world, or we may catch fire while watching.
The choice is ours.
ADDENDUM:
VDH has a new essay and as usual, he hits the ball right out of the park. It somewhat pertains to this post's topic (or it will when the world's condemnation machine for Israel gets cranked up, over this affair).
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Sarkozy Gets It
French President Sarkozy is taking his position and stating it, rather clearly and it leaves nothing to the imagination. Look at what is being reported in the IHT.
I think he did well in saying this, because it needs to be said. (That is not to say that I think we should be in a hurry to do so.) And, I do agree with the assessment in the second paragraph.
The real beauty in this is not the fact that he said it. He said it, and he said it for a reason. But the real effectiveness is in what he didn't say. He's a skilled politician, no doubt he figured his statement would be featured for the next news cycle (or two). No doubt he knew the message would get to the Iranian leaders. I am positive he knows that others will get it, also.
He knows the Iranians need to hear it. Imagine how concerned they must be, knowing that they aren't dealing with Jacques Chirac and his policy of inconsistency, anymore.
You see, I think Sarkozy gets it, for a good many reasons. I think he understands that Iran's nuclear program is a threat. But more importantly, think he knows there's a real risk Hillary may very well get elected next year, putting the U.S. in a weaker position (and if she doesn't, the GOP could get someone elected that doesn't know squat, about foreign policy). Knowing this as he does, Sarkozy wants to be in a position to take the lead, should the next American President be capable of dropping the ball on this Iran issue. He knows it's that important.
He gets a lot of things that many Frenchmen do not give him credit for. He sends his Foreign Minister to Iraq to help, because he knows things have to get on track. (His FM gets it too.)
He knows that the instability is not good and he wants to help. He's not burying his head in the sand or wagging his finger in judgment about either the inefficiency of the effort (or the reasoning behind it). He knows that's not important now. What's important is the "here and now", as it pertains to the future. He understands the current reality in the international world and thankfully, his critics can be damned.
And wouldn't you know that after this statement was reported, Iran has made a move in the right direction?
Not a real strong move, but it's one that is minutely measurable. It may be just words, but you have to put all of this into proper perspective. Iran is used to saying it's not going to do anything, but now it is. That's no reason to celebrate, but we still have something to work with. We see an opportunity.
Not only does he show he understands Iran and Iraq, look at what he has to say about Russia:
Does anyone really think Chirac would have the courage to say something like this?
Before, Chirac didn't give a damn about anything, if it didn't have to do with embarrassing the United States. He wouldn't have openly helped us for anything, and for sure he didn't much. In fact, him and some of his countrymen actually love to take public pleasure in gloating about the stalemate that had become Iraq, prior to the surge. Now, France has someone that is in a position to help and is actually trying to get a feel for things, so that he may be able to assist in preserving Western freedoms that we all enjoy.
He takes a lot of heat from those that aren't fans of the U.S. and/or its policy. But despite that fact, he's still carving out his niche because he knows that if the U.S. fails in Iraq and Iran gains nuclear capabilities, France will not benefit. He knows it and he believes it.
I think he's read the old quote from FDR:
Don't think he has the same motives Chirac did. This is a very different man with a very different ideology and worldview. He knows that all of us that enjoy freedom must be able to work together, if we will be successful in creating a real peace. He may be liberal by American standards in many issues, but when it comes to the well-being and security of the free world, he's with us. He may disagree with specifics, but he gets the big picture. He's the man France needed. If America makes the wrong choice in 2008, he may turn out to be the man the world will need.
In his first major foreign policy speech as president of France, Nicolas Sarkozy said Monday that Iran could be attacked militarily if it did not live up to its international obligations to curb its nuclear program.
Addressing France's ambassadorial corps, Sarkozy stressed that such an outcome would be a disaster. He did not say that France would ever participate in military action against Iran or even tacitly support such an approach.
I think he did well in saying this, because it needs to be said. (That is not to say that I think we should be in a hurry to do so.) And, I do agree with the assessment in the second paragraph.
The real beauty in this is not the fact that he said it. He said it, and he said it for a reason. But the real effectiveness is in what he didn't say. He's a skilled politician, no doubt he figured his statement would be featured for the next news cycle (or two). No doubt he knew the message would get to the Iranian leaders. I am positive he knows that others will get it, also.
He knows the Iranians need to hear it. Imagine how concerned they must be, knowing that they aren't dealing with Jacques Chirac and his policy of inconsistency, anymore.
You see, I think Sarkozy gets it, for a good many reasons. I think he understands that Iran's nuclear program is a threat. But more importantly, think he knows there's a real risk Hillary may very well get elected next year, putting the U.S. in a weaker position (and if she doesn't, the GOP could get someone elected that doesn't know squat, about foreign policy). Knowing this as he does, Sarkozy wants to be in a position to take the lead, should the next American President be capable of dropping the ball on this Iran issue. He knows it's that important.
