Why Iran Should Worry

Always enjoy your razor-sharp observations and analysis, and I agree with you: An attack is very likely. However, you stop short of telling us what your personal position is: Do you approve of or even recommend an attack, or do you too see it as an act of stupidity..

Personally, I support an attack, not only in an Israeli and / or international pespective, but specifically also in an Iranian perspective. “Spring” will come to Iran eventually, but nukes in the hands of Armageddonite Ayatollahs could turn spring into winter..

When spring comes to Iran, there will be no risk of Islamists taking over, all the while they are already in power, - very unlike Arab nations, where spring looks suspiciously like winter, but Iranian nukes could very well change the game..

 

Always enjoy your razor-sharp observations and analysis, and I agree with you: An attack is very likely. However, you stop short of telling us what your personal position is: Do you approve of or even recommend an attack, or do you too see it as an act of stupidity..

Personally, I support an attack, not only in an Israeli and / or international pespective, but specifically also in an Iranian perspective. “Spring” will come to Iran eventually, but nukes in the hands of Armageddonite Ayatollahs could turn spring into winter..

When spring comes to Iran, there will be no risk of Islamists taking over, all the while they are already in power, - very unlike Arab nations, where spring looks suspiciously like winter, but Iranian nukes could very well change the game..

 

Yes, the Iranian regime has to go; but we ought to criticise the West as well. Is every Iranian dissident unpatriotic because they do not support the current regime in Iran? No. so why is it when we criticise the West we are deemed ‘bolshie’?
For instance when we mention how Shah Reza Pahlavi was merely another West Asian autocrat whose main purpose was to act as a cat’s paw during the Cold War, it is considered irrelevant at best, unpatriotic at worst. There’s still the notion of ‘my country right or wrong.’
BTW, one thing irritates me to no end: what the Arabs and Shiites have done to Israel is as nothing to what Germany and its allies did. Israel’s enemies would have to wipe out the mideast to equal WWIM

..but not to demonise the Germans—by the same token we shouldn’t demonise Arabs/Shiites; they are reacting to our treating the region as a would-be self service filling station for our petroleum imports.

At any rate, the Shah was a despot would got a pass because he was an ally of the West.

Intomorrow—

if your description of the political climate in God’s own country is correct, things are much worse than I thought, so I’m asking myself: What (backward) corner of the US are you living in, or maybe I’m just an ignorant and spoiled Dane..
I do recall Bush: “You are either with us or against us”, but do you really mean to say there’s been no progress.. - I guess the outcome of the coming election will show us.. - Of course I hope Obama is re-elected, but I will tell you this: We Europeans are deeply fascinated - and secretly admire - “cowboy”-rhetoric, - e.g. Romney aide: “With a new sherif in town, the Iranians will understand that…”

Re: “..when we mention how Shah Reza Pahlavi was merely another West Asian autocrat..”

Say I said that to 100 Europeans, - north or south, doesn’t matter - I’m quite certain I could count those who would object on one hand, so all in all, your comments really illustrate the EU versus US perspective, - IF we are correct, that is..

Re: “..what the Arabs and Shiites have done to Israel is as nothing to..”

Could it be - “simply” - because Israel has succesfully defended itself ? - In other words: they haven’t had the chance to “wipe the Jews off the face of the earth”. What could have happened, for instance, if the combined Egyptian and Syrian forces had overrun Israeli defences - as was very nearly the case - during the Yom Kippur war.. - I believe the world would have witnessed a massacre on both sides.. - Imagine Israel blasting the Aswan Dam with a nuclear bomb..

Then imagine nukes in the hands of Armageddonites..

Besides: I’m not a historian, but before and during WWII there was undoubtedly an Arab/Muslim Nazi connection / collaboration, and some even suggest that inspiration for the “Final solution” came directly from Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

Re “Personally, I support an attack, not only in an Israeli and / or international pespective, but specifically also in an Iranian perspective.”

In other words, killing innocent civilians is good, for their own good. Better dead than under a government that we disapprove of, isn’t it. Let’s go ahead, fabricate false evidence (remember those WMDs in Iraq) and bomb them. Let’s go.

@Giulio

“In other words, killing innocent civilians is good, for their own good. Better dead than under a government that we disapprove of, isn’t it”.

Do I sense a touch of satire..

