Iran is No Threat To America

Your comparison with the Soviet Union is misleading. You "forget" that the USSR was a strictly rational player, and would not start a nuclear war just for the sake of it. The same can not be said about the Islamic Republic which is based on an ideology that glorifies war and even suicide.

It makes more sense to compare the Iranian leaders with Hitler, yemach shemo, who launched the suicidal attack on the Soviet Union for ideological reasons. So, to quote Stuart Schoffman in the Jerusalem Report, do you want to put the weapons of Hiroshima in the hands of the likes of Hitler?

You say: "I would remind you that the Iranians, being signatories to the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), are perfectly entitled to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.", and seem to respect the auhtority of the UN. Well, then, here's from the UN: "Iran’s nuclear programme has been a matter of international concern ever since the discovery in 2003 that it had concealed its nuclear activities for 18 years in breach of its obligations under the NPT." (source: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=21997&Cr=Iran&Cr1) Does the pseudo-realpolitik you put forward when saying "Iran is No Threat To America" also apply to other non-threats? Sudan, after all, has no military capacity whatsoever to harm the "continental US", as you put it for Iran. What distinguishes Americans is precisely that they have always been willing to put their lives on the line to save those of others -a concern for humanity that is certainly not shared by your friend Ahmadinejad. In any case, I'm glad to know that you recognise US intelligence agencies as a trustworthy source of information regarding WMDs ("keep in mind that the U.S. intelligence assessment of Iran’s nuclear capabilities says we have ten years before the mullahs go nuclear").

francois- "Sudan, after all, has no military capacity whatsoever to harm the "continental US", as you put it for Iran. What distinguishes Americans is precisely that they have always been willing to put their lives on the line to save those of others"

1. no we haven't, nor do we have an obligation to more than any other country.

2. you admit that whether the threat is real or not doesn't matter.

3. So, should we put our lives on the line for the lives of palestinians? I doubt you feel that way, as it would mean we would turn israel into mogidishu/ baghdad in order to stop israel from assaulting Palestine.

I'm warning you and all zionists, you are sowing the seeds of your own destruction by resorting to this patently dishonest and manipulative rhetoric. You can't fool all the people all the time. Once the "Save Darfur" crowd gets the "no war for israel" message, and it's on deck not that i can predict trends though I wish I could, you are really going to regret it. Imagine a "farenheit 9/11" with ariel sharon rather than the bush administration in it's crosshairs. It would be a pretty easy case to make. think about it for the sake of israel

The USSR as a strictly rational actor? I don't think so, but I'll indulge.

I guess you could say the seizing of Eastern Europe after WWII was a logical, perhaps reasoned, response to a history if invading Western powers. Eastern Europe being a buffer zone.

In this way one could also view the logic behind Iran's actions. A long history of Western powers invading and interfering. The most recent example of Western interference in the neighborhood has proven out that without nuclear weapons, you will not be taken seriously or treated with any respect. Looking at that and the history of the West's interactions with Iran, what is the most rational, logical conclusion?

OMG.... Mr. Raimundo. I bow at your feet, forever a humble servant to the beautiful "smack-down" you have just laid. I, too, don't understand all this "we" nonsense...

It is no big secret, even in Israel, that the US mass media is pretty much controlled by pro-Israel factions. But what we in America know, and what Israel had better start realizing, is that there is a tremendous grasroots awareness of how unhealthy this is for America.
Straighten up your act, Israel, because if you don't there will be division and chaos here in the States over our politicians treating you as "the 51st state".
People see right through your fake peace attempts, they know you want all of Palestine, they see you for what you are. Polls all over Europe prove it. And an honest poll here in the US would also.

As former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer says, Israel only has its military and intelligence services to defend itself with anymore. No diplomatic corp (AIPAC doesn't count!), no standing in the world community, no moral principles to defend, no nothing. As an American, I am definitely NOT interested in going down the tubes along with Israel. And I'm damn sure not interested in bombing Iran or any other country that has done me no harm!

