Iran's Unanswered War Against The West

With American and Allied Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, Israeli forces in Gaza and Lebanon, and homegrown Jihadists rearing their ugly heads throughout the world, the War on Terror has taken on the global dimension that it was rightly ascribed back in 2001. Radical Islamist terrorists are sworn to the destruction of the Western World and they will continue down that bloodstained path until their singular objective is achieved.

Speaking during a May 2006 interview with CNBC, President Bush equated the Global War on Terror to World War III. Indeed, numerous politicians and political pundits have offered similar assessments both before and after President Bush's statement.

Speaking yesterday on CNBC's Meet The Press With Tim Russert, the former Republican Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, offered a similar conclusion. The dialogue was part of an overriding discussion on Israel's present battles with Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Gaza.

MR. GINGRICH: I mean, we, we are in the early stages of what I would describe as the third world war, and frankly, our bureaucracies aren’t responding fast enough, we don’t have the right attitude about this, and this is the 58th year of the war to destroy Israel. And frankly, the Israelis have every right to insist that every single missile leave south Lebanon and that the United States ought to be helping the Lebanese government have the strength to eliminate Hezbollah as a military force, not as a political force in the parliament, but as a military force in south Lebanon.

MR. RUSSERT: This is World War III?

MR. GINGRICH: I, I believe if you take all the countries I just listed that you’ve been covering, put them on a map, look at all the different connectivity, you’d have to say to yourself this is, in fact, World War III.

(Among the countries that Mr. Gingrich "listed" were Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, North Korea, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and the homegrown Jihadists in America, Canada, and Britain.)

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, meanwhile, spoke today before the Knesset of an 'Axis of Evil' that extends from Tehran to Damascus. It is well-known that Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon receive primary monetary support from Iran -- to the tune of $100 million per year -- as well as weapons shipments that are flown to Syria at which point they are trucked into Lebanon.

It is no coincidence that the terrorist attack in Northern Israel on July 12 that resulted in the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers and the deaths of three others occurred on the very day that a deadline for Iran was set to expire. Iran was facing an ultimatum to either suspend its nuclear activities or be brought before the UN Security Council for possible sanctions.

Tehran-made terrorists have left a major imprint in Iraq as well, claiming the lives of countless Iraqi, American, and allied troops. Iran is, in fact, the primary sponsor of terrorism throughout the world while it has allied itself with rogue nations such as Syria, North Korea and Venezuela.

Throughout the Middle East, America, Israel and the Allied Forces are fighting Iran in Lebanon; they are fighting Iran in Gaza; they are fighting Iran in Iraq; and they are fighting Iran in Afghanistan. When will they start fighting Iran in Iran?

Iran launched its war against the West long ago and it is winning that war by a long stretch. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has put into effect the very strategy that the United States and its allies have been advocating for so long: they are fighting the enemy abroad rather than facing them at home.

Moreover, Iran is winning the war on the diplomatic front as well. Indeed, while the international community fumbles around in its attempts at forging a united front against Iran, Ahmadinejad and the criminal band of mullahs standing beside him cross one nuclear milestone after another.

Meanwhile, countries like China and Russia have made clear that Iran is not a problem state. In fact, Chinese missiles are being sold to Iran, flown to Damascus, trucked to Lebanon, and exploded on Israel. Russian nuclear technology, on the other hand, can be found in North Korea and will certainly make its way to Iran.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is often described as a virulent anti-Semite, as an apocalyptic visionary, and as an enemy of the West. But, in fact, Ahmadinejad is the ultimate puppet master and, unfortunately, we are all just dangling from his strings.

Posted by Dr Politico at July 17, 2006 5:20 PM
Comment #168290

I agree! If it isn’t WW III, is pretty close. What I find interesting though is that no one says that it is a religious war. Islam vs Infidels. Russia and China are more than happy to sell equipment to these fanatics but they aren’t part of it other than taking advantage of a business opportunity. Seems like in our politically correct world, we no longer call a spade a spade!

Posted by: Gramps at July 17, 2006 5:43 PM
Comment #168300

I see the subterfuge that Iran is performing. I also see how many of the self interested nations (Russia, China and so forth) are allowing them to. I notice how many of the European nations are also playing along I think they are scared to fight for what is right. I do mean morally right. I hope that we stand up and fight. I realize we have some time but I am not sure how much.

Iran is escalading their war on Israel through terror organizations and seems to be making some headway. The most interesting thing here is that most people (even on the left) are not denying this they just do not seem to want to do anything about it. I imagine that Iran will have nukes very soon. I am sure they are using the same ruse that North Korea used. They say they are developing nuclear power for energy consumption and then boom they have a bomb. In fact that bomb came years earlier then most people thought. With this lesson from history under our belts we are able to extrapolate that Iran will follow the same pattern. It is effective when you have a world system that will give you all the time you need as long as you keep the smallest amount of “diplomatic” channels open.

The US needs to start working towards war in Iran. At the current rate of bravado from Iran and the show of force from its terror organizations there can be no doubt that we will end in war. I just hope we do something before a great tragedy happens here at home.

I am not sure that the President and his cabinet have enough muster left to do what is needed. We shall see…..

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at July 17, 2006 6:57 PM
Comment #168302

There is a substantial group of pro-western peoples in Iran. We have special ops people there and they are gathering intel and some are stirring up those pro-western peoples. Hopefully those same pro-western peoples will rise up against those so called religious leaders and consumate the contract of death to them. Those in power in the Middle East that are anti-Israel are going to learn about vengeance. They are going to learn about Israel and how to succeed in the modern world. I probably am wrong about that, because so many of them will be dead and can no longer learn. Israel will be the victor once again, but not without paying a heavy price. H & H have no morals, nor understanding of mankind. They are superior in the category of hate. They derive their spirit of hate directly from Lucifer/Satan himself. H & H, along with their sponsors S & I, have a losing proposition. I have a better chance of winning a $400 million power ball lottery than H, H, S and I coming out on the winning side. DON’T MESS WITH THE JEWS!!!!!!!