Well, Giulio, I wouldn’t express myself exactly like you’ve done, but nevertheless.. let’s take your words at face value, and apply them to a different scenario:

Say you said the same to an English Mustang fighter plane pilot who took part in the raid on Gestapo Copenhagen HQ, - a raid that went wrong, killing innocent civilians.
What would he say to you ? - YES ! - sometimes it IS the right thing to RISK killing civilians, for their own good, and YES ! - better dead than under a government / occupation we disapprove of !

I’m pretty sure you agree with that, but I’m pretty sure also you will say: Wait a minute, - it makes no sense to compare the situation in Iran to the occupation of Denmark, and you’d have a point, but nevertheless, at least in my view, the Iranian regime is an evil - and dangerous - regime, and yes, I totally understand and support Israel, should they decide to attack, and yes, I believe it would benefit the Iranian PEOPLE.

Re: false evidence

Are you suggesting the Ayatollahs are NOT doing their utmost to build nuclear weapons..

Jews have learned throughout history that “when someone says they want to kill you, believe them” !

Hi Joern—great to see you here. I don’t know piero’s POV, not sure.

Regarding your comments, they remind me of an Ayaan Hirsi Ali statement that claimed ending Islam would benefit Muslims the most.

Easy to agree with that, since “Islam” means “submission” which seems hopelessly out of step with goals in the modern world.

I enjoy posting piero - I think he has a keen eye for observing geopolitical power games, the layers of positioning involved.

We’ll see if he’s right, I’ve been telling people that Israel will bomb Iran after Syria falls, an opinion of mine based largely on piero’s essays.

“..because Israel has succesfully defended itself ? - In other words: they haven’t had the chance to “wipe the Jews off the face of the earth”. What could have happened, for instance, if the combined Egyptian and Syrian forces had overrun Israeli defences - as was very nearly the case - during the Yom Kippur war”

Difference is, Joern, Israel’s enemies have gone and will go to the absolute brink and no further, while Hitler would go over the brink. Brinkmanship isn’t Hitlerian nihilism.
Agreed the Iranian regime has got to be overthrown, yet the Iranian people are not entirely the same as the regime; as you know, there are many Iranian dissidents in ‘n out of Iran; and Iranians have been inculcated with Iranian “Revolutionary” (devolutionary) religion/ideology for 33 years, they cannot be held culpable. Many are resentful we treated Iran as an oil spigot and Cold War pawn, there is a reason they chant “death to America.”
And, yes, I know as Europeans know what sort of fundamentalists the Shah was up against however Americans only really deep down care about America and that is reason enough, alone, for many Iranians to mistrust us. Plus the Shah lacked a certain finesse, the same finesse his father lacked. So the outcome was similar: in 1941 the Shah’s father’s being overthrown wasn’t regretted all that much because he was no popular and halfway decent ruler as Ataturk was in Turkey. Ditto sonny-boy.
True, Iran is not comparable to Turkey albeit neither were the Shahs comparable to Ataturk.. they were run-of-the-mill rulers—no better or worse.
Not that America is not a great nation, but it—again—only actually cares about America and tells the world it is the ‘greatest country in the world’; a difficult role to play forever. It could play the role of the ‘greatest country in the world’ in 1945 when it was the Colossus betriding the world. That was then, this is now.

@ Hank

Thanks ! - also for mentioning Ayaan Hirsi Ali - a female freedom fighter par exellence, and what a simple, yet profound truth, that ending Islam / submission would benefit Muslims the most !

I totally agree also, that Piero has a keen eye for observing geopolitical power games, - (and you have a keen eye for good writers.. : )

I find Piero interesting for many good reasons, - one is that he appears to have balanced views, - he is neither “bolshie” nor right-wing nutjob. I believe he is (very..) critical of Israel, but at the same time I have a feeling he is also quite “Islamophobic” - (his chance to correct me..) - a rare combination if you ask me. Most critics of Israel tend to be apologetics of Islam.

I have read Piero’s (academic) biography - http://www.scaruffi.com/bio.html - and I ask myself: How is it possible for one human being to accomplish that much. HIGHLY impressive ! - and makes me feel like a complete nobody..

Joern—I agree, I think piero is critical of both Israel and the Arab/Muslim nations. I don’t know that he is “equally” critical - but I do think that he can’t be categorized as pro-Israel or anti-Israel or pro-Arab, etc.

I also agree that he is quite the Renaissance man. If you ever get to San Francisco we should track him down—I know that he lives within 40 miles of me—somewhere on the San Francisco Peninsula—and he throws “events” on occasion, often at Stanford, it seems.  The events seem to be quirky art & science parties; I will have to get to one and say HI.