GW still hasn't learned (or doesn't care) that the US has already "lost" the war in Iraq. Does Michael realize that Israel lost the war against Lebanon? What do you imagine attacking Iran will result in? Do we have a learning disability here, or what? The only one who threatens anyone with nuclear weapons in the Middle East is Israel. After all, Israel is the only country in the Middle East that has them - hundreds of 'em! And, yes, this may shock some, Israel and the US are two separate nations with completely different needs. May that forever be true.

Well put, Mr. Raimondo. As more and more Americans are saying: "No more wars for Israel."

Before anyone bombs Iran, let's try out the nuclear-free zone in the Middle East -- including Israel. Israel's opposition to this proposal belies her claim to be interested in "security."

...the perfect counterpoint to Freund's bizzaro-world attempts to keep our tax dollars, arms and reputation flowing down Israel's toilet. Can't wait for tomorrow's installment detailing your "fantasy world", known to normal people as "reality grounded in sound ethics". A subject that, even this late in life, Freund should really aquaint himself with unless he's dead-set on a career in black comedy.

This debate is a prime example of how the internet might help improve the dialogue between people about public policy issues.
Representing the old school, we have Michael Freund pushing the PANIC button throughout his piece, crying that the sky is falling, and generally trying to manipulate people through emotions in general and fear in particular. We can see this even at so superficial a level as the title of the piece: Freund's "Bomb Iran Now" is alarmist and manipulative and pulling on those emotions. And his follow up "You live in a fantasy world, Justin" is bound to be just as empty of reasoned consideration as Fruend's first piece.
Contrast the irrational emotionality of Freund with Justin Raimondo's logic. Like a saber, Raimondo's reasoning is cold, sharp, and cuts to the core of the issue. The utter wind-baggery of Freund and the actual wisdom of Raimondo's position are made particularly clear in a way that might not be so obvious in a live face-to-face debate

Yeah! Like a cold deadly saber!! Wham!

It is high time for real analysis of Israel's role for USA: is Israel the most valuable ally for US in the region?

Perhaps the real reason for all this frenzy by the likes of Fruend is that the US citizenry, despite the avalanche of propaganda by the likes of Rupert Murdock, National Review and AIPAC, are asking such questions and genuinely seeking rational answers.

Israel as an outpost to guard the oil-fields of middle-east and as the black-market arms-dealer, is outmoded and is not going to distract the American people anymore. As a matter of fact and reason, perhaps the Israeli citizenry too, are asking such soul-searching questions.

Iran, with her strategical position (as an ancient gateway between east and west), along with her enormous natural resources could be a much more valuable ally for the USA.

Although, with inflamatory rhetorics of the Bushies (read neocons), the mullahs are getting more entrenched and empowered, it is just a matter of time before the realists re-take the control of the US foreign policy, while the Iranian reformist citizenry, quitely, completely and without another revolution, reject the mullah-cracy that has infected their lifes.

That is when with a more seasoned diplomacy, this comparative analysis of who is a more valuable and natural ally of the USA will become ever more clear.

Meanwhile, the likes of Fruend would resort to anything, particulary fearmongering, to get the USA to destroy Iran, before such realization takes place.

Interesting that Michael Freund's article is entitled "Bomb Iran now", yet we are supposed to believe that *Iran* is a threat and war mongering? Huh?

As a Sephardic Jew of Spanish, Turkish, Iranian and Cuban
extraction....

Blah Blah Blah...call me cynical, but NOTHING any one of
us insignificant human beings can say/do will change
a darn thing...except that your therapist/shrink probably
wouldn't like you/us to have an outlet for our frustrations.

SHALOM.........SHAB-E SHOMA BE KHAYR!

Judging by most of the previous comments, I'm glad to know we still control the world. I don't even know why you bother posting, resistance is obviously futile. http://www.internationaljewishconspiracy.com/

Raimondo's words are like SOAP in Michael Freund's mouth . . .

Soap? Truer to say that Raimondo simply has no answer to Freund's masterful challah and shmaltz rhetorical magic act. Raimondo's no longer even defending himself. Stop the fight.