He gets a lot of things that many Frenchmen do not give him credit for. He sends his Foreign Minister to Iraq to help, because he knows things have to get on track. (His FM gets it too.)
He knows that the instability is not good and he wants to help. He's not burying his head in the sand or wagging his finger in judgment about either the inefficiency of the effort (or the reasoning behind it). He knows that's not important now. What's important is the "here and now", as it pertains to the future. He understands the current reality in the international world and thankfully, his critics can be damned.
And wouldn't you know that after this statement was reported, Iran has made a move in the right direction?
Not a real strong move, but it's one that is minutely measurable. It may be just words, but you have to put all of this into proper perspective. Iran is used to saying it's not going to do anything, but now it is. That's no reason to celebrate, but we still have something to work with. We see an opportunity.
Not only does he show he understands Iran and Iraq, look at what he has to say about Russia:
In another break with the Chirac regime, Mr Sarkozy hardened his tone against Vladimir Putin, saying Russia was using its oil and gas wealth with "brutality".
Does anyone really think Chirac would have the courage to say something like this?
Before, Chirac didn't give a damn about anything, if it didn't have to do with embarrassing the United States. He wouldn't have openly helped us for anything, and for sure he didn't much. In fact, him and some of his countrymen actually love to take public pleasure in gloating about the stalemate that had become Iraq, prior to the surge. Now, France has someone that is in a position to help and is actually trying to get a feel for things, so that he may be able to assist in preserving Western freedoms that we all enjoy.
He takes a lot of heat from those that aren't fans of the U.S. and/or its policy. But despite that fact, he's still carving out his niche because he knows that if the U.S. fails in Iraq and Iran gains nuclear capabilities, France will not benefit. He knows it and he believes it.
I think he's read the old quote from FDR:
“Do what you feel in your heart to be right - for you'll be criticized anyway.”
Don't think he has the same motives Chirac did. This is a very different man with a very different ideology and worldview. He knows that all of us that enjoy freedom must be able to work together, if we will be successful in creating a real peace. He may be liberal by American standards in many issues, but when it comes to the well-being and security of the free world, he's with us. He may disagree with specifics, but he gets the big picture. He's the man France needed. If America makes the wrong choice in 2008, he may turn out to be the man the world will need.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Iranian Unrest May Lead To Uncertainty
CNN has details of the unrest in Iran, over the government's decision to ration gas to the people.
How ironic it is that Iran (an oil producing state) would feel the need to both ration and raise the price of gasoline? But wait, it gets better.
42 cents a gallon and they are complaining? Tough times, I guess. It's hard to feel much empathy, but I'll try.
On second thought, maybe I won't. But what can we expect when a government takes revenues from oil sales and put it into enriching uranium, funding terrorist organizations, and fighting proxy wars to both weaken and subvert the causes of the United States?
Almost sounds like a previous era, doesn't it?
The U.S. ans E.U. playing their cards right in this one is most important, just as it was back in the days of the Cold War. Circumstances are such that conditions are ripening, for further unrest in the republic, if it fails to correct its current course. The more they concern themselves with sanctions, the more the government will need to stick it to the people.
It is also important remember in all of this, the Iranian government must be the one to take the fall for this. To date, there have been no sanctions and realistically, there may never be any. But the very thought of the possibility, is making the Iranian government very nervous. In fact, they are so nervous, they are willing to risk igniting a firestorm (pun intended), just to save fuel for the eminent possibility of getting the squeeze put on them later. (Again, nothing has been decided, yet.)
The Iranian economy is in shambles for the most part. And the fact that they have become dependent on their automobiles, doesn't help their situation much either. Iranians are smart. If this keeps up, they are going to get even smarter and realize that with all of the oil they supposedly have, they should be able to refine their own fuel and not depend. But,when getting a nuke is more important than keeping the promises that the Iranian President made during his campaign, I predict it isn't going to set very well.
Basically, what I am saying here is simple. There may be more where this came from, if the Iranian government doesn't end their obsession with throwing the entire region into chaos, with their foreign policies (that primarily focus on supporting the destruction of Israel). When you see a nation obsessed with things outside its borders and cannot even meet the needs of the people within, you will see an eventual collapse of the entire system. So in all of my musings I must say without hesitation, the challenge is to facilitate this before they get the bomb, not after.
The Iranian government's last-minute decision to ration monthly fuel allotments, as well as increase the price of gas, triggered protests and riots -- a rarity in the Islamic republic -- according to Iranian media reports.
How ironic it is that Iran (an oil producing state) would feel the need to both ration and raise the price of gasoline? But wait, it gets better.
Under the order, most Iranians will be limited to about 26 U.S. gallons (100 liters) per month. The ministry also announced the price would be raised by more than 20 percent to 11 cents per liter (about 42 cents a gallon).
42 cents a gallon and they are complaining? Tough times, I guess. It's hard to feel much empathy, but I'll try.