Posted by: tomh at July 17, 2006 7:21 PM
Comment #168303

Dr Politico,

I don’t disagree that we’re on the verge of WWIII or possibly already “over the edge”. One need only turn on the TV news to know all hell’s breaking loose.

IMO, what should concern Americans is whether or not our leadership has us in a position to win the war we’re in or the expanded war we’re about to be a part of. We have an estimated 25,000 Americans in Lebanon and we’ve yet to begin evacuation of them. Italy, France, and England are already doing so. Meanwhile we’re doing as well evacuating Americans from Lebanon as we did evacuating Katrina survivors from New Orleans.

In this article:
Jonathan Powers, a Captain in the Army’s 1st Armored Division, say’s he witnessed first hand the battle stress and mental fatigue our soldiers faced during their deployment in Iraq.

Power’s also says, “Unfortunately, because so few Americans are sharing the burden of this War, our soldiers return to Iraq for numerous tours. In less than eight months, the War in Iraq will become the third longest war in American history, while less than one percent of Americans have served their nation in this time of need. As a result, soldiers are returning for second, third, and even fourth deployments.”

So, my questions are:
(1) Can we win this war under the quidance of the “Buffoon=in-Chief” we have now?
(2) Can we wait until all hell breaks loose (if it hasn’t already) to reinstate the draft?
(3) Has Rummy-Dummy allowed our military resources to reach a level that we’ll lose this war unless we “push the button”.
(4) Do you really trust a “cud-chewing”, “cussing” cowboy wanna-be with his finger on that “button?

IMO, if you have a 60’s or 70’s era fallout shelter this would be a good time to stock up on supplies. No condoms needed, you may have to repopulate the earth. On the good side, we now know what failed leadership will get us.


Posted by: KansasDem at July 17, 2006 7:26 PM
Comment #168304

Dr. Politico:
You have made an interesting post, but alienating more countries, notably Venzuela, and our strenous efforts to create more terrorists, the main impact of our invasion of Iraq until we hand it over to Iran, is most definitely not working. The people who are most happy about this are those of you who see it as an immediate predecessor of Armageddon and just cannot wait for the end of the world. That is what a World War III really means.

Hate and fear produces more hate and fear, it never solves anything. We are creating far more radicals every day than we can ever hope to eliminate. It reminds me of the generals in the Civil War who had not figured out that frontal assaults costs a lot troops, but wre rarely effective dislodging the enemy.

Posted by: Hosea at July 17, 2006 7:26 PM
Comment #168306

Dear Kansas Dem…do you remember a guy named Clinton that gutted our military? Get a life! You lost the last with it!

Posted by: Gramps at July 17, 2006 7:35 PM
Comment #168310

As I said since 9/11, we have 3 problems:
1.) The short-term WMD issue of Saddam (not an issue now)
2.) The medium-term WMD issue of 100,000s of disaffected Muslims who are schooled to Jihad who want WMDs
3.) The long-term WMD issue re how as a world we will handle the general dissemination of the ability and means to create WMDs to all sort of disaffected individuals/groups for the next 100,000 years

While war *can be* The Answer, it should obviously be a last, last, last resort — and is obviously not what we the world (or the USA) wants to do every time this becomes an issue ~forever.

We have a Window of opportunity to make the world mostly Nuke/WMD free. For every add’l country that has them, two more ‘need’ them. So I feel the obvious goal is to stop/reduce the number of countries w/ Nukes/WMDs.

I think we need Bush, Blair, Chirac, Putin, et al. to come up with ONE set of rules that we (First, Second, and Third-World, Nuke and non-Nuke powers alike) can and WILL all live with. E.g., whatever the Rules are, we all agree that Israel and Iran and N. Korea all should abide by them: an agreement with ‘teeth’ / motivation of all countries to want all other countries to live up to their word @#$% NOW!!

Not only would the First World and Nuke-Powers have to agree to this, but we would want everyone on board … the ROW. Maybe we Nuke Powers could give up much of our arsenals (or even all — this is what Reagan offered to Gorbachev).

If not ONE SET OF RULES to cover every country/situation, then we devolve into lengthy game-playing each time this comes up, as each case divides the world on economic/social/military blocs, with some benefiting by the problems of the other (e.g., China preventing our solutions for Iran and N.Korea, and US preventing the solutions wrt Israel).

Posted by: Brian at July 17, 2006 7:54 PM
Comment #168311

start blaming clinton in 5-4-3-2…whoops to late. The blowjob that started WWIII, yeah gramps thats it. Get off the Goddamn “you lost the last election” daze and focus. Our military is bravely serving in Iraq with with the coalition of the willing while the rest of the middle east is exploding and the best you got is you lost and its Clintons fault…get real dude

Posted by: American Idiot at July 17, 2006 7:56 PM
Comment #168314

Dr Politico,
You are factually incorrect. For example, you write:

“Throughout the Middle East, America, Israel and the Allied Forces are fighting Iran in Lebanon; they are fighting Iran in Gaza; they are fighting Iran in Iraq; and they are fighting Iran in Afghanistan.”

Iran is not in Gaza at all. Hamas receives some aid from Iran, but more through its border with Egypt, & egyptian fundamentalists. Iran is not directly opposing the US in Iraq. Iran backed SCIRI & Dawa, who turned out to represent the majority of Shias. Too bad the US backed losers like Chalabi. We are not fighting Iran in Afghanistan. Iranians are Shias. The Afghans opposing the US are primarily Sunni Pushtun tribesmmen, backed by Pakistan. Iran is not in Lebanon. Hezbollah is in Lebanon. Other countries also back Hezbollah. Are we going to war with everyone in the world, or just the countries with






Posted by: phx8 at July 17, 2006 8:03 PM
Comment #168316

These lines are not to convince those who would rather call our leaders sour names. There is no way to convince you that their leadership will accomplish anything good. So I just sumarily reject your statements as something from the swamp. This time in history is not the time to castigate our leadership whether it be past presidents/officials or present president/officials. This is the time to rally round American principles to assist and assure that the Israel leadership use wisdom to achieve victory. I proclaim destruction to H & H. They only exist to kill Israel and do the dirty work for Syria and Iran.