The fact that Iran is an unpredictable player AND a threat to
Israel does NOT invalidate the observation that most mainstream media in the US are heavily biased in favor of Israel- especially
Likud.

Conspiracy comes from the Latin for con-spirare (to breathe
together, to be in synch).

Could somebody reasonably argue that MOST Jews in
the diaspora do NOT care about the survival of Israel, or that
some would not organize to push for policies that would ensure
its survival?

I'd say there's a conspiracy to deny that there is a conspiracy.

Justin,

Nice work, laying down the virtually irrefutable facts.

You left practically no stone left unturned; however, it is commonly omitted that Ahmadinejad was mistranslated on purpose and is still falsely accused of having "called for the destruction of the Jewish state."

It's a sheer Zioneocon/Mainstream Mafia fraud; he has never called for such a thing. Not only that, but he was actually quoting Ayatollah Khomeini at the time.

Here's the lesson for the day (for those of you out there who actually buy into that BS "wipe Israel off the map" propaganda), delivered by – of all people – an anti-Ahmadinejad Iranian:

========================================
The full quote translated directly to English:

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".

Word by word translation:

Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).

[...]

While the false "wiped off the map" extract has been repeated infinitely without verification, Ahmadinejad's actual speech itself has been almost entirely ignored. Given the importance placed on the "map" comment, it would be sensible to present his words in their full context to get a fuller understanding of his position. In fact, by looking at the entire speech, there is a clear, logical trajectory leading up to his call for a "world without Zionism". One may disagree with his reasoning, but critical appraisals are infeasible without first knowing what that reasoning is.

In his speech, Ahmadinejad declares that Zionism is the West's apparatus of political oppression against Muslims. He says the "Zionist regime" was imposed on the Islamic world as a strategic bridgehead to ensure domination of the region and its assets. Palestine, he insists, is the frontline of the Islamic world's struggle with American hegemony, and its fate will have repercussions for the entire Middle East.

Ahmadinejad acknowledges that the removal of America's powerful grip on the region via the Zionists may seem unimaginable to some, but reminds the audience that, as Khomeini predicted, other seemingly invincible empires have disappeared and now only exist in history books. He then proceeds to list three such regimes that have collapsed, crumbled or vanished, all within the last 30 years:

(1) The Shah of Iran- the U.S. installed monarch
(2) The Soviet Union
(3) Iran's former arch-enemy, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein

In the first and third examples, Ahmadinejad prefaces their mention with Khomeini's own words foretelling that individual regime's demise. He concludes by referring to Khomeini's unfulfilled wish: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time. This statement is very wise". This is the passage that has been isolated, twisted and distorted so famously. By measure of comparison, Ahmadinejad would seem to be calling for regime change, not war.

[Source: http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2007/01/19/p1380...
========================================

Class dismissed.

Again: Well-done, Justin!
Ron Paul or Bust!

–DetainThis
http://detain-this.blogspot.com

I wonder sincerely if any of the involved participants in this debate--authors or commentators--have any depth of understanding about Iranian society to speak of beyond whatever convenient sliver might support their worldview. Iran is not an imminent threat, nor is it a non-threat. Iran is a technologically sophisticated country boasting a population 2/3 of which are 35 or under and 1/2 of which are under 25. This majority is largely anti-mullah, philo-American, and has been actively engaged in liberal demostrations and reforms for more than a decade now. The current administration's policy on Iran has thus far been at the very least non-offensive and, in some cases, ideal. Our leaders should be appealing over the heads of the mullahs and ayatollahs and directly to the Iranian people. Whether you're of the anti-war view or of the camp that seems to think that modern nuclear Iran is "the same as Hitler in the Rhineland," (a rather lazy analysis I think, even if the regime is fiercely anti-semitic--which it is) our efforts should first be concentrated on giving every ounce of support we can to the forces of dissent withn the country. Even a demonstration of solidarity with Iranian civil society one third what the anti-war movement mustered for Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist regime could make an indelible impact on the hearts and minds of young Iranians ripe for revolt but not eager for yet another blundering, meddling intervention from the U.S. in their affairs.