On second thought, maybe I won't. But what can we expect when a government takes revenues from oil sales and put it into enriching uranium, funding terrorist organizations, and fighting proxy wars to both weaken and subvert the causes of the United States?
Almost sounds like a previous era, doesn't it?
The U.S. ans E.U. playing their cards right in this one is most important, just as it was back in the days of the Cold War. Circumstances are such that conditions are ripening, for further unrest in the republic, if it fails to correct its current course. The more they concern themselves with sanctions, the more the government will need to stick it to the people.
It is also important remember in all of this, the Iranian government must be the one to take the fall for this. To date, there have been no sanctions and realistically, there may never be any. But the very thought of the possibility, is making the Iranian government very nervous. In fact, they are so nervous, they are willing to risk igniting a firestorm (pun intended), just to save fuel for the eminent possibility of getting the squeeze put on them later. (Again, nothing has been decided, yet.)
The Iranian economy is in shambles for the most part. And the fact that they have become dependent on their automobiles, doesn't help their situation much either. Iranians are smart. If this keeps up, they are going to get even smarter and realize that with all of the oil they supposedly have, they should be able to refine their own fuel and not depend. But,when getting a nuke is more important than keeping the promises that the Iranian President made during his campaign, I predict it isn't going to set very well.
Basically, what I am saying here is simple. There may be more where this came from, if the Iranian government doesn't end their obsession with throwing the entire region into chaos, with their foreign policies (that primarily focus on supporting the destruction of Israel). When you see a nation obsessed with things outside its borders and cannot even meet the needs of the people within, you will see an eventual collapse of the entire system. So in all of my musings I must say without hesitation, the challenge is to facilitate this before they get the bomb, not after.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
President Sarkozy Sounding Like He Means Business
It's been no real secret how I felt about former President Jacques Chirac. (See: Here and here , if you are new or unsure.) Imagine now just how I feel about the new French President, who realizes the seriousness of the Iran nuclear situation and is willing to make his views emphatically known.
From the Jerusalem Post comes an article, which gives us all a strong indication of just how serious he considers Iran's program to be:
Now, contrast that with the flip-flopping, waffling, and downright obstinate nature of the former French leader and you'll see just why I was so hard on past French policy. From the IHT comes this article which demonstrates clearly, just how utterly incompetent Chirac really was in the world arena:
What M. Chirac failed to understand is quite simple, if you put in terms of how to best deal with a child. If you send mixed signals to a child, you risk having no consistency and therefore, setting clear-cut boundaries will be next to impossible to enforce.
Later, from the same article we see what I mean here:
Even later in the same article:
When quizzed further about this last remark here's what he had to say:
Are you dizzy yet? I know I am.
Thankfully, we now know where the French leadership stands on this issue. I know I couldn't take much more of the Chirac Open Tennis Tournament, without risking serious damage to my neck muscles.
From the Jerusalem Post comes an article, which gives us all a strong indication of just how serious he considers Iran's program to be:
French President Nicholas Sarkozy called Wednesday for sanctions on Iran to be tightened if the country does not adhere to the West's demands to cease its nuclear agenda.
If Iran attains nuclear weapons, Sarkozy warned, a road to an arms race will be paved that could endanger Israel and southeast Europe, he said during an interview with a German magazine.
Now, contrast that with the flip-flopping, waffling, and downright obstinate nature of the former French leader and you'll see just why I was so hard on past French policy. From the IHT comes this article which demonstrates clearly, just how utterly incompetent Chirac really was in the world arena:
President Jacques Chirac said in an interview that an Iran that possessed one or two nuclear weapons would not pose much of a danger, adding that if Iran were ever to launch a nuclear weapon against a country like Israel, it would lead to the immediate destruction of Tehran.
What M. Chirac failed to understand is quite simple, if you put in terms of how to best deal with a child. If you send mixed signals to a child, you risk having no consistency and therefore, setting clear-cut boundaries will be next to impossible to enforce.
Later, from the same article we see what I mean here:
Chirac said repeatedly during the second interview that he had spoken casually and quickly the day before because he had believed he was talking about Iran off the record. Finally, he admitted that he had made a mistake. "It is I who was wrong and I do not want to contest it," he said. "I should have paid better attention to what I was saying and understood that perhaps I was on the record."
Even later in the same article:
Chirac explained that it would be an act of self-destruction for Iran to use a nuclear weapon against another country. "Where will it drop it, this bomb? On Israel?" Chirac asked. "It would not have gone off 200 meters into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed to the ground."
When quizzed further about this last remark here's what he had to say:
In the second interview, Chirac retracted his comment that Tehran would be destroyed if Iran launched a nuclear weapon. "I take it back of course when I said, 'One is going to raze Tehran,'" he said. "It was of course a manner of speaking."
Are you dizzy yet? I know I am.
Thankfully, we now know where the French leadership stands on this issue. I know I couldn't take much more of the Chirac Open Tennis Tournament, without risking serious damage to my neck muscles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)