Dr. Politico
The amount that Iran finances Hezbollah with is about $250 million. That is really a moot point though.

Posted by: tomh at July 17, 2006 8:10 PM
Comment #168317

Maybe we could start with an agreement to address Iran, N.Korea and maybe the next nuke-threat.

I would think that even if Israel had to de-nuke (and extreme case, I doubt would be needed), why not do this?

Yes, some do say that Israel’s defense is America’s problem AND that Israel ‘has’ to have nukes … well, IF America feels compelled to defend Israel, how about we give them enough conventional defensive capability not to be invaded(*). E.g., even US soldiers(**) in military bases in Israel. Some Muslims would certainly not like to see American munitions and/or personnel there, but I suspect far more would be pleased if Israel could verifiably have no Nukes.

(*) the French could contribute their Maginot Line and other military technologies
(**) how about we get out of Germany, UK, Japan, … **news flash** WWII is over!

Posted by: Brian at July 17, 2006 8:10 PM
Comment #168319

Kansas Dem

We have started in the evacuations. Some Americans are choosing to stay but evacs have been offered to those who want it.


You are correct in saying “we know what failed leadership will get us.” Clinton gutted our military and Bush has spent years trying to rebuild. If Clinton had not gutted our military we would be more able to handle the situation we have found ourselves in.


Your name is good but your analysis is not. You make statements regarding how we are making radicals that kill us. You state that we do this by the actions we take and by supporting freedom. I do not mind creating radicals that blow themselves up if it means freedoms cause if furthered.

In Iraq freedoms cause if furthered. Those who hate freedom are fighting hard against us but they will lose. In fact their worlds are shrinking on a daily basis. They have fewer sanctuaries and fewer supporters. Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt have all come out and publically said that Hezbollah should stop its aggression. This is a strong change in direction for those countries. They have in the past been the lead for the aggression against freedom and now they are slowly changing.

I see a day in the not to distant future where freedom is found even in the middle east. I will not be (actually cannot be) pessimistic about what is happening over there. You do not change thousands of years of hatred and subjugation with out bloodshed with out tearing apart some societies but in the end freedom will come. The only way for freedom to lose is for good folks to do nothing.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at July 17, 2006 8:23 PM
Comment #168325

Anyone here ever been attacked by an Iranian?

Anyone here ever been harmed by an Iranian in any way whatsoever?

Anyone here know of anyone who has been attacked or harmed by an Iranian?

Posted by: phx8 at July 17, 2006 8:52 PM
Comment #168327





My son wast attacked by a queer Venezuelan when he was 7.

Posted by: tomh at July 17, 2006 9:01 PM
Comment #168328

Randall Jeremiah, Gramps

I thought we had all we needed to win the war? that what the prez said. What exactly did Clinton cut that the Republicans didn’t agree to that you think we need now? Would a trillion dollar “shield” that can’t stip spit wads help?

Posted by: 037 at July 17, 2006 9:03 PM
Comment #168331


I got some bad pistachios.

Posted by: 037 at July 17, 2006 9:05 PM
Comment #168332

It’s so easy to blame Clinton for everything (gutting the military in this instance) and those on the right try to make an art of it. But where was your Newt Gingrich-led House and Republican-controlled Senate while this was supposedly happening? They got their “Contract with America” through pretty easily. Did they all just “miss” what was happening or did the scope of it just seem to make sense at the time with the end of the “Cold War.”

When the Republicans point a finger at Clinton, they forget that there are three more pointing right back at them.

Posted by: Tim in NY at July 17, 2006 9:06 PM
Comment #168333

Do you recall when our Jimmy Carter had to deal with the extremists who attacked our embassy and took prisoners? Then we failed trying to rescue them? My, how you have a short memory or poor knowledge of history.

Posted by: retired military at July 17, 2006 9:07 PM
Comment #168335

I thought our military budget was more then the rest of the world combined. If this is true what more do we need?

Posted by: j2t2 at July 17, 2006 9:15 PM
Comment #168336

Tim in NY,
You don’t need to defend Bill Clinton concerning the military. He just figured a good way to avoid military service was to go to Europe. Since he never served his country in uniform, he didn’t have a clue what to do when he was saluted so he had to take some acting lessons. He does real well as an actor apprentice especially when he invites Barbara to the White House when Hillary was away. They had a ball!

Posted by: retired military at July 17, 2006 9:17 PM
Comment #168337

Retired Military,
Did you see the list of repub chicken hawks on this blogsite yesterday? You might want to take a peek at it before you criticize Clinton.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 17, 2006 9:22 PM
Comment #168338

So your answer is no. You have never been harmed or attacked by an Iranian. I see.

Those hostages were released, if I recall.

And I do recall. I volunteered to serve in 1979, and spent six years as a B-52 bombardier. It was not a popular time to volunteer.

Retired Military, tell the other contributors to the Red Column about IranAir 655.

Oh yeah. That.

Now, we seem to have a lot of people in this column who are anxious to attack Iran, and kill Iranian people.

How many people here are willing to die to protect Israel? Or in an attack on Iran?

Let us decide up front what is an acceptable number of people to kill. Choose one:

We should kill
A) 10,000 Iranians
B) 1,000,000 Iranians
C) 35,000,000 Iranians

Let us decide up front how many Americans should die for whatever it is we attack them for:
1) 100 Americans should die to protect our national security in Iran and Israel
2) 1,000 Americans should die to protect our national security in Iran and Israel
3) More is ok.

