Iran Says Isreal Close to Destruction
Just days after Iran announced that they had joinied "countries with nuclear technology", they have turned up the war rhetoric saying that Isreal is "heading toward annihilation".
What is particularly confusing is that today, Xinhua News reports the following....
"Nuclear weapons were ineffective, and Iran was not going to make them and did 'not even set this goal,' Manouchehr Mohammadi, the visiting Iranian deputy foreign minister, was quoted by the Itar-Tass news agency as saying."
It makes you wonder if these guys even talk. I know he is only a deputy foreign minister, but does he just get to go out there and say whatever he wants? I doubt it. He has to be briefed on what to say.
If so, this must be intentional. They are sending mixed rhetoric.
And I smell a trap.
As Hugh Hewitt points out, the last mistake the world made was appeasement.
He is correct in this assesment. However, one of the great mistakes made in sucessive wars, or in sports for that matter, is that there is a tendency to overreact to exactly what burned you the last time. We have all seen football games where a team that which passes the ball, runs the ball against the nickle defense, and surprises the opposition. (Man, football season is still SO far away).
Iran knows that we are in a phase where we are overreacting to the appeasement policies that led to WWII. Since then, the US has reacted remorselessly to the threat of communism and other opposition. No more would the US wait to be attacked. The US is on a 55 year offensive beginning in 1941. Cold War balance of power relative peace not withstanding, any percieved threat has been dealt with effectively. The current administration, as we know, has accelerated the process, and reinvigorated the principle of pre-eminent attacks.
Iran knows this, and yet decides to turn up the rhetoric on Isreal, while leaving a trailer behind that they really aren't going to develop nuclear weapons.
Lets compare this to what Hitler was saying before WWII.
I know that the Czech papers reported in the November of 1938 that Hitler was "not as great a threat as previously thought." I know this because we found a newspaper under a floorbord in an old flat, and we thought to ourselves, "poor suckers, they didn't even know what was about to happen."
Hitler wanted everyone to believe that he wasn't going to invade. But he meant business.
Quite the opposite of Iran who is likely all bark. Iran is not a military power the likes of Hitler in 1938. When was the last time Iran (Persia) actually attacked someone unprovoked? At least 250 years.
Iran is a braggart, but they always have been, and yet since before the time that the United States has been a country, they have not started a war.
All bark and no bite, or..
Speaks softly but carries a big stick.
Which category would YOU put Iran in?
What is particularly confusing is that today, Xinhua News reports the following....
"Nuclear weapons were ineffective, and Iran was not going to make them and did 'not even set this goal,' Manouchehr Mohammadi, the visiting Iranian deputy foreign minister, was quoted by the Itar-Tass news agency as saying."
It makes you wonder if these guys even talk. I know he is only a deputy foreign minister, but does he just get to go out there and say whatever he wants? I doubt it. He has to be briefed on what to say.
If so, this must be intentional. They are sending mixed rhetoric.
And I smell a trap.
As Hugh Hewitt points out, the last mistake the world made was appeasement.
He is correct in this assesment. However, one of the great mistakes made in sucessive wars, or in sports for that matter, is that there is a tendency to overreact to exactly what burned you the last time. We have all seen football games where a team that which passes the ball, runs the ball against the nickle defense, and surprises the opposition. (Man, football season is still SO far away).
Iran knows that we are in a phase where we are overreacting to the appeasement policies that led to WWII. Since then, the US has reacted remorselessly to the threat of communism and other opposition. No more would the US wait to be attacked. The US is on a 55 year offensive beginning in 1941. Cold War balance of power relative peace not withstanding, any percieved threat has been dealt with effectively. The current administration, as we know, has accelerated the process, and reinvigorated the principle of pre-eminent attacks.
Iran knows this, and yet decides to turn up the rhetoric on Isreal, while leaving a trailer behind that they really aren't going to develop nuclear weapons.
Lets compare this to what Hitler was saying before WWII.
I know that the Czech papers reported in the November of 1938 that Hitler was "not as great a threat as previously thought." I know this because we found a newspaper under a floorbord in an old flat, and we thought to ourselves, "poor suckers, they didn't even know what was about to happen."
