The Iranian regime is using two weapons to fight the west. First, it is using its religion to recruit people for acts of terror. Second, It is developing nuclear weapons. The combination of the two are may lead to a nuclear terrorist attack. Terms such as “saber rattling” are used to abate U.S. domestic prejudice. The problem with this term is that it is not a saber that they are rattling. This metaphorical expression is incongruent and does not even apply to the circumstances at hand. I agree more with how Benjamin Netanyahu equates the situation with the holocaust. After all, a psychotic with a saber may only kill a few people, but a psychotic with a nuclear weapon could kill millions.

Lets not get confused about how dangerous this threat really is. Iran already has rockets that can hit targets almost anywhere in the middle east. http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/07/11/exp-iran-missile-improvements.cnn . The regime is more interested in making its people suffer from sanctions than providing transparency to the international community regarding its nuclear program. The west has already offered to provide nuclear material for medical purposes. The regime refused. The regime argues that nuclear technology is its right, but it has no rights to trade with the west. By this logic the regime has a right to make the Iranian people suffer in the pursuit of a secret agenda that may kill millions. How is this rational?

The Iranian regime has indoctrinated many people. It uses them as pawns for terrorism against soft targets. http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/07/19/exp-early-labott-bulgaria-bus-blast.cnn. Why does it seem so outlandish to assume that the regime may pass a nuclear weapon on to one of these people? Furthermore, how would the world know what happened in the aftermath? Everything would be so utterly obliterated and irradiated that no one would know who was responsible.

Dr. Zakaria, why are we even discussing anything with this regime? Your program is spinning me around so much that I think I may be ill. For example, the interview you did with Ahmadinejad http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/06/13/exp-cnns-fareed-zakaria-interviews-ahmadinejad.cnn . The beginning provides a quote saying “the foundation of our Islamic government is based on freedom of dialogue and will fight against any kind of censorship.” Yet Salman Rushdie was unofficially given the green light for murder because of his book The Satanic Verses. BBC News: On This Day. 26 December 1990. Retrieved 10 October 2006.

I don’t think the Iranian people have forgotten Nedā Āghā-Soltān, who was murdered while participating in a peaceful protest. I know I have not forgotten her.

WARNING EXTREMELY GRAPHIC CONTENT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JG1hib8DYkE&feature=c-shelf-119&bpctr=1342989282&skipcontrinter=1 

I guess freedom of dialogue is acceptable as long as the Iranian regime is the arbiter. Iran was taken hostage by the Iranian regime, and they use religion as their weapon. Soon they will try to use nuclear terrorism as their weapon. These people are more than goons. They are psychotics poisoning the minds of the Persian people.

Advertisements

I watched these videos of Fareed Zakaria in February and March argue that Soviet and Maoist rhetoric was much more hostile toward the West than Iran is today. He alluded to McCarthyism, and how the U.S. public was afraid that the Soviet Union was an irrational force bent on global domination. He reminded us that “we” (the U.S. public) were in a similar position in 1962 during the Cuban missile crisis. He explained that our fears were unfounded then because the Soviet Union was rational, and that our fears today are also unfounded because Iran to is rational. Zakaria cited an interview with Martin Dempsey where Dempsey agreed that Iran had a history of rational behavior and he considered them a rational actor.This would place them in the same rational category as the Soviet Union based on the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction.

What Zakaria ignores is the rationality of the ideology. Zakaria puts a spin on the issue from the perspective of an uninformed U.S. public. Yes, McCarthyism did use hostile rhetoric and fear to excite the U.S. public, and this fear was unfounded. This does not mean that the leaders at the time didn’t know better. Has Zakaria forgotten about George Kennan’s “Long Telegram”? This set the tone for checking Soviet aggression throughout the Cold War and was based on the idea that the Soviet Union was indeed rational. Lets go beyond that however, anyone who has ever read Marx, Engels, Luxemberg, Kautsky or any Communist ideology will find it hard to describe as anything but rational. One might not agree with the ideology, but this does not mean they find it irrational. McCarthyism was propaganda, there was similar propaganda in the Soviet Union. When it came down to the Cuban Missile Crisis rationality prevailed because both parties were operating under rational ideologies.

What Dempsey said does not change the ideology of Iran. Dempsey could have had any number or reasons for saying what he did. He could have been appealing to Iranian leaders to come to terms on an agreement. He may have been attempting to mitigate Israeli hostility to try to allow sanctions to take effect. He could have been trying to town down the war rhetoric to keep gas prices stable. Zakaria however, took the statement to mean that U.S. leaders believed that a Nuclear Iran was not a threat, and tried to portray this perspective to the American public. He tried to lump the Soviets and Iranians into the same rational category to create some kind of reassurance to the U.S. public that they would behave rationally if they got the bomb. This is pure conjecture intended to pacify the American public toward an unpredictable, and hostile nation in the middle of the largest oil reserve in the world.

First of all, the Soviet Union was a collective socialist state which made decisions for the benefit of the collective. It formulated its policies for the benefit of the collective. Iran is a theocracy that takes its direction from god… No theocracy can legitimately claim it is rational. This is because it derives its authority from the unknown, or from some person who claims to interpret the unknown. Countless people died unnecessarily in Europe due to an absolute monarch claiming his authority from god. Ironically, this is also what caused the Bolshevik revolution…

Mr. Zakaria, I know you want me to go to sleep while Iran gradually acquires a nuclear weapon to exert its influence in one of the most unstable and influential places in the world, but I wont. I will not fart and roll over while gas prices explode and the U.S. economy plummets. I will not snore while Iran’s government encourages violence and terrorism against the U.S. and its allies. I can not accept even the possibility of a theocracy threatening nuclear war in the name of god. I am an enlightened man, and this is unacceptable to me.

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/08/zakaria-iran-is-a-rational-actor/?iref=allsearch

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/19/zakaria-israel-dont-strike-iran/