Posted by: phx8 at July 17, 2006 9:24 PM
Comment #168340

I really wish we would act a little more like Americans, read all these posts and it is not giving me a picture of what won WW2, it is a bunch of wimps who are sitting in air conditioned homes while our men are risking their lives in 120 degree heat for them.
You better get together, we are faced with a Holy War here and they are together more than than us. Muslums want our blood, come on people.
Be American Republican or Democrate, we need to unite.

Posted by: yoroy at July 17, 2006 9:31 PM
Comment #168343

oh boy… there’s just too many things in this thread to know where to begin.
So instead I’m going to focus on one issue only. Some of you red meat eating right wingers really seem to want to take on Iran. Regardless of anything else, that’s going to take alot more manpower in the military than there is now. KansasDem got it right first time raising the issue of the Draft, but no one touched it. So how come you want to bark away but aren’t prepared to put the teeth in for a bite that would be credible? Me thinks you don’t really have the right stuff for a real fight.

Say it after me,
“Bring back the draft!”
“Bring back the draft!”
“Bring back the draft!”

Posted by: loki at July 17, 2006 9:37 PM
Comment #168345


I work with a couple of Iranians. Very nice people, never hurt anyone. One is a doctor, the other a nurse. Funny thing is, is that neither of them say they are from Iran. They say they are from Persia.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 17, 2006 9:43 PM
Comment #168346

What is your point?

Most people do not encourage random killing. The numbers you use are for random killing. That is truly absurd. Death will occur in battle. That is a given. It would be great to just attack facilities and destroy them. That is idealistic. If I were to give any number, it would be in relation to H & H leadership.

Posted by: tomh at July 17, 2006 9:46 PM
Comment #168347

I can’t wait until humans evolve past all this shit. (If we don’t end the human race before then)

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 17, 2006 9:46 PM
Comment #168349
I can’t wait until humans evolve past all this shit. (If we don’t end the human race before then)

Amen, but…… I wouldn’t recommend any extended breath holding.

Posted by: Taylor at July 17, 2006 9:52 PM
Comment #168352

If one was to leave out the names and titles, and substitude 2006 with 1938 some very dramatic similarities would show up. A majority of the world tried to negotiate with evil, gave them what they wanted, conceded land, money, aid and nothing stopped them, they wanted more. The powerful countries in the League of Nations tried to make themselves useful but failed. Treaties were signed, the peace loving nations complied and watched. The evil nations consolidated power and grew unchallenged to inflict 50 million deaths. I believe this is happening again, 1938 is happening all over again. Does anyone remember how many years afterwards that total war was sped up and the world was in true peril? 1941, 3 years from now, if history repeats, we will be fighting a total war again, and this time the allies that evil has are living in our own press and anti- war appeasers that will sacrifice millions to get power back. happy trails all.

Posted by: George at July 17, 2006 9:56 PM
Comment #168356
Does anyone remember how many years afterwards that total war was sped up and the world was in true peril? 1941, 3 years from now, if history repeats, we will be fighting a total war again, and this time the allies that evil has are living in our own press and anti- war appeasers that will sacrifice millions to get power back. happy trails all.

Truly. The best bet, right now, is to toss half the US nukes in an even dispertion between the eastern coast of the mediterranian and the southern indian ocean. Lebanon, Syria, Saudi, Omen, Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, and Pakistan. Then go in with glass cutters, and siphon the oil out uninterrupted.

Posted by: Taylor at July 17, 2006 10:02 PM
Comment #168357

Focusing on “we only attack facilities… the rest is just collateral damage” is just a way to avoid responsibility. Doesn’t it bother you that the Israelis who say they strike at infrastructure & militants manage to kill alot more innocents than the ‘bad guys’ who don’t care who they kill? Is one just careless or are the others incompetent?

Posted by: loki at July 17, 2006 10:03 PM
Comment #168358

WW3, how did we get from a group of terrorist attacking the worlds superpower to WW3 in such a short time. Israel has been fighting Palestine for decades. Only 3 decades ago Iran was our friend and we sold them wepons and trained them. Now they are our enemy…Oh now I get it.. Its election time and guess who’s running and guess whose playbook he’s using. Yes, Newt is running and really no really I mean it, this time only him and the repubs can save us from terrorist and from the rabid Iranians, but sadly not from ourselves.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 17, 2006 10:05 PM
Comment #168363

I do think that winning the battle first is the priority, too many people worry about the ” spoils” as the inspiration, thats not the case here, I believe Iran desires control of the whole middle east, Israel and the USA is in the way. Hitler desired the middle east for the same reasons. This is life or death, If we lose, do you honestly think that the Islamo-Fascists would let Liberals and fellow appeasers live with the rest? Its usually the anti- war peaceniks that get it first. Its too bad that we have a kook fringe that denies these truths and look to scandal and greed excuses for everything. Too me, its life or death, I’d hate to see my kids have to re- live the shortsightedness of the 30s infecting our world today. The answer is simple, destroy evil first then work out the peace next. It can’t work any other way.

Posted by: george at July 17, 2006 10:19 PM
Comment #168367

Are you willing to raise taxes to pay for the war you see coming?
Are you willing to reinstate the draft immediatly despite any political repercussions?
Are you willing to put your kids in harms way or just my kids?