The paragraph you quote is one of those journalistic lies the lives on by virtue of mindless repetition. The following article provides a resume of the facts of US led international harrassment following the 1979 regime change in Iran. The truth is that Iran was not in breach of its IAEA obligations:
"According to arrangements in force at the time for implementation of Iran's safeguards agreement with the IAEA,[15] Iran was not required to allow IAEA inspections of a new nuclear facility until six months before nuclear material is introduced into that facility. At the time, Iran was not even required to inform the IAEA of the existence of the facility. This 'six months' clause was standard for implementation of all IAEA safeguards agreements until 1992, when the Board of Governors decided that facilities should be reported during the planning phase, even before construction began. Iran was the last country to accept that decision, and only did so February 26, 2003, after the IAEA investigation began.[16]"
http://www.answers.com/topic/nuclear-program-of-iran
What kind of website is this jewcy one that promotes so many mindless lies???

israel 1948-2014

1) Let me see, what do you call, say, WWII?   2) errrr... that would have been ironic.    3) Well actually, yes, but it seems the danger for Palestinians comes mostly from themselves. Anyway I'm impatient to see you demonstrate against the current and future exactions of the Lebanese government and army against the Palestinians. Thanks for the warning. In case you haven't heard, is out for the count. For the record, I'm in favour of a two states solution, and I believe as Shimon Peres did that the solution to the Palestinian problem is at least to a large extent economic (although continuing miseducation of children and exposure to violence may make a purely economic solution increasingly harder to come by).

Hmmmm, let me see. My source: http://www.un.org. Your source: "answers.com". No offence meant, but I'm afraid I know which one of two essays from students quoting those references I'd be tempted to give a "C" to. (Hint: it's not the one whose authors you could identify.)

I totally take your point; that's why I've heard from pretty much every single Iranian I've met. However, one has to wonder what the "power of the people" actually is -especially in a country that cannot be seriously considered a democracy. And specifically, as regards the imminent threat -actually, it's an active one, since it sends fighters to both Iraq and Lebanon (and/or trains them).

"The current administration's policy on Iran has thus far been at the very least non-offensive and, in some cases, ideal."

Says who? John Bolton? Glenn Beck? Amir Taheri? Bibi Netanyahu? lmao

"Whether you're of the anti-war view or of the camp that seems to think that modern nuclear Iran is "the same as Hitler in the Rhineland," (a rather lazy analysis I think, even if the regime is fiercely anti-semitic--which it is)"

Oh. I guess that's why Iran boasts the largest Jewish population in the Middle East outside of Israel (30,000+), and that they almost unanimously refuse to emigrate to Israel because they're treated better... IN IRAN!

You have so much to learn about Iran, Jews in Iran, and foolish intervention and US policy towards Iran. (Either that, or you work for AIPAC.)

No more wars and sanctions against Iran for Israel and the zionazi-neocons!

"And specifically, as regards the imminent threat -actually, it's an active one, since it sends fighters to both Iraq and Lebanon (and/or trains them)."

Let me guess... Is that based on some unnamed, Bush Administration source... or just one of those so-called "experts" like a "former CIA analyst" on Glenn Beck/Bill O'Reilly?

Seriously... what credible, authoritative source do you have that backs that up with evidence? I'm willing to acknowledge your being correct, if you can convince me you're not just perpetuating vile War Party propaganda.

What makes a French Jew like Francois Blumenthal an expert on what America should do? Did Francois support the Iraq war, unlike most of his countrymen? Why don't you just go away and help neo-conize your country like your fellow Jew Sarkozy is trying to do.

But clearly in this case there is no discussion possible.

Someone here sarcastically commented that he's glad Raimondo likes US intelligence. Actually, the US intel professionals were cautious about Saddam's WMDs. It's the administration that cherry-picked and took what it wanted.