I didn’t find piero myself, he was recommended to me by the commenter CyngusIX, who lives in London. piero is somewhat internationally famous…

I would say that criticising Israel plus Islamophobia is a pretty common combination here in Europe, in fact I would say it is more or less the default setting for average (white) Europeans. In the US there is about the same level of Islamophobia (albeit expressed in somewhat different ways) but considerably less criticism of Israel.

Re Islam and “submission”, I think it is a mistake to see this as fundamentally out of step with modern values. Obviously it has problematic connotations, for example when it translates into female submission to patriarchal males, but the true meaning - and I don’t think this is the type of wishful interpretation for which I sometimes criticise commenters here with regard to Christian scripture - is submission to God. Personally I don’t have a problem with the idea of submission to God, as long as God is taken to mean precisely the embodiment of enlightened (and especially utilitarian) values. It may he objected that this is NOT what the word “God” refers to in traditional Islam, but I think my point still stands in the sense that the concept of “submission” is not in itself the main problem.

Well, all this is somewhat off-topic but important nonetheless in my view. Even as a FAPP atheist and critic of wishful interpretations of scripture I still find it important to avoid writing off, or even appearing to write off, entire religions as fundamentally toxic. I would not say that about Islam any more than I have ever said such things about Christianity, or religion in general. People will continue to be religious in various ways for a long time to come, so it’s important to find a modes vivendi based on mutual respect and understanding.

@Joern re “YES ! - sometimes it IS the right thing to RISK killing civilians, for their own good”

Being killed is not good. Seeing loved ones killed is not good. So thinking that you can kill people for their own good is absurd.

re “YES ! - better dead than under a government / occupation we disapprove of !”

Perhaps, but the choice is theirs to make, not ours.

If you say “me must kill them before they kill us,” I will understand. If a wolf is about to attack me, I must kill the wolf before it kills me. But I would never have the self-righteousness to say that it is for it’s own good.

The two statements of yours quoted above are exactly the kind of patronizing fascism that much of the world hates the West for.

@Hank

“quirky art & science parties” – at Stanford..

Sounds like my kind of thing

@ Giulio

“thinking that you can kill people for their own good is absurd”

Yes, but those are your words, not mine. Sadly, freedom is not a given, - comes at a price = innocent civilians, - and at times the oppressed need a hand from the outside. Calling that fascism is absurd, and maybe the self-righteous are those who’d rather sit back and watch.. while many more   innocent civilians are being killed..

Re: If you say “me must kill them before they kill us,” I will understand

So you do understand Israel then, - if not approve..

@Peter

“I would say that criticising Israel plus Islamophobia is a pretty common combination here in Europe”

Seriously ? – I have yet to meet someone on the left political spectrum – (probably half of us..) – critical – if not hateful – of Israel, who is not an apologetic of Islam. French (existentialist..) newspaper Libération is an exception to that rule perhaps..
Unfortunately, “Islamophobia” is a misnomer, designed to discredit sober critics of Islam, and my impression is that Piero is just that: a sharp and sober analyst and critic.

Re: “the concept of “submission is not in itself the main problem”

No so sure Hirsi Ali would agree..

Let’s be clear: Submission in Islam is NOT something you sort out between yourself and Allah, - as anyone trying to break free has discovered.

Re: “it’s important to find a modes vivendi based on mutual respect and understanding”

Religion should get as much respect and understanding as it deserves. To me, that translates to : Zero respect when submission is obligatory.

@Joern
I was referring to the general population rather than people who identify themselves as politically left or right. But whatever. I agree that respect mustn’t be unconditional. But we must at least muster the understanding to realise that there are many different ways of being Muslim (and understanding concepts like “submission”), just as there are many ways of being Christian, or atheist, or socialist, or capitalist.

In any case, bombing Iran will not “end Islam”. There are many good reasons to criticise religion in general, and specific religions (or forms of religion) in particular, as we’ve been arguing about at length here, but in all those debates nobody suggested “ending religion”, and I do sympathise with Giulio to the extent that language like that seems somewhat like an invitation to resort to solutions that are indeed redolent of fascism. If we’re going to talk about “ending Islam” we’d better at least be more precise about what kind of scenario we are envisaging, and what (if anything) it has to do with bombing Iran. Personally I hope it doesn’t happen.