Posted by: j2t2 at July 17, 2006 10:27 PM
Comment #168372

wait wasn’t it Saddam’s Iraq that was being supported by America against Iran?
I know you probably mean the support that was provided to the Shah to overthrow the democratically elected(!) government of Iran, only for him to be kicked out in turn.
Iranian Revolution
Really, those republicans who never follow these links should do so this time… you’ll be rewarded by having an actual concrete example of what happens when liberals and islamists work together… it’s a twofer! Hold on what side am I on? I need to sit down, I’m confused.
Bring back the draft!
(maybe Newt will make this part of his platform)

I’m going to have you placed on a strict diet of Monty Python :)

Posted by: loki at July 17, 2006 10:31 PM
Comment #168377


My college roommate’s Dad was held hostage in Iran for 400+ days. Does that count? And how about the Iraqis and soldiers dying at the hands of Iranian bought and/or constructed IED’s? Does that count?

You need to realize that Iran is financing Hezbollah and Hamas. You need to realize that countries like Iran are not transparent. They do not fly a flag everywhere they go … or hardly anywhere they go for that matter. Their Press is essentially Presidential Staff. They have a sworn duty to make you or at least your offspring pray in a Mosque one day. If you were in a United Airlines jet shot down by an Iranian missile they would celebrate your death like Irishmen on St. Patty’s day. Nuclear war isn’t only a future possibility for them, it’s a beautiful and lovely dream.

Please stop defending them.

Posted by: Ken Strong at July 17, 2006 10:39 PM
Comment #168379

Maybe its just my memory but I thought the Shah came here when he was overthrown. I also remember seeing pictures of his son flying a fighter jet bought from America back in the day. I guess that was over 3 decades ago though.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 17, 2006 10:44 PM
Comment #168382

First, we are not playing “Six Degrees of Tehran.” The honest answer appears to be “no,” you have never been attacked, and you have never been harmed by an Iranian.

Second, the Iranians are not supplying IED’s. That is flat wrong. The Iranians are Shias, and their political brothers in Iraq, the parties of SCIRI & Dawa, are also Shias. The Shias are in charge of the Iraqi government. You are completely confused on this point. Please provide a link or source.

Third, I can also personally vouch for one Iranian in this country. He is a great guy.

As for the government of Iran, its support of Hezbollah is obnoxious, to say the least. (Hezbollah is Shia, and its primary patron outside Lebanon is Iran. Hamas is primarily Sunni. Its primary patron is Syria). So how do we stop Iran from supporting groups like Hezbollah, and from developing nukes?

We may not be able to do that. Fortunately, Iran is at least a decade away from being able to threaten the US, so we have time. The best bet would be a long-term approach which brings their government around to a more secularized democracy. Let westernizing cultural influences and globalization do the heavy lifting. Let our true strengths carry the day. Help the Iranians vote out the Mullahs.

A peaceful, non-violent approach is far more likely to be a long term success than a war. Believe in this country, Ken. Believe in what it really stands for- not bombs and missiles and bunker busters and M16’s- but a secular culture which allows each of us exercise our liberty and freedom in pursuit of happiness.

The Iranians want it too, especially the young people. Let time and trade and technology work in our favor. Forget the fear, Ken, believe in this country, be confident.

Posted by: phx8 at July 17, 2006 11:02 PM
Comment #168384

Yes, the Shah came to the US for cancer treatments. This then led to anger back in Iran that became the famous Iran hostage crisis
I don’t begrudge anyone their opinions, but it would result in a more constructive debate if more people used analysis with cause & effect along with a little more data from history, rather than the Fox News style say-it-often-enough and that will make it true strategy.

Posted by: loki at July 17, 2006 11:04 PM
Comment #168390


You might have mentioned that Carter was initially against letting the Shah into America.

Posted by: Rocky at July 17, 2006 11:26 PM
Comment #168391

It doesn’t take the least amount of courage or imagination to argue we should be taking Iran more seriously. Obviously they are one of if not the major player in Middle Eastern events and have the capability to cause great problems around the world. What you, and many other armchair generals, fail completely to address is what specifically you would have us do that we’re not doing right now.

Compare Iran to Iraq. Iran is country of roughly 67 million people (to Iraq’s 25 million) with roughly 4 times the land mass. Iran also has legitimate armed forces that are better equiped and backed with a vast stockpile of actual (as opposed to alleged) WMD’s. So do you believe, based on the results of our effort in Iraq, the U.S. can realistically attack, occupy, and pacify Iran by ourselves? How many troops do we redeploy from Iraq and what of our goals for the Iraqi people? Will we need a draft or do we already have the necessary manpower? Do we need an international coalition and more importantly do you believe Bush and his staff have the ability to convince other countries to go in with us?

On the homefront are you willing to see your taxes raised to fund a World War? Will you accept gas at $6.00 a gallon? $10.00? What are you willing to sacrifice… your neighbor’s children? Your own children? Your own life? Or can we destroy Iran and fight a World War without any major changes to our lifestyle?

I understand it’s emotionally satisfying to demand Somebody Do Something! and much more difficult to ponder the realities of what that Something will entail. So ultimately do you think these kinds of questions are worth pondering in an essay arguing a harder line on Iran or are you only interested in screaming “That house is on fire!” while waiting for someone else to figure out how to put it out?

Posted by: andrew e. at July 17, 2006 11:27 PM
Comment #168393

Actually Loki it does sound like you begrudge some their opinion. If you read my little blurb you would see the Iran was not even the point of the blurb. Why then would I want to add more data to my post on the issue?
So if I wasnt clear enough my point is this: I dont beleive its WW3 time. I dont beleive that when Newt includes wanna be terrorist from the US, Canada and Britain in with those from the Middle East that it becomes a world war. Further, and again its just my opinion, The repubs used this same approach during the last election cycle to scare people and win votes. This time I am questioning this issue. That was the point of the blub.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 17, 2006 11:28 PM
Comment #168409

If anyone would like to read a conservative critique of the position taken by Dr Politico, see WaPo tomorrow. This article by Dr Politico resembles the position taken by Bill Kristol. The WaPo column by George Will comes down on the PNAC/Neocon/Israel-first position of Bill Kristol pretty hard, especially the idea of attacking Iran.