Hitler wanted everyone to believe that he wasn't going to invade. But he meant business.
Quite the opposite of Iran who is likely all bark. Iran is not a military power the likes of Hitler in 1938. When was the last time Iran (Persia) actually attacked someone unprovoked? At least 250 years.
Iran is a braggart, but they always have been, and yet since before the time that the United States has been a country, they have not started a war.
All bark and no bite, or..
Speaks softly but carries a big stick.
Which category would YOU put Iran in?
posted by Praguetwin at
8:42 PM
5 Comments:
Look, this is simple, does anyone actually think that oil-rich Iran really needs or wants atomic energy?? Doesn’t it concern anyone that Ahmadinejad called Israel a "rotten, dried tree" that will be annihilated by "one storm." We are dealing with leaders who wholeheartedly believe in martyrdom and the appearance of the 12th Imam.
By
Anonymous, at 4:22 PM
Ahmadinejad is a loudmouth who is loosing favor with the Ayatolla. You know as well as I do that the religious leaders run the country.
Ahmadinejad's rantings are nothing more than nationalistic rants that connect him wiht his base.
Arch, you really need to read Kapucynsky's "Shah of Shahs" to get some insite into the persian mentality. The want nukes like a 6 year old wants to learn how to ride a bike. Does he need to for transportaion? No, his parents have a car, but he wants to prove himself.
For an Iranina, the worst humilation is not knowing how to do something. Do you have any idea how proud the people are right now that they made some measley low grade uranium?
"We Did It!"
And yes, this attitude, this lack of humility ingrained in the culture, will eventually lead them to a weapon. It is probably still years away, but when that day comes, what should be done?
In the US, I need not remind you, you have a president who believes in the Rapture.
Tit for tat if you ask me.
Crazies everywhere you look.
By
Praguetwin, at 4:50 PM
You paint a picture of the Iranians as 6 year olds and then suggest to me to read a book on the subject? It would do you well to look at a broader picture of Iranian history that you may understand its transitory nature and potential for modernization. If you are correct about the peoples lusting for modernization, then how can they be happy with a government that imposes Islamic rule? But at least we are on the same page as to their end game. I would like to see the U.N. find a way to stop the Iranians from enriching uranium ASAP. What do you think should happen?
By
Anonymous, at 3:51 PM
You paint a picture of the Iranians as 6 year olds and then suggest to me to read a book on the subject? It would do you well to look at a broader picture of Iranian history that you may understand its transitory nature and potential for modernization. If you are correct about the peoples lusting for modernization, then how can they be happy with a government that imposes Islamic rule? But at least we are on the same page as to their end game. I would like to see the U.N. find a way to stop the Iranians from enriching uranium ASAP. What do you think should happen?
By
Anonymous, at 4:07 PM
i like the idea of them being like 6 year olds. 50% of the population is under 25 so quite alot of Iranians actually ARE 6 years old.
But all kidding aside, what I mean is that they are underdeveloped, but want desperately to be a modern state. Their reaction to producing low-grade uranium is typical of a young person. Just an analogy.
I confess that I don't know as much as I should, but I do know that the Persians have been defending their culture and people from attack for most modern history and have managed to survive. The Shiites literally lived in caves for hundreds of years. These Shiites are the roots of the current rulers. They have a defensive mentality.
I don't think that the UN or anyone else has the power to stop them from doing what they want to do within their own borders. They are very prideful and determined. I suspect that they are not suicidal. I suspect that having the US flanking them on both sides is making them nervous.
I think that the world community should continue to engage in diplomacy and dialogue no matter if they are fruitful or not. The channels of communication should be made open, so that when the day comes that they do acquire a weapon, we can explain to them clearly that if they are responsible for setting off a nuclear bomb, we will glass the whole country.
It sounds cruel, but isn't that what we were saying throughout the cold war?
They are happy with the religious leaders because they see them as uncorrupted by money and the other evils from the west.
In that regard, one can hardley blame them.
By
Praguetwin, at 11:34 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home