@Peter

“there are many different ways of being Muslim”

Coincidentally, I’ve just read a new Pew Research Center poll - (Aug. 9) - according to which the majority of Muslims disagree with that, e.g. Egypt: Single interpretation: 78 % ; Turkey: 66 %, but, interestingly: Morocco: 34 %, where spring seems to be arriving peacefully through reforms..

The World’s Muslims: Unity and Diversity: http://www.pewforum.org/Muslim/the-worlds-muslims-unity-and-diversity-executive-summary.aspx

However, you’ll be happy to hear that I agree with you. I think you’ll be pleased to hear also, that in the Danish 2007 general election, my vote went to Syrian-born MUSLIM Naser Khader and the new (social-liberal) party “New Alliance”, who won 5 seats in Paliament. Naser Khader, along with fellow Muslims, also founded the political movement “Democratic Muslims”. The word DEMOCRACY is tattooed - in Arabic - on his arm !

Re: “but in all those debates nobody suggested “ending religion”

Including myself, mind you ! - People’s religion is entirely their own business, as long as they don’t tell ME what to do, think, write, draw..

Ps. - and SING..

LONG LIVE PUSSY RIOT

For many people, like me, Islam can’t be regarded as acceptable until it:

1. allows “apostates” to leave Islam without retribution.
There is often the most severe penalties for those who renounce Islam.

2. allows people to have other belief systems in Islamic nations - this means churches in Saudi Arabia, Christian missionaries in Algeria, etc.

3. end all fatwas against critics of Islam; this means no persecution of people like Salman Rushdie, no death critics against cartoonists, etc.

4. ends all subjugation of women; girls in schools, end polygamy, no honor killings, etc.

Islam needs to support freedom of expression and freedom of inquiry. The concept of “submission” is an obstacle to this.

IMO we ought to criticise our own nations first; so:
what did America do to contribute to the situation in and around Iran?
We backed a great deal of mediocre rulers in the Mideast. Naturally, American policy makers of generations past had no way of knowing what the unintended consequences of their actions would be, but Americans wont admit they had a mixed ethical role like that of all of other nations
—that is, both positive and negative. ‘My country right or wrong’ is not a positive ideal. Americans think in defense of what they perceive of as the American national interest they can do what they think is correct per the moment yet if previous policies are eventually revealed to have been mistaken then they claim they were only attempting to defend the national interest. So they in effect say, “we made mistakes in our Iranian policies however too bad, if other nations do wrong they are wicked, when we do wrong we merely ‘make mistakes’ and must be forgiven for error because we are God’s nation and the greatest country in the world.”
If America contributed to the Khmer Rouge genocide by invading Cambodia in 1970, bombing the country, and and backing Lon Nol, it wasn’t actually our fault (in preserving national ‘honor’, someone else must be held culpable) such is because even the greatest country in the world can make mistakes. We are our own judge and jury and we hereby find ourselves to be innocent.

@Hank
It isn’t something abstract called “Islam” that needs to do these things, it is people, irrespective of whether they like to think of themselves as Muslim or not. I don’t believe that the concept of submission per se is an insurmountable obstacle to this, though I can agree that on the whole it might be unhelpful.

In a way it’s amusing that here I am playing the role of defender of religion with regard to Islam after weighing in vociferously on the side of atheists during the more general religion debate (which focused more on Christianity). To some extent I think it’s because Islam is such an easy target, and apparently doesn’t have representatives on this blog to defend it. Not that “defending Islam” is really what I’m trying to do here, but I do want to avoid allowing sweeping generalisations about it to go unanswered. Joern is right of course: many Muslims insist there is only one right interpretation of Islam, just as many Christians insist there is only one right interpretation of Christianity. But they are wrong. Similarly, I think we need to make a clearer distinction than you do between the evils you have listed and this thing called “Islam”.

@Intomorrow

You know better than I of course about American attitudes, but hey, the whole damn’ world is obsessed with what America is doing / did wrong, and my impression from over here is that there is no shortage of self-criticism over there either.. , you being a prime example..

Yet, - more Americans - about 50 % - than Israelis (!) support strike on Iran, according to a number of polls..

I will not argue with you about American “mistakes”, and isn’t it time for Mid / far- eastern - and African - countries to take responsibility ? - We can’t go on blaming Bismarck for drawing arbitrary lines in the sand, -blaming white supremacism, colonialism, the “great Satan” (US), the “little Satan” (Israel), - or, for simplicity: Let’s blame the Jews..

