Is War With Iran Inevitable?

Most of the gay blogs I visit are spending time talking about Ahmadinejad’s remarks yesterday that Iran “has no homosexuals.”  Anyone surprised at this facist take on gay rights in that country has clearly not been paying attention.  They don’t have that problem.  Find ’em, kill ’em, no problem.  Why the surprise? 

NDT & QJ are busy spending time condemning Columbia University’s Bollinger for his condemnation of Ahmadinejad before letting him speak, after inviting him specifically to speak.  While I understand and agree with their collective point, I think they’re missing the larger one. 

Frankly, Bollinger should be condemned for allowing Ahmadinejad to speak at all.  If I can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, then a man who has vowed to wipe a nation off the map shouldn’t be allowed to speak at a university.    This villian places no value on anything American.  He is a facist tyrant with an agenda.  Period.  We have no obligation to afford him any niceties, and he should have been arrested as a terrorist criminal the minute he set foot outside of the U.N.  As Clinton is often condemned for not nabbing Osama Bin Laden when he had the chance, mark my words, so will this administration be condemned for not nabbing Amadinejad when they had the chance

Consider:

Today, while addressing the United Nations, Amadinejad declared the nuclear issue “closed” as a political issue. 

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran told the United Nations General Assembly this afternoon that “the nuclear issue of Iran is now closed,” asserting that his government would disregard calls by “arrogant powers” to end its uranium enrichment.

Mr. Ahmadinejad said that his country’s nuclear power development was “completely peaceful and transparent,” and that his government had delivered “the most extensive cooperation” with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog.

“Thus far, Iran has fulfilled all of its obligations,” he said, and would “disregard unlawful and political impositions by the arrogant powers,” a thinly veiled reference to the United States.

Today the House passed a bill naming the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. 

 Congress signaled its disapproval of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with a vote Tuesday to tighten sanctions against his government and a call to designate his Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group.

The swift rebuke was a rare display of bipartisan cooperation in a Congress bitterly divided on the Iraq war. It reflected lawmakers’ long-standing nervousness about Tehran’s intentions in the region, particularly toward Israel—a sentiment fueled by the pro-Israeli lobby whose influence reaches across party lines in Congress.

Various news outlets have reported on supposed arms shipments in Iraq that have come from Iran.  Just last week we found SAM’s that are purportedly Iranian in origin.  And listen to the propaganda coming from this Iranian General:

“Our enemies are not crazy enough to commit an act of military aggression against Iran,” Major General Hassan Firuzabadi stated, adding that if the enemies of the Islamic Republic make such a mistake, they will certainly face a crushing response from Iran.

The country’s defensive weapons are designed and manufactured domestically and according to the military doctrine of the Islamic Republic, which is based on defense against enemies, Firuzabadi explained.

He went on to say that Iran possesses such vast and varied military equipment and weaponry that the global hegemonistic powers cannot imagine launching a military attack against the country.

Ah, the old “double-dog dare.” 

Just this month Iran demonstrated their new jet, the Saegheh, or “Thunder,” and claimed it could strike anywhere inside Israel.  And they’ve told the Japanese to start paying for their oil in yen instead of dollars. 

What we are witnessing is an international game of chicken.  Only a madman would play it against Bush. 

Of course this is all speculation.  But I’d really like someone to convince me that this isn’t all a run-up to war with Iran. 

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Is War With Iran Inevitable?

  1. Of course he places no value on anything that’s American. That’s not the point. The point is that we place a value on American ideals, one of them being freedom of speech. We can’t just jerk back those ideals whenever someone says something we don’t like, even if it is inflammatory. The fact that we extended this right to him could have spoken volumes had Bollinger not decided to whip out his intellectual machismo and go all Oprah vs. James Frey up in there.