Posted by: phx8 at July 18, 2006 12:07 AM
Comment #168412

so many talking heads or should i say disembodied fingers…
typing furiously with so little knowledge…

the reality?
we are facing an enemy right out of the pits of hell…Islamo-fascism…sworn to the destruction of Israel and America!

the solution? praise the Lord and pass the ammunition…we are indeed in WW3!

Posted by: cybersword at July 18, 2006 12:11 AM
Comment #168414

You’re right Rocky. You too j2t2, I wasn’t attacking you, it was a general spray primarily at conservatives and the habit of over simplification… we can all agree though I think that Carter over thought things despite his good qualities - there I go again.
I think it’s better for everyone to motivate themselves to read up on all this stuff themselves. Embrace history in all it’s unvarnished, messy, pre-spun form. Think about all the compromises, bad decisions and the total lack of cartoon-style ‘bad guys’ that actually exist (even George W)… basically grow up or leave the big decisions to adults.
It’s true that I was taking a tangent off your initial post j2t2 (Iran was not a friend, then it was, and then it wasn’t again). But bringing it back to your topic, I agree. It isn’t WW3. That’s just another easy red flag to ‘get out the base’, a simple slogan that doesn’t require too much thought. Where exactly does this need to find a demagogue come from? Some one always has to be a ‘bad guy’ and some one else (us of course) the ‘good guy’. Like cowboys & indians, and not ordinary people everywhere trying to make a life for themselves… like phx8 has said, America’s soft power is what makes the difference in the end - have a look at south & east Asia if you need proof.

Maybe I should rephrase not begrudging people how they think - if you can’t use reason then I resort to making fun of them, a personal weakness I guess.

Posted by: loki at July 18, 2006 12:17 AM
Comment #168417

Just like in an action movie right, cybersword? Can I be Arnie or have you already got dibs on that?

Posted by: loki at July 18, 2006 12:20 AM
Comment #168420


ask those beheaded with the dull knife of islam if this is an action movie or a real war with evil!

Posted by: cybersword at July 18, 2006 12:29 AM
Comment #168423

…or maybe I need to ask the family of those dead children in the mini-van that got blown to pieces by Israeli war planes.
It’s called the real world. You can join the nutcases, or try thinking first then acting with a plan that will work - remember when people used to have actual plans before they started shooting?.

Posted by: loki at July 18, 2006 12:43 AM
Comment #168425


yes…i really hate it when any innocent dies (as in planes flown into office buildings, bombs exploded on subways in London, or on trains in Mumbai)…(btw, all intentional)

we can certainly agree on this point…war (as in WW3) is hell and the source of it is hell…which was my original point…

but will you still be making “plans” on what to do next when the islamo-fascists explode a nuke in your town?

WW3…it’s already started…too late for PC and sensitivity training now…yes, it is a real world…unfortunately with real evil…and dialogue and diplomacy won’t defeat it!

Posted by: cybersword at July 18, 2006 12:58 AM
Comment #168428

Dr. Politico,
Good post. Although I disagree with the need to commit our country to yet another war I beleive we should look strategically at the middle east. Why are we not after the Saudi’s to belly up to the table with oil and money to protect them if Iran is out for them, same with Egypt et al.

Why would the Newtster bring India into this? I thought they were just on the receiving end of terrorist attacks. Isn’t WW3 an overstatement?

Right now the battle cry seems to be to take the war to them. Is that because they dont have a navy or other transportation to get over here enmasse? I mean if we pulled out wouldnt they have very limited means to attack us. I realize they could sneak in some nukes if we dont fortify our port security. But that’s hardly WW3 level war.
Yet it appears that the neocons are insistent on fighting over there. What kind of carrot will be dangled in front of the American public this time? I remember hearing from W and his administration that Iraq oil would pay for bringing democracy to the people of Iraq. Foolish me, I thought the money/oil would go to pay the costs of the war and not to Haliburton.

As you can tell, if I have my way this time, the American public may be a bit less trusting of the neocons and may not support this new effort to bring democracy to Iran.

My question to you is this- can you tell me something that will change my mind and cause me to trust the neocons on this issue. Right now all I hear is the boys crying wolf, but no wolf do I see at my door.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 18, 2006 1:09 AM
Comment #168435

let’s try some rational thinking - a marine rapes a girl and kills her & her family, does that make the entire corps a criminal organisation? No it doesn’t.
Radical fundamentalist muslims do bad, even evil things. And you want take on the entire Islamic world? Maybe you don’t and I’m reading intentions into your words that you don’t mean. Thing is how do you plan on letting the moderate elements of Islam know that you aren’t attacking all of them without distinction. You’ll notice the Israelis are not doing a particularly good job on that front. That’s called planning.

By the way, do you support the draft? Which would also be part of the planning.

Posted by: loki at July 18, 2006 1:51 AM
Comment #168443

Truly. The best bet, right now, is to toss half the US nukes in an even dispertion between the eastern coast of the mediterranian and the southern indian ocean. Lebanon, Syria, Saudi, Omen, Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, and Pakistan. Then go in with glass cutters, and siphon the oil out uninterrupted.

Oh my, thats simply delicious. I couldn’t agree more. I’m all about doing unto others before they get the chance to do unto me. (Does this sound blood thirsty to you? I hope so, or I will be forced to something truly terrifing such as suggest that abortion be outlawed and that children be able to freely mention “God” while in school. Talk about scary stuff!)

May I humbly suggest we start using nuetron weaponry? Kills em dead as doornails and leaves the equipment standing and ready to use after a few minor repairs. I assure you that if the opposition had them, we would already know all about it.
Sure, its simply amoral and definately against the seriously outdated geneva convention, but then, the bastards we are fighting never heard of “Geneva”, although with the name bandied about so much I’m sure some of them are thinking of blowing up a baby carriage or two over there in the hopes of getting a few of the conventioners.

