Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
May 28, 2006
Iran Shifting To War Footing
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made it clear that he sees European opposition to his nuclear program a threat, and returned one in kind. Speaking to the German magazine Der Spiegel, the Iranian president warned Europe that they will "suffer the consequences" if they did not capitulate:
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned Europe that it should support his country's nuclear program or "suffer the consequences."The article in DS has not yet been released, but the Jerusalem Post blurb indicates that Iran's president has not yet tired of following the playbook of Adolf Hitler in dealing with the West. Alternating between veiled threats and offers of diplomacy, Ahmadinejad has attempted to split the coalition of nations opposing its development of nuclear weapons. In this case, it looks like Ahmadinejad wants to stress the reach of Iranian weapons and the fact that most of Europe falls within their range.
In an interview to be published in the German Der Spiegel on Sunday, Ahmadinejad also expressed his doubt regarding the Holocaust, saying that even if it had occurred, the Jewish state should have been established in Europe, not in Palestine.
Nor is that the only parallel between Hitler and Ahmadinejad these days. The messianic Shi'ite has conducted a purge of high-level political opponents from national offices, seemingly with the blessing of the Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameini. The New York Times reports on the "consolidation" underway in Teheran:
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is trying to consolidate power in the office of the presidency in a way never before seen in the 27-year history of the Islamic Republic, apparently with the tacit approval of Iran's supreme leader, according to government officials and political analysts here. ...The Times notes that the elimination of the fog surrounding the exercise of power in Iran gives the US an opportunity for meaningful direct talks for the first time since the revolution 27 years ago. However, what the Times fails to comprehend is that, much like the Nazi "consolidation" in the early days of their rule, the accumulation of power to one man allows for streamlined internal decisionmaking, not external, where Khameini always held the power. That kind of structure lends itself to one purpose: war.
Mr. Ahmadinejad is pressing far beyond the boundaries set by other presidents. For the first time since the revolution, a president has overshadowed the nation's chief cleric, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, on both domestic and international affairs.
He has evicted the former president, Mohammad Khatami, from his offices, taken control of a crucial research organization away from another former president, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, challenged high-ranking clerics on the treatment of women and forced prominent academics out of the university system.
"Parliament and government should fight against wealthy officials," Mr. Ahmadinejad said in a speech before Parliament on Saturday that again appeared aimed at upending pillars of the status quo. "Wealthy people should not have influence over senior officials because of their wealth. They should not impose their demands on the needs of the poor people."
In this theocratic system, where appointed religious leaders hold ultimate power, the presidency is a relatively weak position. In the multiple layers of power that obscure the governance of Iran, no one knows for certain where the ultimate decisions are being made. But many of those watching in near disbelief at the speed and aggression with which the president is seeking to accumulate power assume that he is operating with the full support of Ayatollah Khamenei.
Ahmadinejad, working under Khameini's approval, is stripping all of the potential elements of opposition to war from his government. Arrests have not yet come, but this is certainly a politicial purge, attempting to guarantee a political purity in the government under Ahmadinejad. Nor is this limited to the secular government. Khameini appears to be using Ahmadinejad to bypass the rest of the Guardian Council and establish himself as the only cleric whose opinion matters. It reduces the amount of time needed for decisions and eliminates any potential for time-wasting dissension.
Why else would all decision-making power get concentrated in the hands of two men, and all mechanisms for dissent eliminated?
Other warning signs exist as well. Iran, like Germany in the late 20s and early 30s, has a restive population wishing for a sharp improvement in their standard of living. Ahmadinejad has to either deliver that or explain why he cannot. For this purpose, he has turned to Islamic anti-Semitism and as the Times reports, he has started to raise up a new intellectual elite that uses Jews as a scapegoat for the domestic woes Iranians suffer. They quote an unnamed political-science professor in Teheran as saying, "He is reshaping the identity of the elite. Being against Jews and Zionists is an essential part of this new identity." He has also started large government-works programs and promised all sorts of welfare to garner a populist following.
We have seen this path before. The world should recognize the signs, and the West had better start looking for Churchills rather than Chamberlains, and quickly.
Posted by Captain Ed at 07:00 AM
Kathianne said:http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007077.php
Links at site. Like Hitler, this isn't all about the Jews, they are just a convenient scapegoat.
Well, why not? Nearly all of Europe and much of the US believe the Jews are the cause, so Israel will be destroyed, then they can 'act.' In spite of all your 'why doesn't Israel handle', they can't do this one alone, it's not one site and too far from support.dilloduck said:I'm starting to think that the world is simply waiting to Iran to fire the first shot.
Kathianne said:Well, why not? Nearly all of Europe and much of the US believe the Jews are the cause, so Israel will be destroyed, then they can 'act.' In spite of all your 'why doesn't Israel handle', they can't do this one alone, it's not one site and too far from support.
So you should rejoice!
They have, over and over again. It's not a matter of 'blowing Iran away" as actually meaning what needs to be faced:dilloduck said:No--It was the Americans presence in the middle east that gave the terrorists the right to attack New York. Remember? If Israel wants the rest of the world to blow away Iran for them, why aren't we hearing about it?