As for general comments: Iran has a rational reason for wanting a nuke, given the US invasion of its neighbor and Israel's 200+ nukes. Crazy Ahmadinejad is not in control. The Mullahs are not crazy enough to nuke Israel or the US. They want it for deterrence and to increase their status. Bombing Iran wouldn't work anyway. Osirak was an anomaly.

"Someone here sarcastically commented that he's glad Raimondo likes US intelligence": I didn't know that Raimondo's first name was Lester. I like it. It gives it a "James Bond" kind of ring: "Raimondo. Lester Raimondo."

francois- we intervened in ww2 because we wanted to, not because we were obliged to. and I think it was a mistake. I would have preferred hitler and stalin battle it out. whatever, there was a strange trend towards big government at the time and FDR was part of that. My grandfather dropped bombs on german cities and drank himself to death because of it. he never got over it. My dad's time in vietnam were the worst times of hois life. He still has nightmare about it. I realize you did not ask for my biography but the point is war is dumb and we are wise to the fact that getting involved in peoples age old rivalries is not in our interst.

I don't see the palestinians as victims of themselves. they didn't give another group more than half their country. whether israel is more advnced as a nation is immaterial. it's stealing and it's wrong

I'm for a one state solution. the state is called Palestine.

The idea that jews are persecuted and need israel is laughable. the richest neighborhoods in boston are all jewish. chestnut hill is one of the most expensive neighborhoods in the conutry. I wish I could be persecuted like that.

Josh Strawn is throwing challange at the commentators about "in depth" knowledge of Iran and its culture. Fair, but is his knowlege to be trusted?
How long has he lived in Iran that he can claim to know what the Iranian youth is like?
I, myself, worked in Iran for six years teaching in an iranian international school and met and talked a lot with my students, some of whom I stil have contact with.
Whilst it is true that most of my students were "philo"-American, it is also true that they were coming from a priviledged class of Shah's followers.
I also had impression for a while, just like Josh, that this was a general phenomenon among educated Iranian youth. When Khomieny's uprising occured, we foreigners realized that we were living within a very thin strata of Iranian society which, being pretty closed was feeding itself on Shah's megalomaniac fantasies. Almost all this people are now abroad continuing to sell themselves as the tue representatives of Iran. If Josh gets his feelings from them, he better be careful.
There was an enormous revolutionary islamic mass out there, we had no contact with, which we imagined ,cosily, didn't exist. They wiped out the monarchy as though it never existed.
A word of caution, don't take seriously emigrees, they have vested interest
to propagate their fantasies. Revolutionary regimes are exceedingly difficult to bring down by foreign intervention. The whole history is made
of disastrous attempts to reverse them. French Revolution, Russian Revolution,Vietnamese Revolution,Castro's revolution- all interventions have only strenghten them. My guess would be that Iranisns would also offer a fanatical resistance to a foreign attack. Revolutions are wasps nest.
(BTW,I agree with Raimondo, Lester or not)

To Francois: I would only add that democracy isn't the only condition necessary for the "power of the people" to function. Sorry to keep harping on this catchword, but from Arato to Habermas, its just the best we have: its about civil society. Civil society can exist in non-Democratic states, its just that Democratic states tend to facilitate the growth of a strong civil society the best. In Iran a civil society does indeed exist and its power isn't meager, especially when one examines the record of reforms the clerical oligarchy has succumbed to over the past decade (in fact, upon closer examination, Islam in Iran has always had to fight for status. To this day, No Ruz, the Zoroastrian holiday is the one of the biggest holidays in Iran and the mullahs have had to embrace pre-Islamic poet Ferdowsi because the people wouldn't accept his removal from the canon by Khomeniists). The reformist politicians have let the people down, but the movement hasn't backed down one inch. As for an imminent threat, I assumed that the notion of imminent threat as regards the the debate was imminent nuclear attack, not Iran's ability to threaten neighboring states/people with military force, which it clearly can do and does.