    Certainly the parallels are there and they are being harped on, but I’m still not convinced war is on the table for Iran and the U.S. for the simple reason that we have nothing to attack them with. Now, if we really do start pulling troops out of Iraq next year like Bush floated, then that may change. There is no doubt in my mind that Bush would pull them out of Iraq to only send them right back into Iran in some capacity. However, I think Bush may have actually learned his lesson with Iraq, at least in the sense that he’s going to let Europe lead the charge this time and stay off the front lines.

    But Ahmedinejad should definitely have been allowed to speak because when he speaks, he proves himself to be his worst enemy. He’s smarmy. He attacks other countries, yet refuses to answer critical questions about his own. He’s guilty of the exact same know-it-all attitude that he accuses Bush of having and every time he opens his mouth he scares his nominal supporters more and pushes the E.U. closer and closer to going after him.

  2. My objection is simple; what Bollinger did is exactly what Ahmadinejad does in the same situation.

    And no, war is not inevitable, but it ultimately will depend on whether or not the people of Iran decide to leave the moonbats in charge. There is much more opportunity for them to revolt and turn out Mad Jihad than there ever was for the Iraqis to get rid of Saddam.

    The reason Europe is so desperate in this case is simple; any disruption of oil supplies from the Mideast would be catastrophic to their economies, and unlike Saddam, Ahmadinejad is not making it worth their while financially to ignore him.

    That, and they know full well what weaponry they’ve sold Iran. The ultimate irony is that Iran’s first nuclear missile, provided it ever gets built, will be made up of a large proportion of French and German technology.

  3. I’m quite torn about the Bollinger situation. I think what he did was inappropriate and rude. He could’ve chosen another forum to express his views. Why he decided to grow a spine at that particular moment is beyond my comprehension.

    But it also excites me that someone from the American Left has regained their capacity for making moral judgments. For too long, liberalism had been synonymous with inaction and indecision. This paralysis, fueled by fear of being “ethnocentric” or “offending” other culural traditions, led many to tacitly endorse oppression on a massive scale. And the American Left’s whole “the problems of others are none of our concern” mantra always struck me as going against their own core values. True liberals should be concerned with civil liberties for all humans – not just in America and Europe.

    In that sense, perhaps Bollinger did his fellow liberals a big favor in the long run. The embarassment of inhospitality will soon pass. But the fact he spoke up at all is extraordinary. And that might convince others to do the same.

  4. The point is that we place a value on American ideals, one of them being freedom of speech.

    Actually, QJ, the point is that freedom of speech is not unlimited and comes with responsibility. His direct threats toward Israel have the potential to cause a riot, and he could very well have made those threats to the Columbia audience. He is not an American citizen and has no automatic right to such a private forum. It was frankly the wrong decision.

    Should Bollinger have invited the Ayatollah if he were still alive?

  5. I have no problem with Columbia inviting Ahmadinejad to speak. I’ve always said let the bat-shit crazy people have all the time at the pulpit they want, it ultimately works to their detriment.

    That said, I have no problem with what Bollinger said to Ahmadinejad prior to him speaking. Giving one a platform to rant and rave doesn’t mean we have to pretend a petty and cruel dictator is deserving of the normal civility due a head of state. You don’t have a right to be treated courteously and the things Bollinger said needed to be said. Yeah, even if Bollinger was most likely just doing some CYA to protect those alumni donations.

    Is war with Iran inevitable? Unless the Iranian people do our job for us (which seems unlikely in the near term), or the Mad Mullahs blink, I’m afraid it looks that way.

  6. Should Bollinger have invited the Ayatollah if he were still alive?

    In a word? Yes.

    “I would like to see Israel wiped from the face of the earth,” is not the same rhetorical incitement as screaming, “FIRE,” in a croweded theater. To not allow someone to speak (and I don’t buy the “But he’s not an American” argument because either these rights are inalienable to all people, regardless of nationality, or we have no right at all to criticize the way he runs his country) because of what might happen or how others might take their comments is a dangerous stop down the path to thought crime.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s