(Sigh, the problem with libs is they don’t get cyncical humor from conservatives. What a pity.)
Loki, I’ll share a foxhole with you on the frontline anytime. Just make sure you dig that grenade-sump good, ya hear me?

Posted by: HardHatHarry at July 18, 2006 3:46 AM
Comment #168444

“I know not what weapons will be used to in WWIII…I know the WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones.” — A Einstein

Posted by: mcanally at July 18, 2006 3:51 AM
Comment #168445

Just think for a moment, liberal kiddies! I used to have a job on a nuclear submarine posted someplace in the pacific where occasionally, I got to handle the trigger that would lauch 24 Trident missles. Ha!…I was considered the outright and liberal pacifist of our divison.And I haven’t changed my mind at all, on much of anything.

Think for a moment…Somewhere in the dead of night, nearly 20 nuclear subs are in slow circles to nowhere in the atlantic and pacific oceans, each with enough nuclear firepower to reduce significant and inhabited portions of the earth into poisonous radioactive rubble.
Think for another moment…. you have an enemy who isn’t frightened by that. heck, they can’t wait to do it themselves! And you can’t buy them off with favors, either. ‘Cause their ‘god’ tells them its ok to kill infidels and death only means virgins and martydom. How can you not understand that death, glorious and wonderful death, is more important than life ever was to this sort of person?

How, exactly do you plan on negotiating with the few normal and decent people (powerless) among the many nutjobs and the simply evil?

Posted by: HardHatHarry at July 18, 2006 3:59 AM
Comment #168449

You guys started offon the right note (no pun intended). Russia and China could stop all of this if they wanted to.

MAYBE, MAYBE .. Bush can get some sort of deal brokered with Putin. I was glad to see he went to St. Petersburg a day early, it showed that Bush was making our relationship with Russia a priority. After the G8, he needs to send Condie there (who is fluent in Russian) and hopefully see can charm her way to a deal to settle Iran and the Mideast crisis now. We might be able to get some sort of deal with Russia on Iran and even the Israel-Lebanon-Palestinian crisis. The Russians have indicated they want to take a lead in this and why not?

As long as the Russians aren’t going to sell the Israelis up the river, it’s all good. Our relationship with Israel has not paid its post Cold War dividends. We need to support them, but I’m happy to let someone else do it too.

Now for getting China out of Teheran, that is a more difficult thing. If we can move Russia,I hate to say that getting China to move would involve something along the lines with a deal with Taiwan.

Posted by: Steve C. at July 18, 2006 5:54 AM
Comment #168451

I got the humour in it over here HHH - at least I assumed it was humour, I figured that the Israelis would have a problem with someone turning the entire middle east into a nuclear waste dump.
And I’d have no problems sharing a foxhole with you either, but what makes you think I’d be doing your digging? Since I’d out rank you that’d be your job.

On a serious note, just for once though, the scary part is that to really get through our current predicaments the first thing to realise is that no one in the western world is actually going to ‘fix’ this problem. It’s only going to come from within their own societies, and there isn’t any obvious candidates yet. There are a very small number of things we can do to make things better, and an infinite number to make it worse or even impossible. For those of you asking When?, well how long did the western enlightenment take? I’d say they need two basic things as a minimum, decent, even good living standards and a critical mass of liberals (not the silly dogma-ridden liberals you like to make fun of - between you and me, I like to make fun of them too - but the old school true liberals, like Jefferson & Lincoln).
I’d point out that there are nations like Indonesia (the largest muslim population in the world & secular to boot… by the way 2nd largest is… India, fancy that). What bothers me in the here and now is, good people in a place like Indonesia watch what is going on with Israel & Lebanon, and you might not agree but they see blatant double standards. And that’s more likely to make a few more listen to some idiot radical preaching hate instead of strengthening the hand of someone who can lead all of us to a safer place.
I heard a good comment on the radio earlier, if it had been one Arab nation that had launched into another Arab nation in the same way, we wouldn’t be sitting around talking about their right to ‘protect’ themselves no matter how outrageously they did it. It would be blanket condemnation, but somehow Israel is special.

Steve C, glad you brought Russia & China back up, the most important part of this thread in all honesty. It was one of the many issues I was thinking about at the start… somehow I got sidetracked.
If you saw how Putin was prepared to openly disagree with Bush during their press conference at the G8 meeting, I’m not sure about any deal being done that would put you at ease Steve. Then there was that crack that Putin made about democracy and Iraq - the press core had a good laugh and Rice looked like the kid who’d been dragged to sunday church against her will.
More significantly there’s now this emerging organisation called Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. Members are:
Russia, China, the “-Stans” eg. Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and the rest
Plus coming soon… Iran.

Have a look at this too,
Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, a Nightmare for U.S.

Posted by: loki at July 18, 2006 6:55 AM
Comment #168462

All of you are so wrong.

Iran is no more a threat to the USA than little Chavez in Venezuela. Neither has ever invaded its neighbor let alone attack the USA. Yet the USA spent millions in the 1950-1970s to support a dictatorship that ensured oil supplies to US companies.

But to rationalize spending $500 billion a year on antiquated “DEFENSE”, you “conservatives” rattle the war cry to scare the citizens into spending more and more on the military. Isn’t it ironic that not a single Republican congressman has a child in Iraq. Isn’t it ironic that Republicans keep on demonizing Iran when India, Pakistan, Israel, etc. have the atom bomb yet don’t allow international inspectors.

What are the threats to Americans? Health, Education and Retirement. . However, the lobbies that control the Republican congress don’t want healthy, education Americans. They just want more dollars thrown away on DHS and Defense in order for their friends to make millions.

Ask the average American what they fear day to day. It is getting sick and losing their health care insurance if they even have any.