To anonymousity:

Try reading carefully next time. The amount of people that belong to a certain ethnic group or religion or sect within a given state's borders does not consitute the policy of that state's regime. Take Iraq's large Kurdish population--the regime had quite an easy time being anti-Kurd, did it not? Similarly, the size of Iran's Jewish population does not change the feelings of the regime toward Jews. Was the gist of my post not expressly against bombing or any such intervention by the United States or Israel? I know plenty about Iranian Jews, American meddling, 1953, the AIOC, the D'arcy Concession, and all of that, thanks (I also know a thing or two about Britain and Russia if you'd care to go back that far!). You call me a propagandist and say I have much to learn, but my position on this is informed most directly by Shirin Ebadi, Maryam Namazie, Ramin Jahanbegloo, and the various Iranian activists and scholars whose work I follow. I said explicitly that John Bolton's comment was absurd. I wonder how people like you can tell me that the Iranian regime isn't anti-Semitic when the aforementioned Jahanbegloo had to be wrested from an Iranian prison by a coalition of leftist intellectuals (including Chomsky) for his comments in the Spanish magazine El Pais regarding the mullahs' bigoted position on the Holocaust. Would you care to tell Mr. Jahanbegloo that the Iranian regime isn't anti-Semitic because so many Jews live in Iran? And would you care to present some evidence that the positions I've advocated above are in any way contradictory to the dissenting reformist/liberalist line inside Iran that runs, almost no matter who you ask, GIVE US MORAL SUPPORT, BUT KEEP YOUR MILITARIES AND YOUR CIA AWAY. I've said nothing contrary to that to my knowledge and I would certainly hope to be corrected if I have.

Peter, I'm the first to admit that I've not been to Iran--I admit to being a total slave to the work of reporters, scholars, etc. (though I'm quite envious of your time there!).  From the wording of your post it seems that you were there perhaps pre-1979 and maybe a bit after?   Regardless, it is my impression that ,given the widespread unpopularity of the mullahs since the revolution, the Islamic Republic's anti-American line has backfired on them the way a taboo on smoking or drinking makes smoking and drinking attractive to a youngster.   Perhaps at the time you were there, philo-Americanism was indeed a limited phenomenon, but it is not only emigrees who claim that it is no longer so limited.  However, not hating the U.S. doesn't mean wanting another bout of U.S. meddling.  It also doesn't mean that resentments for the coup against Mossadeq or for supporting Saddam during the 80's don't still run deeply in the wider Iranian consciousness.  The bar for this e-mail exchange has been low overall.  Anne Applebaum's piece in the Telegraph entitled 'War With Iran is In No One's Interests' is more the speed I can appreciate.   These two cats, along with most of the folks they seem to have attracted to the comment threads, aren't making a lick of sense where Iran is concerned.  Instead it seems they're exchanging a bunch of mush-headed fantasies and paranoias. 

In The Book of Lists (p. 99), Iran is mentioned as one of the "nations that can blow us up in 7-10 years." The source cited is intelligence findings of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. The date is April 1976.

As a Christian nation, America would act to protect the holy land from destruction. Iran stands as a satan attmepting to block the Rapture by turning Israel into a nuclear wasteland. No Christian could permit this to happen.

anonymous- EXCELLENT point

So Iran has the power to forestall the apocalypse as against the wishes of the almighty God who set time in motion and placed the Rapture toward the end?  So...Iran is more powerful than God?  Whoa!  No good, omnipotent God could permit stupidity like this to flourish.  Here's a proposition: more so than this prospective nuclear capacity, the worst thing the Persians have given us is the concept/notion/myth of Ahriman.  (also, those who imagine America is a "Christian" nation should, as always, refer to the Virginia Statute).  You see what happens when a religion counts the denial of carnal pleasure as a virtue?  People have to start dreaming up all sorts of weird Rapturous experiences.  I'm gonna go out on a Freudian limb here and just note how much calamity is wrought by fear of genital pleasure. 

That's one good thing about Judaism. Nothing inherently dirty about "genital pleasure". In fact, it's a mitzvah to make sweet, sweet love on Friday night, provided the lovers are married, b'Ezrat Hashem.

...regardless of the way mad mullahs and misogynist Islamic jurists throughout history have distorted the fact, Islam too advocates pleasures of the flesh as Divine, frowns on celibacy, and is explicit about the fact that sex is not merely for procreation. 