Kathianne said:They have, over and over again. It's not a matter of 'blowing Iran away" as actually meaning what needs to be faced:
http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/m-news+article+storyid-14911.html
With regard to Iran, Olmert issued a call for international action to prevent what he called "the world's leading sponsor of terror and a notorious violator of fundamental human rights" from acquiring nuclear weapons.
"t is not Israel's threat alone, it is a threat to all those committed to stability in the Middle East and the well-being of the world at large. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, our moment is now! History will judge our generation by the actions we take now," Olmert said
Nope, no other friends. You knew that. I think like the US, Israel would like to see the 'world community' step up. Not going to happen from the UN, they can't even handle Timor:dilloduck said:Using a joint meeting of the US Congress is hardly the place to get the worlds' attention. They are seen as the US' lap dog. Do they have any other allies in the world? And what's the "actions WE take now stuff". Can't he just admit they want the US to do it for them?
Kathianne said:Nope, no other friends. You knew that. I think like the US, Israel would like to see the 'world community' step up. Not going to happen from the UN, they can't even handle Timor:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/27/AR2006052700889.html
Then again, there have always been those that help. I know which side I think the US should be on, when bully meets the weak, (and yes, in the face of Iranian nukes, the size of Israel does make it weak):
http://www.theage.com.au/news/World...ded-in-Timor-UN/2006/05/28/1148754853417.html
Kathianne said:1. No other friends.
2. Too many targets.
3. Too far from support.
Oh you are very quick, to ignor that the US is not stepping up. They too have joined with the rest of the 'civilized world'.dilloduck said:In other words, the US is responsible for taking care of a Jewish state. I can only imagine the uproar if this was a Christian state.
Kathianne said:Oh you are very quick, to ignor that the US is not stepping up. They too have joined with the rest of the 'civilized world'.
Which brings us back to, Israel will be hit:
You should rejoice.
What is the US doing, other than what Europe is doing?dilloduck said:What ???????? The US is not stepping up to try to stop Iran??????
Bullshit. They are doing more than ANYONE.
You thinking that I would rejoice in the destruction of Israel is a sick perversion.
Kathianne said:What is the US doing, other than what Europe is doing?
Why after your dozens and dozens of posts, would any rational person come to a different conclusion?
If they didn't have a war strategy, that would be treasonable. Afterall, we have one for Canada and England. :coffee3:dilloduck said:Besides some serious diplomacy I'm sure the US is already developing a war strategy and a strategy for implementing any sanctions.
Maybe you're not all that rational when it somes to things I say regarding this issue.
War and Iranian 'Negotiations'
Steve
There is plenty of room for debate over precisely how to handle the diplomatic wrangling over the Iranian nuclear crisis. Yet, just as an IAEA without the teeth of the Security Council is feckless against such a determined actor, so too are diplomatic efforts with potential harsh consequences predisposed and discarded as unfiting options in any circumstance. It is one thing to not want war, which is a common sentiment among all who seriously understand the consequences thereof. It is entirely another to believe that this warfare as consequence is worse than any other option, which would likely include eventual warfare on the others terms and through their means. The removal of consequence reduces negotiations to gainful but meaningless employment for the actors involved. So it seems for Europe.
Consider a commentary appearing in Investors Business Daily, Neutralizing Tehran.
Last week, after meetings of the six world powers, the EU offered, in the words of a Reuters dispatch, to drop the automatic threat of military action if Iran remains defiant.
Ponder that for a moment. The EU says it will, in essence, do nothing, no matter what other than, perhaps, put some feeble sanctions in place. Yet it somehow expects this will prod Iran to act.
The IBD column goes on in incredulous disbelief of the hollow logic employed, making other keen observations and crucial points. But those two paragraphs could easily be repeated over and over numerous times without aid of additional supporting argument and the argument put forth by the column would be no less effective.
If Europe were Management and Iran were an Auto Workers Union, the strike would have long been over along with the solvency of the automaker and those employed by it. Just as with labor-management relations, international negotiations cannot be entered into from a voluntary position of weakness by either side.
Europe consistently cedes the most clearly understood position of strength. Its not about whether you want war. The unrecognized irony is that the option of war is about whether or not you want negotiations to succeed.
May 27, 2006 12:34 PM
Kathianne said:If they didn't have a war strategy, that would be treasonable. Afterall, we have one for Canada and England. :coffee3:
I would say that I may have temper issues with you, but maintaining rational thought, when calm? Nah! I'm calm.
Unreasonable? Ok, explain what we have done, that is 'much more,' than UN or EU?dilloduck said:I'm not talking about some back drawer strategy with dust all over the cover---I'm talking one that is developing as we speak in addition to the covert OPS that are most likely being cariied out now. To say that the US isn't doing more than any other country to stop Iran is unreasonable.
Kathianne said:
Excuse me, you were the one that said,dilloduck said:It sums it up about Europe however I'm not TALKING about Europe. It's no secret that they are wimps in denial with a margianalized population. You won't be happy until you see the mushroom clouds over Iran will you?
To say that the US isn't doing more than any other country to stop Iran is unreasonable.
Unreasonable? Ok, explain what we have done, that is 'much more,' than UN or EU?