As I’ve said before, I’m not a historian, but are you suggesting the Islamic hijacking of the Iranian revolution is anyone’s mistake but their own..

@Peter @Hank

Re: ” Islam is such an easy target “

Yes and No. Critisizing Islam is risky business, - that ought to be crystal clear to everone, and I feel no need to elaborate on that statement. - What Hank writes is the veritable truth, and I completely fail to see what “sweeping generalisations” you Peter are referring to. I guess what you wish to say is that not all Muslims - i.e. PEOPLE - support Sharia law, but come on, Hank knows as much, and his use of Islam, rather than MUSLIMS, makes perfect sense. - To me his words were like breathing fresh air, - invigorating, liberating, to the point, and the truth. Thanks Hank, - you are a man of courage, a male freedom figthter par exellence : )

 

@Joern
I agree that criticising Islam is a risky business…for some. It really depends on your circumstances, and how you go about it. For others, defending Islam can be risky (for example one might be branded as some kind of a soft-hearted, mushy-headed wimp).

With regard to “sweeping generalisations” and whether attributing various evils to “Islam” makes sense or not, I think it’s important to further explore the analogy between this debate and the wider religion debate we’ve been having. I have been making the case clearly that when the Bible says (for example) that homosexuality is an abomination against God we should take it at its word, and reject it on those terms (while drawing inspirations from the more enlightened bits if we wish), rather than trying to reinterpret it to mean something else. But I have never drawn the implication, either from such Biblical passages if from the behaviour of Christians throughout history, that something called “Christianity” is primarily responsible.

Stefan Pernar and others might take issue with that last sentence, since I have certainly stressed that religion does harm, but I have also been careful to distinguish that simple and (to my mind) indisputable statement from the much more disputable idea that religion does more harm than good overall. There are better forms of religion and worse forms of religion, and that applies as much within particular religious traditions (including Islam) as between them. I’m just not sure what we gain by defining “Islam” to imply the worst of what some Muslims make of it. By contrast it IS pretty clear to me what we lose, not least the goodwill of enlightened Muslims.

In fact, I find it significant that an article about the likelihood of Iran being bombed has led to a discussion about Islam. Is someone seriously suggesting that the shortcoming of Islam, rather than for example the actual or expected behaviour of the Iranian régime, might provide a justification for this? Certainly I would find such a suggestion abhorrent…and yet if it is not implicit, then why are we even discussing Islam on this thread?

Let me be clear: the evils listed by Hank are real, abhorrent, and clearly associated with the Islamic tradition (including its scripture). But that doesn’t mean we should be aiming to “end Islam”, rather than (say) promote more benign forms of it, nor does it mean that such considerations are relevant in the context of a discussion about bombing Iran. What would be more interesting, come to think of it, is to try to find some technoprogressive Muslims and get them to contribute to our discussions. Better than a bunch of non-Muslims talking between ourselves about what Islam is.

Hi Peter—I agree, I would love to find some techno-progressive Muslim writers, that defended Islam as IEET contributors. I will look around for some. Thanks!  I think I know one… a personal friend…  I co-produced a San Francisco Bay Area Muslim Performance Festival in 2002 with her, I will look her up.

Peter, - you really are a man of integrity, and your thoughts deserve a better response, but I will be short here and join in:

Technoprogressive Muslims, come forward !

I’ve lost track of how and why we ended up discussing Islam, but it does make sense to me. I think it is very reasonable to view “the actual or expected behaviour of the Iranian régime” in light of “the shortcoming of Islam”.
That said, my personal answer to “Is someone seriously suggesting that the shortcoming of Islam, rather than for example the actual or expected behaviour of the Iranian régime, might provide a justification for this? - (possible attack) - is a resounding NO ! - I really don’t know how that idea got into your head. My personal support for a strike is motivated first and foremost in taking Iranian threats seriously. The downfall of the Ayatollahs is pure speculation / wishfull thinking and a most welcome sideeffect.

Ps. I wish news like below this came out of the Arab world more frequently:

“The latest entrant to the space race is… Egypt! 19-year-old student (Aisha Mustafa) invents futuristic ‘warp drive’ for satellites”

(dailymail.co.uk - May 23)

“I will not argue with you about American ‘mistakes’, and isn’t it time for Mid / far- eastern - and African - countries to take responsibility ? - We can’t go on blaming Bismarck for drawing arbitrary lines in the sand, -blaming white supremacism, colonialism, the ‘great Satan’ (US), the ‘little Satan’ (Israel)...”