Yeah, Judaism and Islam share much more in common re: sex than either do with Christianity. That happens a lot, Christianity being the outlier among the three. Sometimes that's for the better (fine, eating pork isn't such a big deal!), sometimes for the worse ("Sex is DIRTY!").

The above comment should not be interpreted as an endorsement of jihad.

Where would 'jihad' be without its ability to seduce the male victims of gender apartheid?!!? We should be allowed to extol the virtue of these cultures' appreciation of conjugal relations without having to explain that we don't endorse random mass murder, don't you think? I appreciate that somebody else here understands the the political virtue of hot sex.

Iran has not started a war for over 100 years, does not abuse its Jewish citizens as Israhel abuses its Arabs. Get real.

Alexander, your subject title has an interesting effect when spoken aloud: it simply says 'not Zionism.'  I prefer that.  It's a fine position to take and one I am most likely to agree with.  A position that I think is untenable is this fashionable and objectively false equivocation of Israel with the Third Reich.  Can't folks like you to do the work of criticism with some respect for specificity and reality?  Everything bad is not Nazi, just like everything suspicious is not Orwellian or Kafkaesque, and so on and so forth (and besides, can't Robert Walser get a little credit where dark, labyrinthine parables of authority and madness are concerned?!).  Isn't it 2007, not 1943?  Has the world not changed enough to warrant some neologisms and fresh frameworks for argument?  History certainly holds lessons for the present, but it starts to seems as if everyone has tunnel vision for WWII, when WWI holds as many if not more significant lessons for many of our present dilemmas.  Folks such as yourself should empty your quiver of these cliched shortcuts because they end up being a shortcut to wrongheaded thinking.  They are substitutes for substantive critique.  While it's true that Iran has mainly been engaged in a struggle for autonomy more so than hostility for the last century, it's also true that the regime regularly engages in agressive activites against its neighbors.  And while it is true that elements within the Israeli government deserve scorn for their policies toward Arabs, it has not yet rounded them up in the millions and sent them to extermination camps.  What I know for certain is that, in a country where grown-ups aren't allowed to dress themselves according to their own tastes and wishes, where morals police can persecute those that dance, or walk/talk with a non-related member of the opposite sex, everybody is abused.  Its reality that's missing from your comment and its adolescent subject heading.      

Josh,

No one said Iran had the power to forestall anything. That's because a Christian America would never allow Iran or any other nation to threaten the destruction of Jerusalem. Look at 1973. America threatened nuclear war to protect the holy land. That doesn't mean America will always support everything Israel does.

Sorry to burst your teeny-tiny little bubble, but there is no such thing as "holy land."  Also, you've just said that Iran can't frustrate the apocalypse because the United States can and will strongarm it into submission.  My point is that anybody who believes in such divine power would believe that God--quite the big shot I'm always told--wouldn't need the help of "Christian America" to protect his designs (you obviously didn't look into that Virginia Statute yet).  Every time I hear "politics" like these, I become briefly religious, and pray that people like you aren't registered to vote.       

Josh,

God expects us to help ourselves. When God told Noah to build the ark, Noah didn't say no need, God will save me.

What's your point about the Virginia Statute? Seperation of Church and State doesn't mean that American polticians don't act based on their religious beliefs. Look at the alliance between the Pope and Reagan to fight the godless Soviets.

Josh says "Where would 'jihad' be without its ability to seduce the male victims of gender apartheid?!!?" and "I appreciate that somebody else here understands the the political virtue of hot sex."

Stifled sexuality can fuck up your soul and lead you to redirect the energy in crazy directions. Someone said that if young artist Hitler had had a successful one-man show followed by a month of bouncy sex, the 20th century might have been vastly different. I don't know if that's true, but I do know that the desperate thirst that Arab men have for information about the sex life of Westerners is sickly, and no advertisement for purdah.

The above comment should not be interpreted as a fascist's call for the ethnic cleansing of the West Bank.