Saturday, April 15, 2006

A "decaying power"

A recent quote from one of Iran's religious leaders has caught my attention. It's interesting how Iran has become extremely bold over the past few years, basically daring the United States to try stopping them from getting nukes. The threat of UN has hardly drawn a shutter. We're now considering military action, and still the Iranians aren't flinching. Why?

The words of senior cleric Ayatollah Ahmad Janati can explain: "the US is a decaying power...and lacks the stamina to block Iran's ambitions"

Is anyone offended by this? I'm not, because he's not far from the truth. Just three years ago, Iran's neighbor was up to the same thing and the UN refused to take action and the half the US population opposed action. The President has suffered as a result, and now more than half want to "cut and run" just to get out. Hardly a show of stamina on our part. The way we handled Iraq, as a nation, is very telling about our resolve to stop maniacs from doing bad things. Now, as a result, the maniacs aren't scared. You see, all you anti-war folks, why I think you should rally behind our troops in Iraq and call for victory? Wouldn't that send a different message to the maniacs?

Too late now. Not only are they NOT supporting Iraq, but they're already calling out against action in Iran. So the Iranians aren't going to give in to our demands, because they simply don't think we have the guts to follow through on them. And they may be right, thanks to our "healthy dissent" crowd.

So here's the question. We're rapidly approaching a major crisis in Iran. Once they get nukes, they're launching on Israel. Our borders are wide open, and it's not far-fetched to think that they could smuggle one of those things into the US and use at as blackmail to force us out of the Middle East. Or worse, simply detonate it in downtown wherever for the sake of killing Americans. If you don't think this can happen, then you need to join the rest of us in the real world. If you think the UN is going to stop these maniacs, well, you may be more deranged than the Iranians. So what do YOU do? I especially want to hear from the anti-war folks on this one. Do you try to "contain" the threat? How? Especially when we have troops vulnerable to tactical battlefield nukes in the area already. So, you're the President, what do you do?

5 comments:

Dan Trabue said...

Speaking for this anti-war folk, the thing I think would go the furthest towards securing our nation would be to charge the Bush team for war crimes. There is a good number of us who think our arrogance and military adventurism is doing the greatest harm to our security - more than any threat posed by folk like Iran or Iraq.

Or belligerence gives fuel to those terrorists and others who'd love to nuke the US if they could.

We'll always live in a world with security risks, legitimate ones will need to be dealt with. But we've enough WMDs (and the will to use them - the only nation that has demonstrated such a will with nuclear weaponry) to decimate any nation that attacked us.

Rational nations won't do so out of their own self-interest. UNLESS enough of them perceive the US to be such a threat as to warrant the risks an attack might incur.

Or so it seems to me.

John The Patriot said...

Well, one voice from the anti-war crowd feels that charging our President with war crimes is the answer.

With all due respect, I don't think this will lead to the disarmament of Iran.

I agree that RATIONAL nations know that using nuclear weapons aggressively is self-destructive. However, I don't think anyone could effectively argue that Iran and its leadership is anywhere near the neighborhood of rational.

"Our belligerence gives fuel..."
I disagree. There wasn't much belligerence during the Clinton years, yet they still hit us harder than we've ever been hit before. But there WAS a lot of indifference. It seems these people respond more to weakness than bold aggression.

One other thing, Dan. The tone of your comment seems to follow along the lines of 'blame America'. I certainly hope that's not the case.

WRBishop said...

OK I am going to post something for you Dan. Please read it carefully and see if you can wrap your liberal mind around it.

For those who believe, the devotion is real. Tears stream down the cheeks of 2,000 men ripe for the return of the Mahdi, the 12th Imam they expect will soon emerge to bring justice and peace to a corrupt world. Eyes stare upward and arms open wide to receive God's promised salvation. The storyteller's lyrical song speaks of tragedy on the path to salvation, prompting cries of anguish and joy.

As at a Christian revivalist meeting that promises healing and redemption, many weep as they pray for the Shiite Muslim version of the second coming of the Messiah. "Sometimes I feel they don't need me," says Mahdi Salashur, the religious storyteller, after leading congregants on an emotional late-night journey. "They are wired to God in their hearts."

Among the true believers is Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who predicted with "no doubt" his June election victory, months in advance, at a time when polls gave him barely 1 percent support. The president also spoke of an aura that wreathed him throughout his controversial UN speech in September.

"O mighty Lord," Mr. Ahmadinejad intoned to his surprised audience, "I pray to you to hasten the emergence of your last repository, the promised one, that perfect and pure human being, the one that will fill this world with justice and peace."

Later, at a private meeting with a cleric that was caught on video, Ahmadinejad shared his views of the moment. "I felt that all of a sudden the atmosphere changed, and for 27 to 28 minutes the leaders did not blink," he said. "They were astonished.... it had opened their eyes and ears for the message of the Islamic Republic."

A spokesman last week dismissed the video as fake (other sources confirm it is authentic), and denied that Ahmadinejad bases decisions on "heavenly affairs." But this presidential obsession with the Mahdaviat [belief in the second coming] yields a certitude that leaves little room for compromise.

From redressing the gulf between rich and poor in Iran, to challenging the United States and Israel and enhancing Iran's power with nuclear programs, every issue is designed to lay the foundation for the Mahdi's return.

Ahmadinejad's executive self-confidence contrasts sharply with the eight-year presidency of Mohammad Khatami, a moderate cleric who advocated a "dialogue of civilizations" and Iran's return to the international fold.

Ahmadinejad is instead transporting Iran back to the first radical years after the 1979 Islamic revolution, defined by battling imperial US and Soviet powers and Zionism. The former Revolutionary Guardsman says Israel is a "tumor" that must be "wiped off the map." He denies the Holocaust. And he is pushing the Iran's nuclear-power card; stalled talks with the European Union to curb those plans resume Wednesday in Vienna.

WRBishop said...

Better yet Dan, do a Google on "Iran Messiah" and read up on the Iranian Lunatic. You better hope beyond belief that we have a President as Great and Strong as Bush in the White House when this guy gets a hold of weapons grade uranium.

Dan Trabue said...

Blame America? Partially, not fully. We have placed ourselves above the law for quite a while, now, saying that it's okay for us to have hundreds of nuclear weapons but not for others, for instance. Invading countries unprovoked, for instance.

Do I think the US is the only problem? No. We're a fallen race (if I may wax religious), bound towards error.

There are, of course, individuals in other countries who make all manner of bad decisions, as does Bush. But I don't have authority over other countries. Other countries' leaders are not accountable to me/us. Our leaders are.

And so, I strive to begin to make change at home first.

But, fine. We disagree. You asked. I answered.