We are not in disagreement that the Iran regime’s obtaining nukes is a threat, so the Iranian regime ought to be overthrown. But I don’t know how it could be done.. Iran is a more powerful nation than Iraq.
Though internal dissidents’ opposition to Ahmadinejad’s election irregularities demonstrate the regime isn’t as popular as it might appear to an outsider, Ahmadinejad has substantial support, and he is charismatic (charisma being perhaps the most overlooked factor in all of politics, international and domestic).
If you say what we did to Iran is water under the bridge, you are correct—but tens of millions of Iranians don’t see it that way.
You will have to explain it to them, not us here at IEET.
What I wrote before was: America calls itself the greatest country in the world yet it wont admit it makes mistakes at the national/international level, and at the personal, too. When Nixon and his associates made mistakes, others had to take the rap; when Cheney made a mistake in the Valerie Plame affair, ‘Scooter’ Libby had to roll over in the clover.
Re Vietnam: “lib’rals were to blame for losing the war.”
Whether it is scapegoating liberals, Scooter Libby, the little satan, Satan himself, gays, transvestites, Russian feminist rock ‘n’ roll groups, the Illuminati, the Queen of England, the ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt—somebody has got to perform the role of miniature Jesus, a crucify-ee to take the sins of humanity in making the ultimate sacrifice.

Joern, you are correct on how Iranians were/are responsible for their Revolution yet the past is prologue, and America in its pride will not admit its own culpability; therefore no wonder so much self-criticism abounds in America: the majority in the US are in denial about our role in Iran and in the rest of the world.
Wasn’t always this negative concerning US foreign policy; though it is still too recent to assess, the ‘80s- ‘90s was an age of some progress, IMO, while since then, owing to cyclical (nonlinear) processes, the age of the ‘00s to 10s has seen an abatement of such progress. Again, too early to say for sure albeit this is my judgment call. At any rate after the last decade it really does seem the end of the Cold War left us with no strategic coherence—very difficult to avoid the conclusion.

“but hey, the whole damn’ world is obsessed with what America is doing / did wrong”

For starters, America too often trumpets it is the Quote greatest country in the world Unquote, and is God’s country to boot. So then God is a nationalist?: a vainglorious and unnecessary sentiment. Every country thinks it is the greatest!

Really sorry to comment 3x in a row, but since I criticize America (the only nation I know) so much, esp. today, here are two examples of negative prologue, of meddling by the two major nations of Europe:
the Russian Revolution was done by Russians yet it cannot be separated from WWI and the invasion of Russia in the last years of the war;
which segues to another tragic example:
the National Socialist Revolution was the responsibility of Germans, but Stalin sabotaged the primary opposition to Hitler by labeling German social democrats “social fascists.”

A final segue: the negative prologue to the Iranian Revolution was partly America’s doing.

 

Intomorrow—

Don’t be sorry: You are sharp, witty, humorous, (e.g. scapegoating the ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt, - LOL ), knowledgable of history, politics and more; - post 100 x in a row, I never get tired of listening to Americans like you, - your eloquent expressions, your metaphors.. and  your “self”-criticism..

At the end of the day, however - keeping in mind that “the past is prologue”, - I’m pleased you agree the Iranian regime ought to be overthrown. - Good news is they will be toppled intenally soon or later, but they should not be allowed to aquire nukes.

Joern, there is good news in Asia concerning a situation somewhat similar to Iran: now that a new ruler has taken the helm in N. Korea, it looks better; no more of asking for concessions by hinting at nuking California.
But unless the Ahmadinejad government has a change of heart, it does appear the Iranian regime will have to be overthrown. Ahmadinejad can continue to engage in electoral irregularities, continue to get re-elected, and make threats. Even if he is bluffing, bluffs have a way of getting out of control.. and Ahmadinejad isn’t comparable to Saddam Hussein, nor is Ahmadinejad a nutjob as the conventional wisdom says he is. Ahmadinejad is as sane as anyone and it is a common error to underestimate a ruler by thinking he is insane, unbalanced, etc.
Part of the reason Hitler became so powerful was he was underestimated as being insane/unbalanced—when he wasn’t. Neither was Stalin. They were both paranoid because they had made so many enemies they had v. good reason to be paranoid.
We shouldn’t underestimate Ahmadinejad: if only he were insane, he could be put on haldol or thorazine.