Islam is not the enemy. Iran, Korea, etc. are not trying to destroy middle America. It is our war-mongering hatred of anything that doesn’t put money into our defense industry pockets.

Posted by: Acetracy at July 18, 2006 8:43 AM
Comment #168474

On the military, all presidents have had to balance between what they thought was right and what congress thought was right and as far as gutting the military they all had a hand in it one way or another. Carter tried to get the rescue the hostages, but he did try even though it failed, as far as them being released, Ronnie Ray-gun, made a deal with the Iranians to have them released after he was elected. But wait he and rummy and cheney helped sadam fight the iranians during their war and turned a blind eye when sadam used chemical warfare against iranians and his own people but kept supporting him.
Now as far as Iranians, my wife had to got to a speical doctor for some test, well this doctor who has spent the last 15-20yrs in the US, was saying that the US was getting ready to attack his country of Iran and how much of a warmonger bush is, and he hoped that the iranians would kill all the forces of evil. Here is a doctor working in the US, getting paid by US dollars, probably getting paid by Medicare at times.
It’s not the iranians that are in Iran we might have to worry about, but those here in the US.

Posted by: kt at July 18, 2006 9:19 AM
Comment #168487

I have not read one comment on what the Bible has to say about all of this - it is RIGHT ON as it always is. There will be no peace in the middle east until the return of our Lord and the impending 7 year tribulation. The Antichrist wil bring peace to the middle east but only for a season.
To find answers? Look in your Bibles. The stage is being set and the time of redemption draws near, my friends. Get right with God.

Posted by: Julie at July 18, 2006 10:12 AM
Comment #168499

Acetracy wrote: “Ask the average American what they fear day to day.” I wake up every morning worrying that a married gay couple will burn the flag after illegally crossing over from Mexico. Seriously, Acetracy you are so correct dude. The right continues to try to switch the mesage to whatever scares people - whhether it is terrorism or gay marraige. Their basic message is one of fear, always as been always will be.

Posted by: Steve K at July 18, 2006 10:39 AM
Comment #168509

“The right continues to try to switch the mesage to whatever scares people - whether it is terrorism or gay marraige.”

Don’t forget how they use guns, racism, the impending theocracy and people dying in the streets, to scare people to.

“Their basic message is one of fear, always has been always will be”

Hard to believe they stoop that low isn’t it.

Posted by: kctim at July 18, 2006 11:25 AM
Comment #168513

The Bible also says that Noah fit two of every type of creature on the earth into a boat smaller than my house and Slavery is OK. Lets not lean to hard on the Bible for answers.

Posted by: 037 at July 18, 2006 11:35 AM
Comment #168517

For your sake - do some more homework. God Bless.

Posted by: julie at July 18, 2006 11:42 AM
Comment #168518


(*) the French could contribute their Maginot Line and other military technologies

Believe me, Maginot Line was *never* a military technology. Never.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 18, 2006 11:42 AM
Comment #168520


Truly. The best bet, right now, is to toss half the US nukes in an even dispertion between the eastern coast of the mediterranian and the southern indian ocean. Lebanon, Syria, Saudi, Omen, Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, and Pakistan. Then go in with glass cutters, and siphon the oil out uninterrupted.

Then say hello to nuclear winter.
Then say bye bye to human life on earth.
Then, for those who believe in afterlife, check what animal species will become the rule the planet after that: ants, rats, snakes, fishes, you name it.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 18, 2006 11:52 AM
Comment #168521

… will become the ruleR OF the planet after that: …

Sorry for the typos.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 18, 2006 11:53 AM
Comment #168571

Quote me all you want but don’t say I said something I did not. I have not mentioned anything about colateral damage except for this item as I write.

Posted by: tomh at July 18, 2006 2:18 PM
Comment #168579

Give me the measurements of Noah’s Ark according to your knowledge.

The Bible is very explicit about the time we live in and the very near future. Luke 21 is just one reference. The Palastine people will be destroyed according to the Bible. All the nations of the world will oppose Israel and Israel will lose 2/3 of her nation. Then the Glory of the Lord will appear. He will appear on a white horse with fire in his eyes and destruction and vengeance will be His and he will deal with the enemies of Israel his chose people. You are seeing a small sampling of what is on the horizon. When these actions I described begin to occur, then again according to Luke 21 look up for your redemption draws near. Don’t try to prove me wrong, because the truth cannot be proven wrong. Just search this truth and follow up with further truth and seek the transformation that all man needs to find.

Posted by: tomh at July 18, 2006 2:34 PM
Comment #168581

I was waiting for the first bible thumping textualist to come out and say we should all just sit back and wait for God to fix this. I’m not sure where that leads, but I’m sure it has something to do with all muslums going to “hell” and all the sheltered “christians” at home going to heaven.

Problem is, it adds nothing more to the discussion than if I said “praise Allah…you americans are all infidels and will be judged by God as such.”

Posted by: Kevin23 at July 18, 2006 2:42 PM
Comment #169059

I just came from a trip of the Western U.S. and the biggerst thing that i came away from it was, Americas are fat, stupid arrogent idiots with cell phones attached to their fat heads.Few, if any Americans traveled to far away from the gift store, waiting in line for their “Zion” shot glasses made in China. Who really cares…..who really cares anymore? We sure don’t. Look at us. The right wants the left just to freakin die because of something Clinton did. And we (the libs) are ruining this country with “global warming liberal propaganda” Here is what i say..Bring it on!. I don’t care anymore. I don’t have any kids of my own, and i am 50. I want it to happen. Really! I want to see the right lose their kids in a snoballing, go to hell world. All of the money that is being ratholed away to keep those in charge…in charge. WILL NOT WORK. Never has never will. You right wing neo/nuts can blame the left when it falls all you want, but history for all time will write the names of this White House, as being the leaders of the end of World Democracy.

Posted by: middle man at July 20, 2006 2:45 AM
Post a comment